If gun control isn't the answer, what is?

[Some Guy]

Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks [snip] won't have the same level of access.

So, essentially what you're saying is that we can drastically limit the overwhelming/law abiding majority of Americans' ability to defend themselves from criminals will to use deadly force in exchange for one or two less headline grabbing massacres per year?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So at what point do we regulate human thought? I'll be the first to tell you that I have often thought (privately, never openly - for fear of people, who would probably lock me away in a "re-education" camp) that those abortion providers who have been murdered probably got a "just" reward. Do I condone it? Absolutely NOT!

Having stated that, I am a gun owner and have been since I was 10 years old. I served in the military (Vietnam) and killed people. Many, in fact. Other than service in the military, I have never used a weapon in anger. Never once.

Don't you find it rather odd, that the majority of these mass killings are perpetrated by those who have never served in the military, never fought in wars, yet been under observation (in many cases for years) for mental illness or have held "grudges" against society for some perceived "wrong" done to them, or, quite frankly, just snap one day? Or, worse yet, are teenagers, brought up on violence (constant video games, television, movies, books, magazines) etc etc that believe that "life has no meaning"? Here's a clue for the latter...Life has no meaning to those individuals because they were (most likely) never taught to respect life.

One passage in the Bible as ALWAYS stood out to me: "You reap what you sow"

Ok, so now you want to eliminate mental state of mind as a disqualifier for acquiring guns.

What's left?

Do we resign ourselves to only banning gun ownership to people with after the fact evidence? As in, ban felons? Ban the kid the who sold pot out of his dorm room in college, but full speed ahead for the guy with the mentality to become the next anti - abortionist terrorist?

Apparently, some of the respondents here are unable to comprehend what they read, or I am (regrettably) not making myself clear. OF COURSE NOT!! Nowhere have I written that mental state of mind should be elimanted as a "DISQUALIFIER" for acquiring guns. NOWHERE. Please! I invite you to point out where I have EVER written this.

So, then, what is YOUR determination of "mental illness"? If someone, in a sudden fit of angst, claims that Doctor X "got what was coming to him" that he is mentally unbalanced?? For a split second, you may be right. So, then, when the left was calling for the "murder" of George Bush, were they not the same? When the arm-chair QB, watching his team on Sunday yells out, "kill the bum - rip his head off" is HE not insane also? Wake up, sonny.

I would add, however, after this post, that (tongue-in-cheek), those unable to read and write should probably NOT be allowed to purchase firearms......

You said alot in 2 posts but never answered the original question.

 

[eflatminor]

Human nature isn't going to change anytime soon.

Why are there so many massacres in America...

Actually, mass killings are on the decline in America.

From the Associated Press:

"There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University."

and

"Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century."

and not in other civilized western countries?

Actually, the worst school shooting was not in America.

Further, there are plenty of massacres in other countries:

A decade of mass murder around the world

 

[DiamondDave]

your problem is that you think those are the only two answers....

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

So limit the defense ability more in order to protect them more.. got it.. Meanwhile the criminals are not restricted

 

[spectrumc01]

Define "crazies." That's a slippery slope there because i'm sure plenty of lefties would call for righties to be locked up for nothing more than the political views, and vice versa.

Would you sell a gun to someone if he told you he thinks abortion doctors who were shot got what they deserved, and abortion is murder, and Scott Roeder is an American hero?

So at what point do we regulate human thought? I'll be the first to tell you that I have often thought (privately, never openly - for fear of people, who would probably lock me away in a "re-education" camp) that those abortion providers who have been murdered probably got a "just" reward. Do I condone it? Absolutely NOT!

Having stated that, I am a gun owner and have been since I was 10 years old. I served in the military (Vietnam) and killed people. Many, in fact. Other than service in the military, I have never used a weapon in anger. Never once.

Don't you find it rather odd, that the majority of these mass killings are perpetrated by those who have never served in the military, never fought in wars, yet been under observation (in many cases for years) for mental illness or have held "grudges" against society for some perceived "wrong" done to them, or, quite frankly, just snap one day? Or, worse yet, are teenagers, brought up on violence (constant video games, television, movies, books, magazines) etc etc that believe that "life has no meaning"? Here's a clue for the latter...Life has no meaning to those individuals because they were (most likely) never taught to respect life.

One passage in the Bible as ALWAYS stood out to me: "You reap what you sow"

If you have to take prescribed medication to "balance yourself" you are disqualified from owning a firearm. Anything from depression to multiple personality disorders to ADHD to anything that requires medication, perhaps a medical waiver for individual qualification.

 

[candycorn]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Gun control will work in the long term. What will happen is the same thing that happened with cigarettes. The use has declined over the decades since we started placing warnings on them, society has placed burdens on smokers, the health risks have been highlighted and we've taxed the holy you-know-what out of them.

They are still available but much less front-and-center than they used to be.

It takes an incrediby long time to do this but in the end, it is worth every minute spent.

