What if public opinion has reached some type of homeostasis? That is, violent crime rates have decreased enough, and people have ceased caring about stricter gun controls?

A lot depends on what questions are being asked. While few may support the complete banning of handguns, the overwhelming majority are in favor of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including things like limiting the number of guns one can own, the type of weapons (especially semi and fully automatic weapons), and the type of bullets one can purchase (like armor piercing bullets). I wonder if a chart showing rates of public support for certain restrictions would mirror the declining rate of gun ownership.

And I looked it up yesterday - the U.S. makes up 5% of the worlds population and we own an estimated 35-50% of the worlds guns.

A few interesting statistical quirks:
1) Note the increase in support at the beginning of the 1980s. Possible causes? The Glock was first sold in 1982. The crack epidemic?
2) The graph slopes upwards during the Reagan administration, upwards during the Bush Sr. administration (brief spike downwards- Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988?), and downwards during the Clinton and Bush Sr. administrations.

Personally? I think compulsory registration would go a long way towards reasonable gun control.

Another factor is that, as I posted, most Americans believe that the crime rate is still going up, even though it isn't. There's bound to be some fear associated with that idea, although the graphs don't dovetail very well.

over one third of the american households owns guns? that is just sick...i wonder alle the time why the gun laws in your country are as they are...it seems just so wrong...how could you possibly allow someone to carry a loaded gun around. i really don't get.

It seems that support for bans increases proportionally with the effectiveness of American projections of power, or at least the perception of effectiveness. Note the spike upward with the Reagan defense buildup and the abrupt slowing at the Beirut bombing. Similarly there are spikes around the fall of the Soviet and the Gulf War, support for bans climbing until the 1993 WTC bombing. Another spike when Bush arrives, but immediate fall in the wake of the 9/11, and a spike up with the Afghan-Iraq Wars.

Trust in government, which is the essence of gun bans, seems to be the moderating element.

My guess would be that the increasing support for gun ownership tracks the increasing support for other individual rights, such as gay rights, and generally more permissive social norms.

Whatever the cause I think the approach of many people to consider decreasing support for gun control as inherently negative will obscure any serious discussion about why that support is decreasing.

I see many saying that only the government should have guns, i.e., the military and the police. Our government is We, the People. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For those who invoke the militia clause: Militias, organized and unorganized, are defined by the US Code title 10 para 311:

"a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

It may be unlikely that the unorganized militia will be called up, but the Second Amendment ensures they will likely be armed.

When England and Australia banned private ownership and possession of firearms, except in exceptional cases, the aftermath of having only the criminals still possess and use firearms caused a massive increase in crime statistics of a violent nature. Can we get some reasonable statistics from you folks out there, and a discussion of these concerns that the same would happen here in America?

Quoting Bagelsan above:You’re smarter than that, too. Many of those (universally benevolent? really?) officers and private citizens do have different opinions regarding the value of my life than I do. If everyone agreed my life was valuable there wouldn’t be anti-choicers, etc. shooting doctors and female politicians in the head. (And please, point out how a heavily armed citizenry has helped in that kind of situation? Where have all the gung-ho heroes been, when people get murdered?)

Well, the police are obligated to show up with their guns at the ready if you call and report a violent crime in progress no matter how they feel about you personally. And sure, plenty of police officers instigate violence and are at least as bad as who they're supposed to be protecting the public from, but that's a separate issue (but another good reason to be armed). As far as private citizens go, if it's known that a large percentage of the public in a given area are likely to be armed, there will be a general deterrent effect that everyone will benefit from (even the unarmed) though that is difficult to quantify. And I never said that everyone would think your or anyone else's life was valuable; if so there would be no need for anyone to go armed. Oh, and you might want to reread the part where I mentioned the "relative" (never said "universal") benevolence of those charged with or volunteering to protect you since it appears to have been misunderstood.

In the second sentence you make what at first appears to be a good point by mentioning the lack of any "heroics" during the AZ shooting. In such a rootin' tootin' gun-lovin' Wild West state like Arizona it seems like someone should've drawn their own gun and stopped the attack, but no one did (or at least no one could get a clear shot at the psycho du jour). Could it just maybe be because it was a political rally, which means that most if not all (apparently) of those attending decided to leave their weapons in the car or at home? It might also have to do with the fact that the dipshit tea-partiers have been bringing lots of guns to rallies over the past year and the people at the Tucson rally wanted to distance themselves from that.

