Yes Lou, you and I have the right to bear arms

That bullet had to ricochet off something and hit (and kill) him instead of his wife. That would be one epic Darwin Award and also a great cure for his stupidity.

Translation into non-American English: We are one rationally thinking judge away from reducing our crime rate by fifty percent.

But does it have to belong to the Ursidae family or can it include certain marsupials sometimes referred to as bears?

Maybe is the defenders of this constitutional right we owe, but somehow doubt it. They do harm when all they do is defend. When tragedy occurs a reactionary response is expected. Defending laws under these circumstances turns votes the other way around. Prohibition won't remove guns and violence. There's folks who won't comprehend from both sides of politics. The right to bear arms is an important heirloom and ornament for this country in contrast with the different types of martial law elsewhere. Not actually apparent in a real government takeover. I doubt this figurehead would ever be removed, though they'll make more restrictions when tragedy occurs.
Not to condone violence or gun misuse but the gun you register is an ornament. The one you hang up on the wall, bring to the range, shows etc. A gun for its true purpose of defense, is it not better that it has no trail to you? There's more trouble stamping your name on a perpetrator in self defense. Don't know what one would do after deed is done to dodge the clumsy arm of justice, but a potential paperwork charge beats a potential murder, right?
Take the most recent example of Brenddy Garcia, though not gun related. Eyewitnesses, video tape, and this youth still spent a month on Rikers Island for defending himself from a gang of over 10 attackers. His case is very rare that they went back on their judgement. [url=]http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7455416[/url]

I actually do agree that handguns and "personal defense weapons" are a very grey area. And I am vehemently opposed to all the idiots who feel they need an assault rifle.
But I am also fully supportive of handguns and the like.
Keep this in mind: A lot of the guns used in "real"* crimes aren't exactly legal. They are either stolen or otherwise illegally obtained. So gun control laws will really only barely dent those. It is a problem of the mentality of the culture, but it is still a problem.
And frankly, if I lived in a REALLY bad neighborhood, I would want a gun. For self-defense. I do think that anyone who gets one for this purpose should be forced to attend a school for it (sort of like driver's ed :p), but should have the right.
NOTE: By "real" crime, I mean home invasion, mugging, robbery, etc. Not stuff like "crazy woman murders cheating boyfriend" and the like. Because for the latter, they'll find something to kill people with either way.
Either way, this has gone way off topic. All I was trying to say was that the argument "Guns should be banned because people are stupid" is just wrong.

The police in the US have argued in court (successfully) that they are under no obligation to protect the citizenry (or as the saying goes, when seconds count the police are just minutes away). Given this, I can't really fault people who want to keep a firearm around for defending themselves, their family, and their home. Additionally, legally owned and registered guns are very rarely used in crimes in the US; the vast, vast majority of gun crimes are committed using guns that people are illegally in possession of, so further restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own guns does little to help this. Chicago and the District of Columbia provide nice case studies here.

How the hell can they NOT press charges? I'm pretty sure there's something like "criminally reckless behaviour resulting in death".

I'm not joking.
First, bearing arms is just one more "right" that US grants to it's citizens by constitution. Ok, and what is the benefit of this right? Isn't this encouraging people to make justice for themselves? I don't follow the usefulness of this right. Maybe in the old days, but in modern times I can see only disadvantages. I think that the defenders of this right are conservative people who just like to have this right as something to show off in contradiction to citizens from other nations.
And if you ask me about gun control in Romania, I can tell you that here we have absolutely no case of shooting in schools or on the streets, and this speaks for itself why civilians should not be allowed to bear fire arms.
Here are allowed only hunting weapons and gas powered weapons and to have one of these you need a permit, you have to pass some psychological tests and you are required to keep them locked when not using them. It is your responsibility if someone else takes your weapon and makes something stupid.
So in this respect I think that the law here is better. I can sleep better knowing there is no danger that a psycho will start shooting at my kid on the street. And I feel no need to bear a firearm.

Let's remember this about crime in the US:
US Population: 309,636,000 (2010 estimate taken from wikipedia)
And as an example:
Romanian Population: 22,215,421[ (2009 estimate, but what the hell. Same source)
With a larger population, the chance of crime occurring increases. Whether or not the guns increases number of deaths, comparing smaller countries to a larger country, isn't exactly going to prove much.

