Banning assault rifles will do no good.

[Archae]

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Now wait a minute, before anyone gets all wound up, let me explain.

This is classified as a pistol.



So if assault rifles are banned, then what about these?
(Saw it in a Fleet & Farm store flyer, the PAP M92 x 39 is on sale, $559.)

Ok, so then we ban pistols?
No.
I own a pistol, a .22.

Then what? A criminal uses a hunting shotgun to rob someplace, so we ban shotguns?
(The sawed-off ones already are.)
Then rifles?

I say we treat guns like cars.
Register them, and those who want to use them will require a license.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Which would be classified as an assault weapon under proposed legislation

and that 30-round clip would be illegal.

[Recursion]

3. Why ban it?

It's not capable of firing any faster than a traditional looking pistol, so why ban it?

(by all means, do ban the extended magazine, though)

[HooptieWagon]

16. For the people who want to ban semi-automatics...

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Warren Stupidity]

19. The point is to make it difficult. Impossible is impossible.

I'd be fine with regulation that limited the set of people who can fire 12 shots in 3 seconds with accuracy to a handful of world class sport shooters. As it is now, any bozo with an AR-15 style weapon can do it. Thanks for demonstrating why this would in fact be effective.

[HooptieWagon]

25. I rather doubt a bozo with an AR can do it.

Which sort of makes the point...how exactly is rate of fire going to be determined? Or is the gun-banning going to be based on appearance? Maybe a bozo who can only fire one round a second can paint his AR15 pink and be legal?

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Well indeed it can only do 45-60 rpm. But that isn't the point.

The point is that semi auto weapons by design make it easy for the shooter to shoot many rounds in a short time, without any great skill.

Nobody is discussing specifying the exact rate of fire, except you. That would make your argument a strawman argument. Instead there is talk of regulating types of weapons, for example, sem auto weapons, or magazine capacities. Both of which would make it more difficult for the next mass shooting to occur. For examples of just how effective regulation can be, see Australia.

[HooptieWagon]

65. Most of US mass shootings are handguns.

How would banning assault weapons reduce handgun shootings? I fail to see the logic.
However, tightening up background checks (such as closing gunshow loophole) would reduce deaths by all guns. Even no less than Sen Rubio has come out in favor of this (according to today's Tampa Bay Times), which means not only would such legislation actually be effective but would possibly garner enough GOP support to be possible.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. you keep changing the objection.

I responded to your ridiculous post claiming that we should do nothing because a world class expert shooter can fire 12 rounds in 3 seconds.

I'm totally in support of your implied suggestion that strict regulation of all semi-auto weapons would be the best approach.

[HooptieWagon]

71. I'm in support of tighter regulation of ALL firearms.

Simply tightening regulations on AW will have little effect on gun deaths, they just aren't used in a statistically significant number of deaths...and singling a class of weapon out for regulation based on appearance is silly.
Tightening up registration requirements for all guns, so every purchaser has to go through a background check and waiting period, won't eliminate gun deaths (which is a pipe dream), but at least it would make a significant reduction.

[Recursion]

28. Nothing about the AR platform makes it fire faster

than any other semi-automatic with detachable magazines. Ban the entire class, or move on to something else. Deciding how they can legally look is a colossal waste of time.

[indepat]

14. Any ban should require all such weapons be turned in pronto through some type of buy-back

arrangement and impose severe penalties for any failure to do so. Nothing less that ridding every city, town, hamlet, suburb, and rural area of all these weapons of mass carnage and requiring stringent storage of such weapons legally held by law enforcement will get the job done. Its way past time to end this utter nonsense. P.S., the writer is zealously protective of his 2nd Amendment rights, just as he is of all his other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but has always known he does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater any more than he should have the right to wear a weapon of mass carnage on his hip.

[backwoodsbob]

51. buy back? excellent

I have a few excess guns I would turn in for a thousand or so each

[Orrex]

56. Sure, if they're still in original condition

They depreciate considerably after you drive them off the lot.

[libdem4life]

2. Require insurance...based on the ability to take human lives...and periodic re-registration.

Make the weapons industry support not only it's retail success, but it's social costs... called Product Liability.

