Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Galloism]

Anytime a person comments on a large debatable sociopolitical issue and says "it's that simple", one should be immensely skeptical.

This part of the conversation was particularly about the design of guns as deadly weapons with no other real function. When they are shot at inanimate objects you could argue they're not deadly. But neither are they when someone with bad aim misses a person they're shooting at. Their design is not altered by where one chooses to aim them.

Oh I'll agree that, other than target pistols and most 22 caliber weapons, guns tend to be immensely deadly when aimed at the right thing.

Indeed, that's one of the very reasons all law abiding citizens who want one should have one, especially those who live in the country.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's truly special reasoning.

No, it's not the gun's fault. It's the fault of the person who was able to gain access to a gun. Take away the access, and that person doesn't have as effective a means to kill, though he or she can obviously find less-effective means in his or her environment.

Yeah welp you've shown in several other threads that you believe people should just submit to victimization instead of carrying a weapon so~

Which threads would these be?

I actually don't have a formed opinion on the matter. My viewpoint continues to evolve. My issue is with those who present it as a black-and-white issue, or those who engage in fallacies both formal and informal.

One of these informal fallacies is to attack the arguer rather than the argument, or an ad hominem attack.

Which you've just accomplished.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

This part of the conversation was particularly about the design of guns as deadly weapons with no other real function. When they are shot at inanimate objects you could argue they're not deadly. But neither are they when someone with bad aim misses a person they're shooting at. Their design is not altered by where one chooses to aim them.

Oh I'll agree that, other than target pistols and most 22 caliber weapons, guns tend to be immensely deadly when aimed at the right thing.

Indeed, that's one of the very reasons all law abiding citizens who want one should have one, especially those who live in the country.

The problem is that everyone is a law abiding citizen up until such time as they're not.

[Dyakovo]

Yeah welp you've shown in several other threads that you believe people should just submit to victimization instead of carrying a weapon so~

Which threads would these be?

I actually don't have a formed opinion on the matter. My viewpoint continues to evolve. My issue is with those who present it as a black-and-white issue, or those who engage in fallacies both formal and informal.

One of these informal fallacies is to attack the arguer rather than the argument, or an ad hominem attack.

Which you've just accomplished.

Silly Yummers... Unless you support completely unrestricted gun ownership, you believe people should just submit to victimization.
*nods*

[Galloism]

Oh I'll agree that, other than target pistols and most 22 caliber weapons, guns tend to be immensely deadly when aimed at the right thing.

Indeed, that's one of the very reasons all law abiding citizens who want one should have one, especially those who live in the country.

The problem is that everyone is a law abiding citizen up until such time as they're not.

Quite, but among legal gun owners, crime in general is vanishingly rare, and the effect of gun ownership on crime, within the context of the US, seems to be a very weak negative correlation (IE: more guns equals slightly less crime). I've posted several studies on this.

Introducing yet another "war on X" with billions wasted in enforcement and more crime on our streets is not the answer when we know that a real social safety net and proper education will reduce crime across the board.

In short: everyone's arguing about the wand while the magician has pulled enough rabbits to become a pest control problem.

[Norstal]

Firearms should be required to safely locked away with bullets separated, with no carrying open or concealed, unless for employment, hunting, or sporting. I don't care about "blah blah 2nd amendment". It's time to end the gun culture once and for all. We need to cultural change to stamp out this culture where we regard firearms as normal and fun.

No, I think that's what guns are for. It's for fun. The current gun culture is that guns are for protection, for defense, and is something necessary, as staple as food and should be as ubiquitous. It clearly isn't working out. If more people understand that guns are for recreation more than anything, maybe we won't have paranoids who can't handle guns have it. Because we won't make them paranoid in the first place.

Of course, if the debate shifts to that, we can't use the 2nd amendment anymore. Still, considering legislation concerning banning games, movies, and other recreational activities have been relatively minimal, you can sufficiently defend gun legalization without the 2nd amendment. Gun-control activists want to make sure that no one gets hurts by guns and gun-right advocates do not want people to get hurt by guns since it makes them look bad. That's a common ground that I think a lot of people miss.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The problem is that everyone is a law abiding citizen up until such time as they're not.

Quite, but among legal gun owners, crime in general is vanishingly rare, and the effect of gun ownership on crime, within the context of the US, seems to be a very weak negative correlation (IE: more guns equals slightly less crime). I've posted several studies on this.

Introducing yet another "war on X" with billions wasted in enforcement and more crime on our streets is not the answer when we know that a real social safety net and proper education will reduce crime across the board.

