I'm curious about this and I think this is maybe a fundamental point in the way both parties are thinking about the issue.
You say a gun is a "tool for killing."
I don't own a gun, and I don't see it that way at all. The definition of a handgun is a portable firearm for self defense, target shooting, or hunting. Where is it meant for killing others? Not trying to be disrespectful, but that's a definition that fits an anti-gun agenda, and isn't accurate. You CAN use them to kill people, yeah. But you can also buy them for any other legitimate reason I mentioned. And the only people whose "purpose" when buying a handgun is to kill someone, are going to find a way to kill someone regardless no? I don't think normal people buy handguns for that reasoning, I think they buy them for the aforementioned reasoning. A hobby. Target practice. Small game. Self Defense.
Does the responsibility not lie in the user? Should we regulate guns so that bad people shouldn't have them, absolutely. The goal should be to keep gun's out of unsavory and unstable people. Not convince people that gun's are "bad." Because, when are we going to take responsibility? You even said yourself:
Exactly. The tool doesn't do anything the user doesn't want it too. The gun isn't lifting off the table like magic and killing someone. Someone is making a conscious decision to end someone else's life, or maybe a reactionary decision or maybe an accidental circumstance (your decision to be in that position though), but it's still the person who pulled the trigger whose at fault, not the trigger.
I hope this doesn't seem like I'm coming at you specifically and I hope I was able to voice my somewhat counter opinion on the matter respectfully, as I do value all opinions. Simply trying to understand your PoV, hopefully I was able to explain my own.
No offense taken at all. I get you with target practice, and maybe the target practice on small game. Pistols aren't very effective if you're trying to hit something small and moving. Fun? Yes! But if you're trying to bag dinner, you're probably going to be hungry. And while all of the handguns (sold legally and illegally in the US) can also be used for targets, they are designed to kill or at least very seriously injure. Stopping power and number of rounds are the usual selling points. Neither matter much when they are going through a paper target.
Other typical small arms (rifles, shotguns) are designed to kill also (and are much more effective for hunting). In most of my discussion here, I've been speaking primarily about hundguns, though maybe I haven't made that clear throughout. The vast majority of people who are killed by guns are shot with handguns. The vast majority of other armed crimes committed are with handguns. You do look kind of obvious carrying around a rifle or a shotgun, so it's hard for them to be useful if you're not legal - and everybody usually sees it coming even if you are.
The issue, or at least my biggest gripe, is that handgun regulation is as lax as it is in the face of this. There are many things I think can and should be done, that aren't. I think I've brought up the two biggest ones IMO above, but maybe not very clearly. People who shouldn't legally be able to buy a handgun shouldn't be able to get around the system as easily as they often do, and gun runners (straw purchasers) shouldn't be allowed to continue.
The recent shooting in Charleston was done with a handgun that was purchased in a gun shop by the shooter. Because of his record, he should not have been able to buy a gun. Currently, a background check must be completed for anyone purchasing a handgun. If the background check isn't completed in 3 business days (Federal, some states longer), the dealer may sell the gun. In this case, there was confusion about cities/towns with the same name in different sates during the background check, so it was not discovered that the shooter couldn't buy the gun. A couple more days probably would have been enough time to sort this out. But, after the 3 days he was able to complete his purchase, and take that weapon on his killing spree. There was definitely a breakdown in the system here, but from what I have heard this is not too unusual. I know someone who buys guns about once a year or so, who has felony charges deep in his past from half way across the country and a fairly common first and last name. I'm personally not worried about him, but it is always interesting when he goes and gets a new one. Something needs to be done to correct this! Any efforts to do so are immediately fought hard against by the NRA.
People can go to larger gun shops and legally purchase several handguns at the same time (with 3 day background check). They can easily carry them an hour away or less and resell them to those who can't legally buy a gun for twice - often more - the price they just paid. Very lucrative! According to US ATF about half of the guns collected that are used in crimes were initially purchased legally by straw purchasers. Sometimes they are contracted (I'll pay you to go buy this gun for me), but seems more often than not they are acquired as above (someone buys several and sells them to another reseller or directly to those who want them). In some of these cases, when the gun turns up in a crime and is able to be tracked back to the initial straw purchaser (not often because it is a good idea to remove serial numbers!), they claim the gun was stolen a couple months ago - or something similar.
There are things that can be done to minimize both of these problems (and others), but they are fought tooth and nail by the NRA with claims of "taking away our freedom", "these things are just a way to document our guns so the government can take them whenever they're ready" and other similar arguments.
The NRA even uses its money and power to battle with local municipalities who try to put laws in place to help mitigate these issues. I know of one state where municipalities were starting to do things like require that stolen guns be reported to police within a week of them being discovered missing. Just one example of several similar measures passed to help with slowing straw puchasers and other similar issues. It was dicey for them, because the NRA could go after them legally if they could find a party that was wronged by this. Essentially, if I lived in the municipality that passed a law like this, I could sue the municipality for infringing on my constitutional rights and the NRA could join me with their money and legal heft. Certainly nothing a town of 5,000 - 10,000 people could compete with from a legal/financial perspective. So, it took quite a bit to get everyone on board that was required to vote on such laws (mayor, councilpeople, whoever), but many municipalities did. And no lawsuits came up, because try as they may the NRA couldn't find people to initiate suits. There was one, but the guy backed out before the ball got rolling too far. Think that says something very good not only about local governments - but about the vast majority of gun owners (legal owners anyway). So, what did the NRA do instead? They lobbied the state legislature and did a full court press publicly to have the laws changed. They were successful within about a year. Now, the NRA doesn't need an interested/affected party to file a suit. They can file suit against any municipality they wish as an interested party fighting for the rights of all. But, as they knew all along if they got this through, they won't have to file any suits. The municipalities all repealed such laws because they don't want to, and can't afford to get into multi million dollar lawsuits with an entity as powerful as the NRA.
Sorry it takes so long to explain, but this is only one of many things that occur everyday that most don't follow or aren't aware of. Those of us who pay attention politically to such things, and those that get their quarterly NRA newsletter and frequent emails are aware, but you already know where all of us stand on such things.
WTF? My gun control is still quite good, generally I still hit what I aim at so I would say the gun control problem in america today is primarily that most gun owners don't get enough practice.
Hope you mean legal gun owners. And, how much they practice compared to how bad ass they think they would be if they had to click the safety off in a tight situation is a whole nother issue! Just another reason I think a shotgun is better for home protection. Aiming is more of a general area kind of thing than trying to get a tight shot group while half asleep in the dark.
However, I do kind of wish the illegal gun owners would practice a bit more. Guess it is hard when you're not supposed to have a gun, don't have a place for target practice and all that noise if you did is bound to get some attention. Think they are most likely to spray bullets somewhere other than the range. But, if they practiced they may be less likely to hit so many innocent bystanders, or feel the need to fire 7 or 8 rounds - and often miss the target anyway!
...........
I do live in California though, where there is already more gun restrictions than most other states. 