[Archae]

4. Good idea, we require insurance for cars here in WI.

So to own a gun, it'll have to be like having a car.

Registered, owner has to have a license to use it, and be insured.

[libdem4life]

11. The social shock will be tallying up the "product liability" and assessing the accompanying

actuarial risk to the potential damage of the weapon.

The 2nd Ammendment folks weren't tasked with the ability to think ahead to granting rights to every Tom, Dick and Harry or Jill or Jane machine gun shooters into classrooms or movie theaters. It's such a false equivalency to be ludicrous. But much insanity gets past our Wild West Rights to Kill from Fear or at Will...even if crazy or deluded.

[tblue]

12. I'd love to see the insurance lobby battle it out

with the gun lobby. GOP heads will splode.

I got another idea. Why don't we require Congress to carry firearms, but only in chambers. See if they'll put their lives on the line for the sake of the NRA.

[Honeycombe8]

31. Stop it with the cars = guns analogy. Several posters are presenting that argument, & it's silly.

Registration for guns is reasonable. But ins. isn't....and it won't happen. That's because it's unreasonable.

Cars are several thousand pounds of metal being driven around by anyone who can afford to buy, or steal, one. They're being driven around broad areas daily, around other several thousand pound metal vehicles, on public streets, around pedestrians and children. Car accident WILL and DO happen thousands of times every day in the country.

The body count from cars far exceeds that of guns.

Cars can be legally driven around by anyone at all, even one with a criminal background or mentally deficient or mentally ill.

So people are required to carry liability insurance to protect someone else's property and personal injury. It is most likely that anyone who drives a vehicle will get in an accident, but it is most likely that someone with a gun will never cause any property damage or injury to anyone.

So requiring ins. is more a punishment thing, or a way for ins. cos. to get more money.

Reminder: We are seeking legislation to lessen mass murders. Requiring ins. will have no effect whatsoever on that.

[Beartracks]

54. Yes, the cars = guns analogy only gets so much mileage....

... because, furthermore, cars aren't designed to kill people like assault weapons are.

===============

[Honeycombe8]

57. The poster wants ins for ALL guns. Not just AWs. She wants Grandma Pike's handgun in her nightstand.

registered and insured and have an annual fee....so Grandma won't be able to afford that on her Social Security...so goodby Grandma Pike's security against the world of criminals who are targeting her for crime.

[99Forever]

63. Well...

... when "Grandma Pike's handgun in her nightstand" is rendered fully incapable of injuring or killing people, you might have an argument. Grandma Pike's vehicle doesn't get a pass on being insured.

[Honeycombe8]

29. That won't happen. No need for insurance for most guns, anyway.

Most guns are never seen by others. They're kept in homes for protection, or in homes for hunting excursions that may or may not occur, or in homes for collecting. They have much less chance of causing any injury to anyone that a common kitchen knife and most certainly the most dangerous thing of all: a car.

[libdem4life]

34. Yes, like the pastor who killed his wife with a gun, missed and just injured his daughter,

who wrestled the fun from him, who then failed the attempt to kill himself with a knife. Not quite so easy without a weapon designed to kill. Knives and cars, right. Or the Chinese Knife Attackers...guns, naw.

And, like autos (getting more and more popular as examples) if they don't kill someone, the expense for insurance is bearable, viable and rational among rational and innocent owners.

But get a DUI and hurt or kill someone...accidentally, and you can re-purpose your life forever.

It's not the "unseen guns" that kill. )

(On edit ... wrestled the GUN from him

[Honeycombe8]

35. Yes, people will kill with guns...and knives...and cars...and rope...and their hands...and with

crowbars...and with fire...and with just about anything they can get their hands on.

That has nothing to do with requiring insurance on crowbars or fire or rope or knives or guns. But cars are in a different category, because it is mostly CERTAIN that everyone who drives a car regularly WILL get in an accident, because of the sheer amount of time the person is driving that several thousand pound metal object around in public, in all sorts of weather and traffic conditions.

In other words, ins. cos. haven't had to pay a lot of money because of guns or crowbars. So no ins. is required. It won't happen.

Except of course...homeowner's ins. would cover certain instances of gun injuries, I guess, if they occur in your home.

