Equating banning of private ownership of handguns and weapons with socialism is absurd. The two have nothing to do with each other. So is mixing in fundamentalist Islam into a growing epidemic of homicides in the US in our major metropolitan areas.  What is more closely related is poverty.

There are all kinds of European capitalist democracies that strictly limit gun ownership.  What we are talking about in this country is taking the profits and the producer of guns, the gun manufacturers out of the mix of gun regulation.  Guns can be both regulated and controlled much more tightly than at present.  If handguns were banned it wouldn't be the end of capitalism or our capitalist democracy by a long shot (no pun intended).  Various European countries have had various degrees of success limiting small gun ownership, linked primarily to economic prosperity and homogeneity it seems of the population.It would be one of the best things that could happen here.  For most people it would be a small price to pay I think.  Hunters, for example, could rent guns thru hunt clubs and state licensing outlets if necessary for instance.  And for those illegally purchasing weapons, the penalities and process for stopping these individuals could become much much harsher.

If we don't address our larger economic issues of opportunity as a nation though, we will soon come to resemble countries like Afghanistan,  Colombia and Mexico  much more than we do now.  And the resemblance is not based on gun "accidents". The resemblance is based on the growing drug industry and the violent nature of drug wars based on turf.  If anyone wants to get a better idea of what lies ahead for Oakland,  I urge them to see La Sierra, a 2003 documentary about Colombia.  Forget about the Middle East! If this movie doesn't remind you of East Oakland, I don't know what will.