In short: everyone's arguing about the wand while the magician has pulled enough rabbits to become a pest control problem.

Full credit for an excellent analogy at the end of that post.

Complete agreement on the social safety net and education.

I know that you've posted those studies, but were they controlled to avoid causation/correlation issues? My apologies: I know that it's incredibly annoying to be asked to repeat information that you've already gone through the painstaking process of researching, posting, and summarizing, but I'm sure that you understand my reluctance to wade through dozens of circular arguments on this thread to find your evidence.

[Galloism]

Quite, but among legal gun owners, crime in general is vanishingly rare, and the effect of gun ownership on crime, within the context of the US, seems to be a very weak negative correlation (IE: more guns equals slightly less crime). I've posted several studies on this.

Introducing yet another "war on X" with billions wasted in enforcement and more crime on our streets is not the answer when we know that a real social safety net and proper education will reduce crime across the board.

In short: everyone's arguing about the wand while the magician has pulled enough rabbits to become a pest control problem.

Full credit for an excellent analogy at the end of that post.

Complete agreement on the social safety net and education.

I know that you've posted those studies, but were they controlled to avoid causation/correlation issues? My apologies: I know that it's incredibly annoying to be asked to repeat information that you've already gone through the painstaking process of researching, posting, and summarizing, but I'm sure that you understand my reluctance to wade through dozens of circular arguments on this thread to find your evidence.

You're welcome to review my go-to study (also happens to be one of the more recent ones) to see if it meets with your satisfaction.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

It essentially says what I said: socioeconomic and political factors have the strongest correlation to crime, particularly murder, while the presence of guns seems to have a very slight negative correlation.

Proving causation is tough as shit in any socioeconomic context as we have trouble getting a comparable test group and control group. However, we can show that the mantra of removing guns to lower death doesn't seem to have a firm grip in reality.

If you want more studies I'll have to dig them out. I will do so if you're interested enough. It just appears I didn't use them in this thread so I'll have to dig.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Full credit for an excellent analogy at the end of that post.

Complete agreement on the social safety net and education.

I know that you've posted those studies, but were they controlled to avoid causation/correlation issues? My apologies: I know that it's incredibly annoying to be asked to repeat information that you've already gone through the painstaking process of researching, posting, and summarizing, but I'm sure that you understand my reluctance to wade through dozens of circular arguments on this thread to find your evidence.

You're welcome to review my go-to study (also happens to be one of the more recent ones) to see if it meets with your satisfaction.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

It essentially says what I said: socioeconomic and political factors have the strongest correlation to crime, particularly murder, while the presence of guns seems to have a very slight negative correlation.

Proving causation is tough as shit in any socioeconomic context as we have trouble getting a comparable test group and control group. However, we can show that the mantra of removing guns to lower death doesn't seem to have a firm grip in reality.

If you want more studies I'll have to dig them out. I will do so if you're interested enough. It just appears I didn't use them in this thread so I'll have to dig.

No need, you're one of a few whose word is good enough with me. And asking for the controls was a bit unrealistic, I admit.

This is what I'm talking about when I mention gun culture as being the real issue. Combined with economic issues, it's a killer.

[Galloism]

You're welcome to review my go-to study (also happens to be one of the more recent ones) to see if it meets with your satisfaction.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

It essentially says what I said: socioeconomic and political factors have the strongest correlation to crime, particularly murder, while the presence of guns seems to have a very slight negative correlation.

Proving causation is tough as shit in any socioeconomic context as we have trouble getting a comparable test group and control group. However, we can show that the mantra of removing guns to lower death doesn't seem to have a firm grip in reality.

If you want more studies I'll have to dig them out. I will do so if you're interested enough. It just appears I didn't use them in this thread so I'll have to dig.

No need, you're one of a few whose word is good enough with me. And asking for the controls was a bit unrealistic, I admit.

This is what I'm talking about when I mention gun culture as being the real issue.

A lot of people on this subject, both sides, feel the need to scream to the roof that either "banning guns will lead to peace and equality in our time!" or, conversely, "banning guns will leas to Mayhem and destruction like you have never known!"

In truth, the effect overall on crime would probably be quite small. Given such policies tend to take years to fully enact, it might even be lost in the statistical noise.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No need, you're one of a few whose word is good enough with me. And asking for the controls was a bit unrealistic, I admit.

This is what I'm talking about when I mention gun culture as being the real issue.

A lot of people on this subject, both sides, feel the need to scream to the roof that either "banning guns will lead to peace and equality in our time!" or, conversely, "banning guns will leas to Mayhem and destruction like you have never known!"