[libdem4life]

44. Yes, we shiver in fear over crowbar murders...and hangings. Let us look at your litany of weapons

of murder...as intelligent people...

Murder (not accident) by car...murder by rope...murder by crowbar...wonder if we've reached double digits yet? Even cars, the intent is to take a human from one place to another, same as an airplane or a horse or a motorcycle. Cars, motorcycles and airplanes do have actuarial details as to their liability in death...hence insurance. Ropes and crowbars have not yet been rated.

So, again as intelligent people, which of the above wreak havoc in our society? Guns. The reason insurance companies haven't had to pay a lot of money is because we have become cowed by the fact that when guns murder people, it's just unfortunate accidents or murderous rage, or kids playing cops and robbers, and the NRA makes more money/members etc and the taxpayer just picks up the tab.

The devil is in the details. We are adding up the social, familial, domestic and national toll of gun violence. And yes, it will cost everyone who has a small gun a small amount to support the wackos that cause the violence...big war WMD, a lot based on their likely carnage. Others will released/melted down from civilized society. In the meantime, victims are going to sue everyone in the neighborhood for recourse.

A bystander at Gabby Giffords shooting had a gun and stated he did not pull it out for fear of being killed himself and/or shooting some innocent person because it was so confusing. Smart man. Kept it in his pants. You come upon a wacko shooting people, and you draw and accidentally shoot a bystander, prepare for your life to change radically.

Someone uses a gun to hurt me or mine, I don't care what the scenario up to and including the civic laws or lack of laws, I will have justice. And I will own that person, his estate, anyone's property this happened on, his manufacturer, his dealer, whoever sold it to him, gun show, any municipality that approved guns, et al. And god help him or her if they have alcohol in their system.

This is how we will get gun insurance. Spread the liability around. I believe places of business will decide to disallow guns in their premises...open carry or not...as the man who was fumbling with his gun someplace in Arizona and accidentally shot his wife in a restaurant. 'The restaurant is liable. No we're not talking about crowbars and stringin' folk up in the public square.

Guns that play nice, minimal insurance, re-registration, taxes and fees. Keep them in the basement and don't let kids or domestic partners get at them in the wrong frame of mind. Criminals...will not see the light of day for a very long time. I could go on, but hopefully the intent and the point is made.

Guns are going to get expensive and accountable and responsible. We'll pass on the crowbars, ropes, et al for now.

[Honeycombe8]

64. Reminder: We're talking about insurance. Don't get carried away.

I have a gun. There is next to zero chance it will ever cause any property damage or bodily injury.

I have a car. It is almost certain that it will cause property damage or bodily injury.

Insurance is based on the likelihood of, and the amount of, damage that insurance companies have to pay.

That's what insurance is all about. It's mainly to protect the owner of the item. Because the injured party can always sue for damages; the insurance protects the defendant from having to pay out of pocket for those damages.

Homeowner's insurance also covers all sorts of accidents arising from negligence at a person's home...don't know if that includes guns, but it might. But it doesn't cover car insurance, so car ins. is required separately.

Ins. for guns separately, there's no need, so it won't happen. There is also no need for separate ins. for knives or crowbars or fire....to the extent these accidents/negligence happen at home, homeowner's ins. will cover that, I believe.

Of couse, insurance NEVER covers intentional infliction of bodily injury.

[libdem4life]

68. The short answer...Product Liability. But here's where the car analogy breaks down...Cost to

family and society. (and why the crowbar and rope and knife discussion was tongue in check) In the colonial past, or even the Victorian past, no weapon could take out a room of kids, or theater goers. Likely neither a car today. To imagine to count up the social and physical costs of just the Sandy Hook disaster, can't imagine...but some can, and will. Every day there are more reports of the gun crazies....which haven't been publicized before. Drip, drip, drip on the public's stomach for this continual carnage.

And since I don't need a gun, I resent paying the costs through my taxes, for those who do...most, like Nancy Lanza, with the best of intentions, if not gullible paranoia. Yet, if I or one of mine are injured by one of these products, I will sue everyone...shooter, shooter's estate if s/he suicides, manufacturer, ammo, place where it happened, school district...whatever.