This is yet another case of people applying cultural biases.
With regard to your first paragraph: Yes, many morons do view it as an excuse to act like cowboys (see "The NRA"). But the essence behind the right is essentially self-defense. It was originally intended to make militias legal (a necessity at the time) and later evolved to represent defending oneself in cases where the law cannot arrive in time (the "wild west" as it were). And while it is questionable if this is still needed, that is a different debate.
It is NOT about "taking the law into your own hands" and the like, regardless of what many morons want to believe. It is about being able to go hunting and about being able to defend yourself in a case where the law might not be able to help (home invasions, shopkeepers getting robbed, etc). It is a hard distinction to understand, but that is one of the cultural differences.
Second/third paragraph: Actually, those are exactly the laws that I want, but with an additional provision for pistols (of a reasonable caliber) for the purpose of self-defense. The problem is that there are the morons who think all guns need to be banned (because if nobody is allowed to legally own a gun, all the illegal firearms will magically disappear :p) and the morons who think they need a .50 cal machine gun to defend their one-room apartment.
Last paragraph: Your conclusion doesn't follow. There is still a danger that a psycho can start shooting at your kid on the street. What if someone who passed said psychological tests has a nervous breakdown at a later date?
Or, what if someone gets a firearm illegally?

Uhg, you ignore all the valid uses of a weapon. There are valid reasons to kill stuff, hunting is a great example. If you grew up on a farm you might have used your axe to chop off chicken heads far more than you chopped wood. Yes, it is still legal and part of good wildlife management in all US states to raise your own food and/or hunt it to keep a stable population of healthy adults.
I also like how everyone intimates that killing someone is bad. Look, it depends on your morals, but it's completely legal to kill for a number of reasons in the US. Self defense is one reason, given the fact that the US Supreme Court as held that the police are in no way liable if they fail to save you from any crisis, I would be loathe to suggest that anyone willing to defend themselves with force cannot.
Of course, there's some folks who are idiots with guns and cause preventable deaths. However, far more deaths are caused by careless use of alcohol and automobiles every year, and regardless of their primary purpose of any of the 3, it's far more lives lost. We could invest in better infrastructure and avoid the need to drive so much, but we don't. I'd recommend we start by getting the biggest bang for our buck.
And to our Romanian friend, your national murder rate is still quite high, despite your gun bans. Your country also excludes murder attempts from its statistics, reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Well, here is the magic, because here firearms (with bullets - not for hunting) are not allowed since "almost forever", somehow in people's sub-conscience they don't think to buy such a weapon illegally (an it is a lot harder to buy one because it is illegal to bring one into the country). Most people just don't think about such a weapon when feeling to kill someone. I know it sound strange but is the truth. Of course we have our crimes here, but the vast majority are done by beating, stabbing, etc... not with firearms. Actually I don't even remember when was a case of murder using a firearm in recent ears. The only cases I remember hearing about were about soldiers or cops that accidentally (or not) shoot someone during a mission. Ah, and there was a long time ago a case about a kid who took his father gas powered rifle and injured a pedestrian... imagine how that would have ended if that would have been a fire arm... but that was when gas powered weapons could be owned legally without a permit (now the law is changed).
Of course, if let's say tomorrow firearms will be banned in US, in the first place there will be an increase of illegally owned firearms because people are resisting to change, but on the long run people will stop to think about firearms as an alternative. And after banning firearms it's a lot easier for the state to keep track of all the weapon imports and what is legally sold to whom. Actually the key here is to ban firearms with bullets that have ho hunting application (from a lot of reasons that I'm too lazy to put here but I'll let you to think about).

So murder isn't bad if it isn't by firearm?
And sure, different cultures have different behaviors. What else would you expect? The problem comes when a culture pretends that its morals are "correct" and others are "wrong".
And please don't pretend that banning the import of a firearm is going to stop things. Pretty sure heroin and cocaine are illegal to import. Last I checked, those are readily available.
As for crime: It is a matter of escalation, and the cat is already out of the bag. So just banning them overnight isn't going to fix anything, and is going to cause problems.
As a point of example, imagine an idiot going to college for the first time (I realize this might be hard, since Romanians are clearly superior to everyone :p). They enter an environment where they can (il)legally obtain drugs and alcohol. So they experiment. And many people go overboard.
It is the same argument against legalizing marijuana. People would actually manage to overdose on THC as a result. But with firearms, you just get a bunch of criminals who suddenly know that the crazy chinese guy who owns the corner bakery isn't packing anymore.
And either way, your argument is not one of gun control laws. It is one of mentalities and culture. You yourself just said that the reason you aren't afraid of your kid getting shot is because people wouldn't do that. Not because they can't.

Well, thank you for bringing me to my attention but as you can see it is not a very high rate and it's half compared to US. And in that table some countries are specifically including attempts, some are specifically not, and some (like US) say nothing about attempts (so could be or not included).
I did not said that here is heaven. Of course we have our murders, but are not done with guns (i can confirm you this because I watch the 5 a clock news (yes, we have))