In truth, the effect overall on crime would probably be quite small. Given such policies tend to take years to fully enact, it might even be lost in the statistical noise.

Ah, you got me before I remembered to edit in the bit about the economy. No worries, the gist of what I said is still correct, if a bit lacking in context.

And of course, you're right. Lost in all of this nonsense of "Guns aren't designed to kill people" (False) and "In countries where they don't have guns, they don't have as much crime" (What's the social support system like there, though, and do their cinematic and literary heroes generally pack heat?) is the fact that if we stopped fetishizing guns and started focusing on improving the quality of life for all, then we'd be significantly less likely to be dealing with these issues on such a tragically regular basis.

[Galloism]

A lot of people on this subject, both sides, feel the need to scream to the roof that either "banning guns will lead to peace and equality in our time!" or, conversely, "banning guns will leas to Mayhem and destruction like you have never known!"

In truth, the effect overall on crime would probably be quite small. Given such policies tend to take years to fully enact, it might even be lost in the statistical noise.

Ah, you got me before I remembered to edit in the bit about the economy. No worries, the gist of what I said is still correct, if a bit lacking in context.

And of course, you're right. Lost in all of this nonsense of "Guns aren't designed to kill people" (False) and "In countries where they don't have guns, they don't have as much crime" (What's the social support system like there, though, and do their cinematic and literary heroes generally pack heat?) is the fact that if we stopped fetishizing guns and started focusing on improving the quality of life for all, then we'd be significantly less likely to be dealing with these issues on such a tragically regular basis.

Here's the thing: guns are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be used for good things or bad things. Like any tools, we have to measure risk and utility.

For me, living in the country, its a good trade: it's very low risk for me to use a gun, and grants substantial utility. Hell, last year I shot a mountain lion that was stalking a teenage boy I saw walking through my woods. He didn't even know it was there. That's utility.

I have no children at home, so it's also very little risk.

Many other situations warrant an individual choosing to arm themselves, and many choosing not to, and that's their choice. By way of comparison, if you want to reduce guns, I think of it this way:

We have way too little mass transit and too many personal vehicles. I don't think the solution is to ban cars. Our mass transit ranges from nonexistent to sucky. If we improve mass transit, people will transition to it on their own and drive fewer cars.

Banning cars would lead to undesirable results (namely, starvation, among others), but we can gradually discourage their use via alternatives.

Similarly, many feel the need to protect themselves with firearms, either from humans or animals. Now, I'm not sure what to do about animals, but if we put in a real social safety net and drop the crime rate, then the apparent utility of firearms against humans also drops, reducing their prevalence.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Ah, you got me before I remembered to edit in the bit about the economy. No worries, the gist of what I said is still correct, if a bit lacking in context.

And of course, you're right. Lost in all of this nonsense of "Guns aren't designed to kill people" (False) and "In countries where they don't have guns, they don't have as much crime" (What's the social support system like there, though, and do their cinematic and literary heroes generally pack heat?) is the fact that if we stopped fetishizing guns and started focusing on improving the quality of life for all, then we'd be significantly less likely to be dealing with these issues on such a tragically regular basis.

Here's the thing: guns are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be used for good things or bad things. Like any tools, we have to measure risk and utility.

For me, living in the country, its a good trade: it's very low risk for me to use a gun, and grants substantial utility. Hell, last year I shot a mountain lion that was stalking a teenage boy I saw walking through my woods. He didn't even know it was there. That's utility.

I have no children at home, so it's also very little risk.

Many other situations warrant an individual choosing to arm themselves, and many choosing not to, and that's their choice. By way of comparison, if you want to reduce guns, I think of it this way:

We have way too little mass transit and too many personal vehicles. I don't think the solution is to ban cars. Our mass transit ranges from nonexistent to sucky. If we improve mass transit, people will transition to it on their own and drive fewer cars.

Banning cars would lead to undesirable results (namely, starvation, among others), but we can gradually discourage their use via alternatives.

Similarly, many feel the need to protect themselves with firearms, either from humans or animals. Now, I'm not sure what to do about animals, but if we put in a real social safety net and drop the crime rate, then the apparent utility of firearms against humans also drops, reducing their prevalence.

Exactly. Start dealing with issues of poverty, institutional racism, and general mistrust, and you've taken away much of the motivation behind gun violence.

Now, we're going to still have issues with insane people going on shooting rampages, and even with improved psychiatric services, that's going to be an occasional problem, so that's going to have to be tackled in another way.