There were almost certainly gun owners in the audience at Rep. Gifford's rally, but none had theirs with them because they probably felt it was inappropriate, being the law-abiding citizens they are (or were), not to mention that they probably counted on the Secret Service to handle security; guess we're all really on our own after all! So, if someone (else) had been armed (and AZ is an open-carry state so no permit required) then there may well have been fewer people killed. But like with deterrence, it's also difficult to quantify what might have been.

you’re assuming that 1) we’re all constantly surrounded by armed people who might decide to hurt us and 2) we’re all simultaneously surrounded by armed people who want to help us. And this, your best-case scenario, means that I can expect to be in the middle of a (benevolent?) shootout between my neighbors. I’ll pass, thanks. Burglars can have my TV.

Well, 1) In some places, that's true. I happen to live in a city that's always in the top-10 for murder rate. I used to live in Tucson, AZ years ago and heard gunfire nearly every night (I lived three blocks from the U of A). Where I live now, one of my friends has been murdered (by her boyfriend) and three have been robbed, one with a bat, one with a broken bottle, and one with a sawed-off shotgun. 2) Obviously, we're not. In fact, most people with violent intent take great pains to make sure no one else is around when they initiate an attack, which pretty much means we're on our own. We certainly can't count on anyone else to help us in any given situation (even/especially the police), but I for one wouldn't turn any down if it happened by. Still, the chances that someone will step in and help are far greater if they're armed, otherwise they may consider assisting to be too risky and will instead call the police for us (who bring guns). As for your hyperbolic speculation about shootouts between your neighbors, I can make up improbable scenarios all day long that support my position, too (but I'm glad I can use probable ones instead). Still, I am a bit curious how you would know that the guy coming through the window is after your TV? The guy who came through my window once wasn't.

As to your last paragraph, yes it is because of gun-toting citizens that you aren't being raped and robbed, etc. Check the scene wherever it's heavily-armed warlords or gang leaders in charge and The People are essentially unarmed, like Somalia right now or Srebrenica in 1995 or New Orleans after Katrina (as they say in those insurance commercials, "life comes at you fast!"). Besides, police and soldiers are citizens too, and the fact that they wear a special costume and have a metal plate on their chest (or other various shiny and colorful decorations) that says official stuff is just to give the illusion we call "the government" more apparent substance and reality, but underneath it all we're just a bunch of domesticated primates making it up as we go, and wearing a particular "official" costume reveals nothing about judgment, ability, or intent and therefore does not imply a higher level of fitness for being armed than someone lacking such a costume.

You do not always need guns to oppose the will of the armed. I can’t emphasize that enough. Nor are guns always sufficient to oppose the will of the armed. That’s just not how the world works; a gun cannot be your reliable safety blanket.

You're right; sometimes explosives are a better choice. Other times, running like hell is. Still other times, handing over your wallet and then running like hell is. Falling on the ground and feigning convulsions even has its place, but alternatives aren't the point. The point is that a firearm is the most likely self-defense weapon to be effective in the most likely violent crime scenarios, and my views probably partly stem from the fact that a few of the very worst of those scenarios are not theoretical abstractions or "philosophical" arguments to me.

Anyway, I'd love to learn just how the world really works since I guess I've been living somewhere else all this time. In my world, things are run by probability and I strive to maximize the probability of positive outcomes and minimize that of negative outcomes. There's no certainty in any course of action in my world, only probabilities. In some-but-not-all contexts, being armed increases the probability of making it home safe and in one piece. When I am in such a context, I reserve the right to go armed.

The probability that I might be attacked or stumble across someone else being attacked on a given day or night is relatively low, but so is the added inconvenience of carrying a small concealed weapon. Incidentally, I am one of those lunatics who will not hesitate to jump right in if something clearly fucked-up/violent is going on (barring gang fights; that's a time to run like hell), and have done so both with and without a firearm on several occasions. The times I was armed, the situations were much more quickly defused and no actual violence resulted. The times I wasn't armed were a little messier, but fortunately the people seeking to bring more violence into the world suffered its consequences rather than myself or other innocent parties (and a firearm just increases the probability of that outcome, in my world of personal experience anyway).

We're all rolling the dice no matter what we do or don't do; all I want is the ability to hedge my bets a little. Sometimes that means having a gun, sometimes it means wearing a helmet.

Criminal minds will seek the the weak to prey upon, however, an armed society is a polite society, out of necessity..