It is liability insurance for the financial results/costs of the product. Those responsible owners who keep their guns locked up will likely only be inconvenienced as to their initial purchase cost and legal maintenance...perhaps a preference for smaller gun count and less calibers will do. The user will be judged under another set of rules ...were they drunk, under age, unintended, accident, stolen ... the legal system.

But when families are bereft of members, disabled, psychologically damaged, can't work and go on unemployment, have to go on food stamps and welfare, broken up, have long hospital stays, expensive surgeries ... lest I get carried away ... these are real financial costs to our society/taxpayer...costs of the results of a product that has liability...along with, yet separate from, the shooter. Health insurance may bear some of these costs but it runs out...and can ultimately fall to Medicare, Medicaid and SSDI (disability). Geometrically higher than a car accident. But as in any serious physical or psychological injury, the buck stops with the taxpayer, earlier or later.

Mark my word...noticed there is a thread here on DU about a Boston paper coming up with the same insurance ideas...it is coming. And it may be possible much of this can be set up by Executive Order or just retail insurance product...price increases, taxation, registration, insurance, re-registration at intervals with periodic background checks ...definitely NOT within the reach ... or the dismissal ... of the 2nd Ammendment...no matter how "liberally" it is interpreted.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005

You can sue the gun and ammo manufacturer ONLY if the product was actually defective. Just because some third party used their product to do harm to you does not give you a claim against the maker of the product. If someone is driving a non-defective Ford and hits your car, you don't get to sue Ford.

If someone steals a crowbar and hits you on the head with it, is Great Neck Tools at fault?

[libdem4life]

89. As stated, the car/gun analogy only goes so far. They are synonymous in some aspects...

not all...just instructive on how we really ro have the expertise to manage the administrative controls, checks and balances on a product that everyone NEEDS and is not manufactured to take a life. And the lame crowbar, rope, tire iron, knife, razor blade and other consumer product "similarity" seems beneath even average intellectual discourse.

Show me any numbers of say, tire irons, approaching the social cost of $175 billion, and we'll either be finding another way to change a tire, or they'll be damn expensive.

As my research showed for autos...$300 billion cost in damage, all for the most part unintended, accidental and not designed to kill but spread out over 200 million drivers. Yet DUIs and manslaughter are vigorously pursued legally, carry added civil liability, and have significant impact over one's entire life. The auto insurance numbers pretty much cover that...$1,500 average.

We, the drivers (not the other people who don't or can't drive) are required by law to insure driving privileges, based on the cost to the insurance company, regarding a piece of metal and to also pay for uninsured motorist, Acts of God, damage to property, partial medical, etc. There is a real background check apparatus that functions well. In most states, an uninsured vehicle may not be be driven by an unlicensed person. The insurance covers the driver and the auto and the social damage and you have to pay to play, so to speak.

Three out of four do not own guns, yet the NRA and ilk and their supporting manufacturers grow fabulously wealthy. Gun owners, manufacturers, "non-profits" such as the NRA are shamelessly on the Public Teat. (TEAT...Taxed Enough Already x Two) Privatizing the profits, while socializing (that means everybody has to pay for the privilege of a few) the carnage.

The way things are today is going to change. Clinging to the era of the Wild, Wild West and John Wayne's glory days, circa Rambo and Terminator with weapons in every adult's holster, is history. It's only the how or the when.

Guns for protection and hunting we will always have with us, in one form or another. Fine. But they can't mow down a crowd of more than one or two...(fatalities and damage more in line with the Wild Wild West and the auto example). This should be sufficient reason for gun ownership and leaves out most of the Paranoids. The odds of a weapon killing a family member or child is off the charts more likely as opposed to the odds of needing to prepare a private militia to pull off an armed Waco...yet again.

Like the gun banners, the gun worshipers are going to have to give. Perhaps Sandy Hook and 20 6-year olds and 6 public servants was not enough, but it will happen.

Laws will change. The three-fourths of us who don't have or want guns just ask the other one-fourth to be responsible, pay their way for their choices and the fallout.

Back to the autos, notice, it's not called driver's insurance...it's called auto insurance. That covers the driver and the occupants, the privilege to drive, the liability and is responsible for the damage.