[WestRedMaple]

Firearms should be required to safely locked away with bullets separated, with no carrying open or concealed, unless for employment, hunting, or sporting. I don't care about "blah blah 2nd amendment". It's time to end the gun culture once and for all. We need to cultural change to stamp out this culture where we regard firearms as normal and fun.

Well that would make them useless for the most important purpose of having them.

You might not care about the 2nd Amendment, but so long as it continues to be in place, your proposal is not legal.

I think the culture you propose, where our rights are sacrificed on your whim, would be far worse

[Sociobiology]

I'll say it slowly since you appear to have trouble with me writing like I'm talking to an adult.

There.
Is.
No.
Fault.
To.
Be.
Had.

Again, more shit happens when guns are involved. In this situation, no gun, no accident. And the same goes for many other situations. It's very simple.

so we should outlaw explosives and cars because they both cause deadly situations.

in this situation there was going to be an accident sooner or later because the mother was a moron. If not a firearm the kid was going to drown in bucket, get hit by a car, or jam fork in a light socket. I'm just glad it was the one responsible and not the toddler who had to pay the biggest price for the mothers stupidity.
we're just lucky she did not leave her kid an a nuclear reactor or dam control console and get hundreds of people killed.

dangerous object + toddler = bad.

[Dyakovo]

A quick observation:
Australia has significant dangerous wildlife and some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet somehow they haven't been overrrun by crocodiles? Or criminals for that matter...

A gun wouldn't have prevented Steve Irwin from being killed by a stingray. (SPF40 would have, because it protects from harmful rays! )

Also the creep responsible for the "Sydney siege" a couple of weeks ago was armed with a shotgun (though I'm having a hard time finding any specific info on model), but it appeared to be a manual-loaded double barrel.
In other words, capable of holding two rounds before needing a manual reload.

How many people did he manage to kill when shit went down? That's right, two. Then police killed him.

Imagine if he'd been able to get his hands on an AR15.

Gun control laws saved lives.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A quick observation:
Australia has significant dangerous wildlife and some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet somehow we haven't been overrrun by crocodiles? Or criminals for that matter...

A gun wouldn't have prevented Steve Irwin from being killed by a stingray. (SPF40 would have, because it protects from harmful rays! )

Also the creep responsible for the "Sydney siege" a couple of weeks ago was armed with a shotgun (though I'm having a hard time finding any specific info on model), but it appeared to be a manual-loaded double barrel.
In other words, capable of holding two rounds before needing a manual reload.

How many people did he manage to kill when shit went down? That's right, two. Then police killed him.

Imagine if he'd been able to get his hands on an AR15.

Gun control laws saved lives.

I do agree that it seems odd to me that an AR15 would be used for personal defense, and I can't see a legitimate reason for an average citizen to own one. I can see a handgun for personal defense (at least in the current climate), I can see a shotgun or hunting rifle for the purposes of hunting and vermin control, but I can't see the legitimate purpose in an AR15, or at least one that outweighs the dangers of having these weapons in circulation.

[Galloism]

A quick observation:
Australia has significant dangerous wildlife and some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet somehow we haven't been overrrun by crocodiles? Or criminals for that matter...

A gun wouldn't have prevented Steve Irwin from being killed by a stingray. (SPF40 would have, because it protects from harmful rays! )

Also the creep responsible for the "Sydney siege" a couple of weeks ago was armed with a shotgun (though I'm having a hard time finding any specific info on model), but it appeared to be a manual-loaded double barrel.
In other words, capable of holding two rounds before needing a manual reload.

How many people did he manage to kill when shit went down? That's right, two. Then police killed him.

Imagine if he'd been able to get his hands on an AR15.

Gun control laws saved lives.

I really thought you lived in America. Dunno how I could have gotten that impression.

In this particular incident, possibly so. But, as you are aware, generalizing from one situation to being applicable in all is dangerously silly. After all, one can simply point to any one of the incidents where someone armed with a gun likely prevented a mass shooting to prove that the public being armed "saves lives".

One of the interesting things to note in the Harvard study is how they showed that, although in many countries gun control has generally had minor net effects to the positive, that can't be generalized to all countries, and that some societies and cultures, including the United States, winds up with minor effects to the negative and slightly more deadly results as a result of higher gun control.

The United States was one of those countries.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A quick observation:
Australia has significant dangerous wildlife and some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet somehow we haven't been overrrun by crocodiles? Or criminals for that matter...