What you do is make the high volumes cartridges harder to get via mail order, place a surtax on them to make them cost prohibitive, and manufacturers sell less of them. So less are made. It is supply and demand.

Lets say that we have a bazillion of these clips out there. Over time, they wear out, get damaged, stolen, destroyed by various means such as fires, floods, etc... So the Bazillion becomes a bathousand over time. Meanwhile, the public becomes safer by increments since you're not able to log on and buy them.

You can replicate the model with things such as the AR15, AK47, etc.. and you're not diminishing the rights under the 2nd amendment at all.

Meanwhile, what you do is place armed guards in schools--men and women trained in aggressive deterence. At no point do you put guns in the hands of teachers or students. Thats batshit crazy.

Human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon but if you took everyone who can't swim and kept them away from water, you'd have fewer drowning deaths. If you stem the tide of guns, eventually, you'll have fewer on the streets.

It's not politics; it's logistics.

Banning guns for law abiding citizens, 99.9% of gun owners, is bat shit crazy.
Then the criminals and government are the only folks that have the guns.

Of course at no point did I say "ban guns from law abiding citizens". You make it very hard to get them as we have done with cigarettes. If you want to pay a $750 tax on a Bushmaster AR15...go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. It will help pay for all the carnage such weapons deliver.

 

[NYcarbineer]

your problem is that you think those are the only two answers....

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

Crickets.

Shocking, I know...

I said, pass a federal law that requires every public business of a certain minimum size to hire an armed guard, including all government facilities.

If safety is worth it, then it is worth making it a cost of doing business.

 

[eflatminor]

your problem is that you think those are the only two answers....

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

 

[eflatminor]

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

Crickets.

Shocking, I know...

I said, pass a federal law that requires every public business of a certain minimum size to hire an armed guard, including all government facilities.

If safety is worth it, then it is worth making it a cost of doing business.

The federal government has no such power over private businesses, but you're free to pass such a law in your state.

 

[Koios]

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?

 

[meson]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Gun control combined with more effective ways to recognize mental illness at an earlier age and get the person treatment before s/he does something to hurt themselves or others might be the answer.

I haven't read through the thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned.

 

[Koios]

Then by all means, tell us exactly what measures would prevent insane motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from breaking laws with a firearm.

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

1. Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

2. Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

1. Got some stats on that? I'm all fucking ears.

2. Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that. Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Ok, so now you want to eliminate mental state of mind as a disqualifier for acquiring guns.

What's left?

Do we resign ourselves to only banning gun ownership to people with after the fact evidence? As in, ban felons? Ban the kid the who sold pot out of his dorm room in college, but full speed ahead for the guy with the mentality to become the next anti - abortionist terrorist?

Apparently, some of the respondents here are unable to comprehend what they read, or I am (regrettably) not making myself clear. OF COURSE NOT!! Nowhere have I written that mental state of mind should be elimanted as a "DISQUALIFIER" for acquiring guns. NOWHERE. Please! I invite you to point out where I have EVER written this.

So, then, what is YOUR determination of "mental illness"? If someone, in a sudden fit of angst, claims that Doctor X "got what was coming to him" that he is mentally unbalanced?? For a split second, you may be right. So, then, when the left was calling for the "murder" of George Bush, were they not the same? When the arm-chair QB, watching his team on Sunday yells out, "kill the bum - rip his head off" is HE not insane also? Wake up, sonny.

I would add, however, after this post, that (tongue-in-cheek), those unable to read and write should probably NOT be allowed to purchase firearms......

Ah, you're a war veteran, well according to other posters in this thread you shouldn't be trusted with a firearm around children.

It's no big deal. I recognize fear when I see it. I was raised with guns in the house. I was brought up hunting and was taught to "absolutely" respect what a gun can do. Both my children (a Son and a Daughter) grew up with weapons in the house and both know how to defend themselves. I, nor they, have EVER used a gun in an unlawful manner.

The left is best known for striking out at that which they don't understand. And, as unfortunate as it is, they usually understand very little, but seem to believe that they, and they alone, know what's best for everyone else.

One of my co-workers a few years ago, and Black, like me, told me that I was "one crazy Brutha" because I don't "toe the line" when it comes to Obama - 'cause da Brutha is one of us".

I told him at that time that if he wanted to follow the wolf into the woods, that's hs choice, but he "ain't my Brutha". Obama, like any other politician, has never done a thing for me. But, as in everything, it's a choice.

My buddy recently left the democrat party and is now a registered Independent.

Democrats (liberals) have nothing to offer but slavery. Sorry if that offends liberals, but at some point, one MUST face the truth.

 

[Some Guy]

2. Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that. Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.

So, address crack dealers? Guys who don't need guns too much? What about robbers? Having a gun makes their crime a whole lot easier, be it home invasion, banks, stores, etc. Rape is probably easier when you've got a gun too.