[Hoyt]

5. People need to learn to live without crud like that around.

Since some people don't seem to have sense to live without them, I guess government needs to intervene. Kind of like laws against incest, polygamy, discrimination,, child porno, etc.

[Isoldeblue]

7. Excellent analogy! n/t

[tblue]

13. What Hoyt said.

People need to grow the eff up. These are not toys we're talking about.

[pipoman]

6. Defining "assault weapon"

is the only hindrance to an assault weapons ban...a very difficult hindrance..

[liberal N proud]

8. Anything that can fire more than 10 rounds is excessive.

If you can't hit that target in 10 shots, you don't need to shooting.

These weapons have one purpose, kill and destroy. I miss how doing that to excess is either fun at a right.

[derby378]

91. Like that Girandoni rifle that Lewis and Clark took into the wilderness 200 years ago

With its 20-round magazine and all. Designed to kill and destroy. Gotcha.

[liberal N proud]

93. If you can't hit in 5 shots, give up!

[jmg257]

9. "Assault Weapon" is not reserved for rifles. The term would, or could, include just about

any firearm and accoutrement (like mags and silencers) deemed unsafe.

"AWB" is just a convenient way of referring to such bans.

[Thinkingabout]

10. In fact weapons are going to have to be regulated because of reckless behavior.

Do not be angry at the regulations, be angry at those who exhibit crazy ranting and threats, they are the big problem. Reckless storage allowing the wrong ones the get access to weapons. Do rigid background checks and mental evaluations of the owners and have the price of the license high enough to cover the cost of the checks and evaluations. This is a cost which should not be passed on to the rest to pay. Make a no purchase list similar to the no fly list, you act crazy and make threats then you lose your right to possess weapons. There are many who hunt but use a weapon appropriate for the hunt. If you are a bad shot and need more than ten bullets then you will need instructions on hitting your mark but not bigger capacity to fire without reloading

[bucky balls]

18. I will support that if it also requires rigid background checks and mental evaluations of drivers.

Fair is fair.

[Thinkingabout]

32. So, how many mass killings have you heard of in malls, schools, etc?

When there are as many incidences of an angry person running over innocent people as we have had with guns in the last few months then it will be fair. Until then the devices used to destroy others will be regulated. By the way there are speed limits and rules of the road, using your thoughts then fair would be to regulate weapons and ammo.

[bucky balls]

37. I've noticed a lot of posts here from folks who don't much care to 'regulate', as to 'ban'.

That's not a helpful, feasible or intelligent approach. Are you of the belief that there are no regulations on weapons and ammunition???

[Thinkingabout]

43. Which would you rather, to ban weapons or to regulate the size of magazines and ammo?

There are sensible gun owners, gun owners who use their weapons to hunt game and then some threat other citizens, going to start civil wars, going to defend themselves from the guverment, these are hunters of people, we don't need them possessing weapons. Why would you think there might be a need to regulate or ban weapons?

[bucky balls]

78. I'm very sorry, I am conversant in four languages, but sadly, gibberish is not one of them.

[Thinkingabout]

81. Jack of all and master of none, sorry for you.

[bucky balls]

82. I have noticed a rather disturbing dichotomy on this issue:

The most hateful, vitriolic and vicious comments come from people who have an inordinate aversion to
guns and those who possess them...which ironically abets their own claims that some individuals definitely do NOT need to own firearms. I certainly can't argue with that, having seen some of the posts from those who have no knowledge of the subject.

[Thinkingabout]

87. Get over yourself.

[libdem4life]

46. Forget about mental evaluation of drivers...not going to happen.

[ileus]

15. I always wanted an AK pistol...

Just to add to my collection. It would make a great little AK style firearm for the whole family to enjoy at the range, and if needed it could be used for self defense.

I hope someday the prices come back down from the panic prices we're seeing now, or I'll never invest in one.

[Recursion]

20. It's a piece of crap

If you want a pistol, but a practical one.

[ileus]

22. I've got plenty of practicals...

I only wanted one because I didn't have any AK platform firearms. Thought it would make a great Jeep ride firearm since it was covered under my CHP.

