I am new here but have read some of your threads with interest. As you I am thinking whether there even is a workable solution. Several points you made don't compute with me, however. Can you please elaborate on # we both know perfectly well that if Cocaine and meth can make it across the border then grenades can as well. They are banned and mobsters and cartels know perfectly well that all hell will break lose if they use them. Hence they won't..the ban works perfectly well. # so according to your logic why don't we then allow ordinary citizens to build their own pipe bombs and what have you, after all criminals can build them easily as well. Your logic flies against common sense and facts. You try to build your entire web of argument on the thesis that ordinary citizens should have the right to be at least as heavily armed as criminals yet at the same time you acknowledge that criminals have arsenals at their disposals that others don't. Probably because you know that challenging the status quo would be impossible in this particular regard on self built bombs. But logically according to your argument it should follow that everyone should be able to "self defend" with home made explosive devices. #why is the term assault rifle a stupid term? It's well defined and a broadly accepted term even by the NRA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle # Obama could not go further because of Republican opposition in the house(s) . I think we all know that. #There is a reason that New York has become a much safer city that most large American cities. You argue as if you have proof that there is zero correlation between this fact and legislation re guns introduced in NY. Please provide proof if you in fact alluded to that. I have not heard of such. Canada has a massive weapons stock and still banned many types of guns and gun violence dropped. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world and yet one of the lowest crime rates with gun involvement because of its strict gun laws. Perhaps the right way to handle this problem is not restriction of ownership but restrictions on the types of ammunition, gun appliances, ways they are acquired, carrying of firearms, and the carrying of firearms. I honestly don't know the answer and so do you not know the answer. I just wanted to understand several holes and contradictions in your base argument.
I've always thought that this 2 minute piece from Reason was about as objective and clear minded a summary as I have seen:
Well then simple economics may have at least some effect in some instances. No single step forward is all or nothing. I'm not suggesting a single-pronged approach.
We had a guy get into our garage this past weekend and was hiding in our loft. He must have used a universal garage remote. He got "alarmed in" before he could do whatever he was gonna do, so he left out the garage when I disarmed the alarm and I saw the guy running down the driveway. I'm a large dude. 6'3" maybe 245. Size/ability amounts to a hill of dicks if the guy has a firearm. I grabbed my MP5 SD with Fleming autosear and cleared the garage. Did I need 30 AR mags? Nope. I just did a head-count. I have 18 AR mags. 10 Lancers; 4 Tango Down; 4 Gen4 PMAGs. See, not a gun nut!
Exactly. Most crazy shooters above 18 bought their own guns and did not use dad's. Restrictions on the type of guns and what is required in order to obtain firearms would greatly reduce access to guns by mentally unstable people. I hate when some pundits of the gun lobby cite overall statistics on the effects of gun restrictions that only include a few years of data and include the entire population. I can't even count the statistical and analytical errors committed. It's like judging a portfolio manager's likely long term performance based on 3 or 5 years of data. Stupid.
Sure, it would have an effect. You don't need to worry about the guy with 20 guns... you need to worry about the guy with one.
Total nonsense. You are basically saying we should make heroin and meth legal because some criminal elements can anyway obtain them or sell them. You totally ignore the bigger picture here which is that there are certain substances and items in circulation that are simply toxic and harmful to humans and that clearly includes firearms. Hence 95% or so of the world population does not have access to firearms. But let's give some weight to the 2nd in the US. At the very least are assault rifles harmful to society and its people. Just because some have access to it makes it an incredibly stupid argument to make them available to all. Or should we arm all countries with nuclear weapons just because Israel, the US, China, India,... have them? What would happen if NK had them or Uganda? A safer world and beneficial? I don't think so.
It's analogous to stating that DPRK doesn't have guns. It's what makes America, AMERICA. (furiously flag-wavin')
The LV shooter was Asperger's. He had no use for the guns other than a necessary tool for the job. Tsing and I are not the profile. It's the guy with cheap-ass clone M4s and SKS' that do the minimum amount of research and training to enforce their deranged motives. I can attest that I've never brandished (lifetime) other than two attempted home invasions/burglaries. I have been in three fights in the last ten years. Two of those times I was carrying concealed.