 

[eflatminor]

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Some Guy]

It's no big deal. I recognize fear when I see it. I was raised with guns in the house. I was brought up hunting and was taught to "absolutely" respect what a gun can do. Both my children (a Son and a Daughter) grew up with weapons in the house and both know how to defend themselves. I, nor they, have EVER used a gun in an unlawful manner.

The left is best known for striking out at that which they don't understand. And, as unfortunate as it is, they usually understand very little, but seem to believe that they, and they alone, know what's best for everyone else.

One of my co-workers a few years ago, and Black, like me, told me that I was "one crazy Brutha" because I don't "toe the line" when it comes to Obama - 'cause da Brutha is one of us".

I told him at that time that if he wanted to follow the wolf into the woods, that's hs choice, but he "ain't my Brutha". Obama, like any other politician, has never done a thing for me. But, as in everything, it's a choice.

My buddy recently left the democrat party and is now a registered Independent.

Democrats (liberals) have nothing to offer but slavery. Sorry if that offends liberals, but at some point, one MUST face the truth.

Oh man. You're black and don't vote democrat? The liberals are not going to like you one bit.

 

[Koios]

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.



Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

Gotcha. Multiply 'em by 10. Now where are we?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Koios]

2. Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that. Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.

So, address crack dealers? Guys who don't need guns too much? What about robbers? Having a gun makes their crime a whole lot easier, be it home invasion, banks, stores, etc. Rape is probably easier when you've got a gun too.

Sure. Remember drug gangs shootin' up shit and bystanders a plenty? Hear of that much any more?

And armed robberies going up, or down? What have you got? Maybe you can parse something here: FBI — Crime Statistics

Let me know what you find out.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's no big deal. I recognize fear when I see it. I was raised with guns in the house. I was brought up hunting and was taught to "absolutely" respect what a gun can do. Both my children (a Son and a Daughter) grew up with weapons in the house and both know how to defend themselves. I, nor they, have EVER used a gun in an unlawful manner.

The left is best known for striking out at that which they don't understand. And, as unfortunate as it is, they usually understand very little, but seem to believe that they, and they alone, know what's best for everyone else.

One of my co-workers a few years ago, and Black, like me, told me that I was "one crazy Brutha" because I don't "toe the line" when it comes to Obama - 'cause da Brutha is one of us".

I told him at that time that if he wanted to follow the wolf into the woods, that's hs choice, but he "ain't my Brutha". Obama, like any other politician, has never done a thing for me. But, as in everything, it's a choice.

My buddy recently left the democrat party and is now a registered Independent.

Democrats (liberals) have nothing to offer but slavery. Sorry if that offends liberals, but at some point, one MUST face the truth.

Oh man. You're black and don't vote democrat? The liberals are not going to like you one bit.

Truth be told, I catch more flack from white liberals who are sure that (again, because of my "blackness") I should be jumping up and down for Obama. Sorry 'Massa!!! but I don't agree with the man. I believe in a robust economy perpetuated by free enterprise and NOT the government. I saw, while in Europe, how that form of government works (or rather, DOESN'T work) When I was assigned to consulates in Soviet Bloc countries, I saw, firsthand, the results of Obama's form of "governance".

I saw, first hand, people lined up for blocks on end, trying to get a loaf of bread from a "so-called" benevolent government, where the rulers lived like Kings and the "people" were an encumberence that had to be "dealt with" if they got out of line.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[eflatminor]

"Would" is hard to say. Would have? Sure. Making guns illegal limits access to them. Criminals will get their hands on them, but typical folks who are either frootloops, or in some kind of jealous rage, won't have the same level of access.

Look at the UK. Maybe 50 or so gun deaths a year? And where are we? 25,000? More?

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

So while putting toothpaste back in the tube is no easy task, still squeezing the tube is no rational pursuit. We must work to limit the dangers while still within the confines of the BoR. Assault weapons should be banned. Concealable weapons should be limited to 2 or 3 shots, maximum, except for police, etc. The sale of guns should be HEAVILY regulated and controlled by federal and state governments.

Nothing in the BoR limits Congress' ability to limit or regulate what "arms" are. They cannot shoot anthrax, nor have nuke warheads. If those limits are not barred by the BoR, then NO LIMITS ARE, short of limiting all arms out of existence, which would create a defacto limiting of our right to bear them, with "them" being what's allowed by law.

1. Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

2. Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

1. Got some stats on that? I'm all fucking ears.

Sure.

Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned (Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007)

After the UK ban, U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes increased by 14%. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.)

The trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies. Meanwhile, crime rates in the rest of the western world were dropping.

Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – despite a virtual ban on private firearm ownership. (Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies King's College in London, July 2001.)

We can also look at Australia:

In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.)

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions were up 21%. Again, this during a period where the rest of the world was seeing crime rates drop.

Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that.

Less lethal how? You think a firearm that looks a certain way is "less lethal" than ones with a wooden stock or nice walnut grips? Why do you think that?

Besides, what makes you think banning guns would limit the supply of firearms to "less lethal" guns, whatever you think that means?

How did you put it? "You got some stats on that?"

Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.

So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.

Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.