Maybe a AR pistol would be a better choice you may be correct. I'd have plenty of mags and bolts to go around, and I could get a SBR stamp and put that puppy on a regular lower. Spend a few more bucks and get a muffler and it would be the ultimate home defense setup. Of course a 300 blackout upper would be a better choice if going for a SBR and muffler.

[Recursion]

23. Shrug. That pistol is like bolting a spoiler on a Ford Escort

It shouldn't be banned, but it should come with a big forehead-mounted "L"

[ileus]

26. Hey those spoilers were awesome.

[Hoyt]

48. Such wholesome family fun.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. The laws can be written to cover the right weapons.

They could, for example, restrict magazine capacity, or they could specify the types of semi auto lower receivers that either allowed or prohibited.

The "technical argument" is neither new nor difficult. Other nations have managed to do this successfully.

[Recursion]

21. I would totally support that

That's not remotely what any AWB yet written does.

[krispos42]

24. They did it, not by creating and then banning a new class of weapons

("Assault weapons&quot .

They did it by banning all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Very simple, very airtight. There are no work arounds. There are alternatives to them, but you can't make a cosmetic change to make your gun legal.

The fact that no proposed legislation does this indicates that they want their legislation to fail. They want the good PR while achieving little.

[Recursion]

27. Ding ding ding

I'm a "gun person" and I'd support rescheduling semi-autos with detachable magazines, particularly with a streamlined license process for people who want to own but not resell.

Nobody's interested in doing that, because actually solving problems makes donations dry up.

[Ed Suspicious]

33. How about this? Guns that look like penis extenders will be used more often by small minded dicks

in a manner that threatens my life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Ban them.

[bucky balls]

39. Your life, liberty and happiness is far more endangered by thugs with penis shorteners

that they bought from other thugs in the back alley. They don't much worry about more laws against what they already do.

[Ed Suspicious]

40. Oh, for the want of a good guy with a gun, right? Bullshit. n/t

[bucky balls]

80. "Bullshit"? Gosh, what an erudite response. Look, I think Mr. LaPierre is an idiot, mainly because

his diplomatic skills are on a par with Lush Rimbaugh, but I still haven't seen any rational disposition of his comment about "good guys with guns are the best way to stop bad guys with them"...perhaps you can be the first? At any rate, isn't what he said the rationale for arming cops? I mean, we could just train them all to sing Kum By Yah, and have them leave their guns at home.......nu?

Meanwhile, if you know a feasible way to disarm thugs without leaving the decent people undefended, please clue us in.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Ah yes... more obsession with the Mighty Penis.

Some people just never seem to get enough of it.

[bucky balls]

79. And some can't stop thinking about them. You could always come out of the closet, yanno...

[Motown_Johnny]

36. All we can do is reduce the carnage, that is not "Doing No Good"

Less deadly weapons create lower body counts.

No, we will never be banning a normal shotgun that has a legitimate use for hunting. These are substantively different than weapons designed to kill human beings.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

38. .

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=526258914074176&set=a.451808824852519.108483.245028365530567&type=1&theater

[Ed Suspicious]

41. One designed to kill deer, the other people. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

53. Actually neither gun was designed for either of those tasks.

Makes for a great sound bite though.


However, both can be used for either task with varying effectiveness.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Very good and sensible post.

[libdem4life]

47. Kick !

[hack89]

55. Show everyone a picture of the weapons used at Va Tech while you are at it

let everyone see the true magnitude of the issue.

[sylvi]

74. Oh horsehockey

The Taft H.S. shooter was targeting two specific individuals, and after the first was shot and wounded he was confronted by school personel who talked him down. The "1 person wounded" had nothing to do with the limits on the type of gun he used.

A shotgun at close range like in a classroom is a fearsome weapon capable of inflicting carnage on at least as great if not greater a scale than an intermediate power weapon like an AR. In this case it was the shooters intent and the bravery on the part of school officials that prevented that carnage.

[Lex]

42. Write the law so it would cover shit like that thing.

[Recursion]

49. How?

This isn't just me throwing up my hands, this is me saying it's a fool's errand.

Ban semi-automatics, or don't. But don't dick around with half measures in-between.

[Lex]

58. Oh, it can be done.

It's definitely not an impossibility.

[Recursion]

61. OK, more importantly, why?

Why do you want to ban a pistol that looks like that but not an equally-capable pistol that looks more traditional?

