What a novel idea!

[gejohnston]

58. you are starting off with a false dichotomy

Everyone agrees with "gun control", the disagreement is to what degree. On the federal level, the US has had gun control since 1927 (or 1919 if you want to include the 11 percent tax). The state level since the founding (mostly in the South and the four slave states that stayed in the union.) There are some who want a complete prohibition and private firearms (there are DUers who posted supporting that view). The other extreme, which is smaller or probably doesn't exist, is that a nine year old should be able to use his or her parents' credit card to order a sub-machine gun from Amazon like it was 1933, test it out in the back yard (in Queens) before taking to school for show and tell.

For me, any regulation must be based on empirical evidence and reason. Emotion, baseless opinion, ideology etc have no place in forming public policy. Only facts, evidence, and reason should be used. I expect that from politicians and whoever supports any legislation.

I would advocate for very stringent laws on public carry of any kind of firearm.

We did that for the most part from the 1920s-1990s (Wyoming and Vermont were kind of outliers. Wyoming's 1880s law predated most states, and strictly limited CC of any weapon including, sword canes, dirks, daggers, knives, sling shots. Yes those were specifically listed. Vermont was the other outlier, and extreme opposite.) Since there is no empirical data that shows these restrictions, and liberalization of, had any effect either way. In fact, violent crime, including murder, dropped since liberalization. In fact, those who apply for the permits are not (99.9 percent of the time) the problem. While you may think it would made the US "a nicer place" it would have zero effect on violence.

The biggest problem you have is guns on the street. Anyone caught with a gun in public should face a stiff penalty and mandatory jail term, unless he can prove an absolute need.

I'm against mandatory minimums, except for first degree murder and pedophiles.

Only LE with the highest level of training in use of firearms and public relations should be selected to carry firearms, and then only in specific circumstances.

I do agree our big city cops do need better training (much of it is on the same level a 14 year old gets from the state Game Department for their first hunting licence.) but, what works in Norway, does not apply here. I do think we need a responsible and ethical media that doesn't jump on some band wagon and ignores the actual evidence (if any) and is amazed the truth and outcome of the case is not what they originally claimed.

SYG laws should be rethought.

Not all of them are laws. Some states would have to pass duty to retreat laws to cancel the common law SYG. Even before Florida, half of our states (and the federal level) have been SYG for years based on their jurisdiction's common law. (California, Illinois, Washington, and the federal level.) The same applies with Duty to Retreat (Wyoming doesn't have a self defense law outside of the recent castle doctrine. It is common law, which is duty to retreat.) Even though Wyoming is duty to retreat, there is a Delaware chunk in the middle of the state that is SYG (that is before you get to Yellowstone). Some, like Georgia, simply codified what was already common law. But I digress.
My question is: why do you think we need to "rethink it"? Is it based facts, evidence, or reason? The only problem I have with SYG is how the lazy and unethical media (along with various ideologues) misinforms the public about it. The only difference, and I do mean the ONLY difference is the retreat requirement (and only then if you can do so in complete safety.) Do you think it will save innocent lives? No, it will send innocent people with a lousy lawyer to prison. Can you name as single case that would was justifiable under SYG that wouldn't have under DTR? I can't, not even in Florida. I bet you can't either. In either theory, all of the same five conditions must be met in order to be justifiable.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/
BTW, if you really want to be well informed about US self defense laws, I highly recommend his book. He is one of, if not THE, leading expert on US self defense laws. When I look for information, I go to subject area experts (regardless of their their personal views on anything. They either know what they are talking about, or they don't.) not some 20 something blogger for HuffPo who might have a degree in creative writing, who got his or her information from a press release or Twitter feed.

Also, how about defense of others? would you go by the "reasonable person" standard or the "alter ego" standard?