The old bumper sticker still says it best: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I still smile tenderly at people who insist they only want the government to restrict guns a little. Or only ban certain "especially bad" ones. Or create just a few "gun free zones" around schools or churches or wherever. Or etc. History has shown over an over, that once you grant government the authority to put ANY restrictions on personal weapons, it tries over the ensuing years to put more and more, until private ownership or use is basically impossible. Except for those who disobey the law, of course. And every time, a new batch of do-gooders shows up, and insists that with them, it will be different. Same goes for the ones who demand, "Why do you NEED such-and-such a gun?" These people don't seem to see any problem with a requirement to explain to some outside entity our reasons for wanting the ability to be armed, as a necessary condition to buy or own one. Do these misnamed "gun buyback" programs actually reduce crime? Everyone has an opinion. But does anybody have any FACTS? Some study you can point to showing crime levels before and after a buyback program? Or anything similar? And before you get huffy about the fact that the above "gun-buyback" program was voluntary, and not MANDATED by government, permit me to guide you back to the issue it illustrates: People without guns are vulnerable to predation by people who have them. The guy saw right away that the woman had money. But he didn't pull his gun on her until he was sure she didn't have hers any more. Sure, she made her own choice to give up her gun. But when people have that choice taken away by government and are forced to do so, the lawbreakers can be even more sure their law-abiding victims are unarmed; and less inhibited about going after them.