[bucky balls]

83. I noticed your question brought only crickets...

[AverageJoe90]

50. I like that idea.

After all, if all guns were licensed, only the criminals wouldn't have licenses.....

[TheSovietUnion]

52. So...

All guns should be banned. Problem solved.

[dorkulon]

59. I say we treat guns like bombs. And ban them fucking all.

Cars are for transportation. Guns are for killing. So are bombs. Bombs are illegal. End of line.

[Recursion]

60. People buy bombs all the time legally

They're used to clear out big trees and rocks. TNT you'll need a license for, but not Tannerite or blackpowder.

Flamethrowers are completely legal too.

Neither of these get used very often in mass killings (to my knowledge flamethrowers never have, despite being disturbingly well-suited for it). There's something at issue other than legality and availability.

[dorkulon]

62. Guns are more convenient.

Bombs require a lot of work and planning.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. Marijuana and Cocaine are illegal. Yet, tons of each come across the border every week or so.

What happens when guns are much more profitable?

A very conservative estimate is that 250,000 people illegally cross the southern border every year. How much will a handgun be worth after ALL guns are banned in the United States, and how many of those people who are now carrying drugs will then be carrying a semi-automatic handgun or two?

[dorkulon]

70. I don't know; how much are they worth in Japan?

Point is, they have fewer guns and fewer shootings. EVERYWHERE ELSE.

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. The POINT is; there will be hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic handguns coming into the US.

Every. Year.

Let's not forget that Japan is a country surrounded by water. How long is the physical border between Mexico and the United States?

Hundreds of thousands of guns will come across the border each year, and not a single one will wind up in the hands of a law-abiding citizen or gun collector. Each and every one of them will wind up in the hands of someone wanting them for something other than plinking tin cans.

I could be wrong of course, but the ONLY way to stop gun trafficking across our borders would be to seal them entirely. But then, you've picked a fight with everyone from those who want open borders to big corporations hiring cheap labor.

[dorkulon]

73. France, then.

Japan was just one example. If getting busted with a joint or a corner bag of coke cost you, say, 50 grand and a nickel in the clink, you can bet I wouldn't have had either of those things at certain points in my life. But hey, you can only kill yourself with drugs (and frankly you can't even do that with pot), so harsh penalties are inappropriate--really any penalty in my book.

Fact is, there'd be fewer guns, and those that possessed them would know that getting busted with one was a serious deal. They've already done this elsewhere. It works--that is, gun deaths are dramatically reduced. Those facts are in evidence.

[bucky balls]

84. You must not know anything about Jamaica, where they passed a virtual ban on all guns

a few years ago...and the entire filthy country is drowning in {illegal} gun violence. The decent people (who obey the law) are at the mercy of the thugs who don't. What a wonderful situation.
\

[dorkulon]

86. Wow, you found an isolated example of a case that contradicts the general trend.

Or maybe you did. Maybe it's just more of the made-up BS stats I keep hearing from your side. Either way, it doesn't come close to outweighing the evidence form other countries, especially those that resemble the US so much more than Jamaica.

[Hugabear]

92. "entire filthy country" - really?

Have you ever been to Jamaica?

[Archae]

77. It's mostly a Wisconsin and Minnesota-based chain of stores.

http://www.fleetfarm.com/

[guardian]

88. Don't worry

the rule is if it 'looks scary' to an antigunner then it should be banned

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. It will push the killing back into the ghettos and slums where we can safely ignore it.

That's the bottom line to all of this masturbation. We don't care if it's only poor people being killed, regardless of age, we just don't want the blood spilling over into the suburbs or especially into really nice neighborhoods.

[libdem4life]

95. Man who helped Sandy Hook kids is harrased

Kind of like the Tea Party nutjobs who were only politically certifiable, the proverbial bar for which the all-guns-any-guns-for-one-and-all-of-age gun apologists MUST BEAR, are nuts like this.

Poster Adults for the NRA, et al. Doubt any of these callers will show up on any list or background check. And it's pretty safe to assume they all "bear arms" of some kind, probably numerous with that level of paranoia, have kids or grandkids, and without doubt desperately need mental health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html