i'm going to spell out my philosophy, because i think we've come too far afield of where i thought we were going. but first i have to respond to two things you wrote:

the vast majority of mass shootings are stopped by "the bad guy" taking himself out. but i'm sure the people who stopped jared loughner, james holmes, and other shooters who were captured alive would tell you that they were able to stop a shooter without having to shoot back. there is also the case in NYC where cops shot at a suspect and ended up hitting civilian bystanders more often than the suspect himself. thankfully none of them died, but i find the situation proof positive that no matter how well trained you are to operate a gun, bad things can happen in a tense moment. i find it irresponsible to claim "the only thing" to stop shootings are "good guys with guns" because of this.

there was not nearly enough looting or crime to warrant this statement. it was a tone deaf response to the situation as it actually happened, just like the comments about sandy hook were tone deaf by telling parents their kids would still be alive if they only had a couple of guns to shoot back. the NRA is too much in the habit of inventing these nightmare scenarios lately, and i'm getting tired of hearing how terrible our society has become when my own personal experience is 180 degrees from what i'm being fed by them. these statements, and all the others, are not what i imagine responsible gun ownership to look like. but i will get to that in a minute.

my point on the NRA and wayne lapierre in particular is that you need to realize how these messages play to people who do not think a gun is the solution to all their problems. saying that people are going to need guns to protect themselves from all the imaginary looting going on is just as irresponsible as ted nugent telling nancy pelosi and hillary clinton to "suck on my machine gun". or the gun instructor saying he's "gonna start shooting people" if any new laws are passed. or the plethora of sheriffs and other law enforcement officers pledging not to uphold any gun laws. it doesn't do your side any favors to have such talk from such public figures.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/nation/la-na-nn-nra-lapierre-brooklyn-20130218

so, here is what i believe, and what i would prefer to have a discussion on. because ultimately, you are telling me we need to reach a compromise but i think we still don't fully understand each others positions.

i believe that, as proscribed by the Constitution, Americans have the right to own guns. i do not believe those guns include automatic weapons or some other larger arms, but i can recognize the allure of owning such a weapon. where i believe we go wrong as a nation is in allowing unfettered access to anyone and everyone who is of age to be able to purchase guns. i think owning a gun is quite possibly one of the biggest responsibilities a person can take on for themselves, and i would appreciate having laws in place which recognize this. there should be clearly defined limits on the right to own a gun, and they should be set up so that people who want to take on that responsibility can do so. in that vein, here is what i think a responsible gun culture looks like:

• mandatory training before purchasing a gun -- i think training should be mandatory (and renewable like a driver's license) in order to ensure that the buyer is both familiar with the weapon and its use of operation, and also as an educational provision on the safe storage and maintenance of the gun. we can find an appropriate expiration time frame, but if you want to own a gun you should have this training before buying, and you should have to renew it every X years. it is the exact same method we use to license drivers, and driving a car is another big responsibility IMHO. you can own a car without knowing how to drive it, but to operate it you are required to have some minimal training approved by the State. from that standpoint, i can understand having gun training after purchase, but i still think it should be mandatory and renewable.

• background checks on all purchases, no exceptions -- we have a criminal element in society which, according to the state they reside in, may not have access to firearms. in addition, we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who may pose a danger to themselves and/or others. of course this system isn't perfect, but it does stop enough people from owning guns who probably should not that it's worth the effort -- again, IMHO. the State has a vested interest in keeping the public safe, and this is one of those areas where i believe it is the State's best interest to implement.

• no limitations on collecting of data from gun violence -- we discussed this one before but i wanted to include it here for completeness.

• enforce the laws already in existence -- i would add a sub category to this: no amendments/riders/new laws which limit the ability of law enforcement to do their jobs effectively when it comes to guns. violent offenders should have their weapons taken away. the recent standoff in alabama last month is a perfect example of the kind of person who should not be allowed to own guns. i am all for due process, so i know this is ultimately a matter for courts to decide. but i think we can both agree there are some people who just should not possess guns of any kind.

• waiting period of at least 1 week, up to 1 month, after purchase -- the one week waiting period has not deterred people from owning a gun, especially considering the record numbers of guns being sold recently. i would like to see the waiting period extended, as i believe only the people who are willing to be serious about their responsibility of carrying instant death in their hands should be unswayed by the wait. in canada it takes 21-45 days from purchase before you are allowed to pick up your weapon and they seem to have much fewer fatalities than we do. i won't say the waiting period is responsible for that, but it does mean that only the most serious of gun owners are going to buy guns, knowing they have to be patient to get what they want.

• call out public figures who say irresponsible things about owning guns -- this goes with what i said about the NRA. too often the NRA makes a statement, and too often too many people nod their heads and say "yes, of course" rather than "um, don't you think you should tone it down a bit?" i would put ted nugent in this category as well, because i don't think making threats against the president and other public figures is something that should be encouraged by the pro-gun crowd. being silent every time these people say something irresponsible is tacit approval for what is spoken. as it is, i feel like we are on the verge of a minor uprising from a subset of gun owners due to this loose talk and the way it plays to the lowest common denominator in this country. i would prefer that rational minds come to the table to have an actual discussion on the issue rather than this kind of, yes, dystopian vision from people whose livelihood depends on keeping guns in circulation.

i am going to leave it at that, because i have too much else to do to keep at it, but i am hoping we can come to this understanding of each other's positions, even if we necessarily disagree with the implementation.