A gun wouldn't have prevented Steve Irwin from being killed by a stingray. (SPF40 would have, because it protects from harmful rays! )

Also the creep responsible for the "Sydney siege" a couple of weeks ago was armed with a shotgun (though I'm having a hard time finding any specific info on model), but it appeared to be a manual-loaded double barrel.
In other words, capable of holding two rounds before needing a manual reload.

How many people did he manage to kill when shit went down? That's right, two. Then police killed him.

Imagine if he'd been able to get his hands on an AR15.

Gun control laws saved lives.

I really thought you lived in America. Dunno how I could have gotten that impression.

In this particular incident, possibly so. But, as you are aware, generalizing from one situation to being applicable in all is dangerously silly. After all, one can simply point to any one of the incidents where someone armed with a gun likely prevented a mass shooting to prove that the public being armed "saves lives".

One of the interesting things to note in the Harvard study is how they showed that, although in many countries gun control has generally had minor net effects to the positive, that can't be generalized to all countries, and that some societies and cultures, including the United States, winds up with minor effects to the negative and slightly more deadly results as a result of higher gun control.

The United States was one of those countries.

Of course, one of the problems in the United States is that such bans haven't generally been on the national or federal level, meaning that those who wish to acquire firearms for nefarious purposes can simply hop over to the next state, or find someone else who is willing to do so in exchange for a significant markup on the guns.

[United Marxist Nations]

I really thought you lived in America. Dunno how I could have gotten that impression.

In this particular incident, possibly so. But, as you are aware, generalizing from one situation to being applicable in all is dangerously silly. After all, one can simply point to any one of the incidents where someone armed with a gun likely prevented a mass shooting to prove that the public being armed "saves lives".

One of the interesting things to note in the Harvard study is how they showed that, although in many countries gun control has generally had minor net effects to the positive, that can't be generalized to all countries, and that some societies and cultures, including the United States, winds up with minor effects to the negative and slightly more deadly results as a result of higher gun control.

The United States was one of those countries.

Of course, one of the problems in the United States is that such bans haven't generally been on the national or federal level, meaning that those who wish to acquire firearms for nefarious purposes can simply hop over to the next state, or find someone else who is willing to do so in exchange for a significant markup on the guns.

Not to mention that many thousands of these weapons are already in circulation, so enforcing something on the federal level would be very difficult.

[Dyakovo]

A quick observation:
Australia has significant dangerous wildlife and some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet somehow we haven't been overrrun by crocodiles? Or criminals for that matter...

A gun wouldn't have prevented Steve Irwin from being killed by a stingray. (SPF40 would have, because it protects from harmful rays! )

Also the creep responsible for the "Sydney siege" a couple of weeks ago was armed with a shotgun (though I'm having a hard time finding any specific info on model), but it appeared to be a manual-loaded double barrel.
In other words, capable of holding two rounds before needing a manual reload.

How many people did he manage to kill when shit went down? That's right, two. Then police killed him.

Imagine if he'd been able to get his hands on an AR15.

Gun control laws saved lives.

I really thought you lived in America. Dunno how I could have gotten that impression.

In this particular incident, possibly so. But, as you are aware, generalizing from one situation to being applicable in all is dangerously silly. After all, one can simply point to any one of the incidents where someone armed with a gun likely prevented a mass shooting to prove that the public being armed "saves lives".

One of the interesting things to note in the Harvard study is how they showed that, although in many countries gun control has generally had minor net effects to the positive, that can't be generalized to all countries, and that some societies and cultures, including the United States, winds up with minor effects to the negative and slightly more deadly results as a result of higher gun control.

The United States was one of those countries.

I do live in America, it was someone else's observation, and I forgot to switch "we" to "they".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Of course, one of the problems in the United States is that such bans haven't generally been on the national or federal level, meaning that those who wish to acquire firearms for nefarious purposes can simply hop over to the next state, or find someone else who is willing to do so in exchange for a significant markup on the guns.

Not to mention that many thousands of these weapons are already in circulation, so enforcing something on the federal level would be very difficult.

I once suggested (mostly as a mental exercise) the idea that we shouldn't ban the possession of firearms, but that we should instead ban their manufacture and import, and that any firearm used in the commission of a crime or found to have caused the death of another through negligence should be destroyed. This would get guns out of the hands of criminals and people too idiotic to be entrusted with them, while still allowing responsible gun owners their rights to hunt and to defend themselves.

[Twilight Imperium]

Yes. Correct. I'm still waiting on someone to actually tell me why I'm wrong. Until then I assume I'm right.

It's not that you're wrong, exactly, it's just that what you're right about is kinda dumb and useless. Militaries don't cause wars, wars cause militaries. Obviously if nobody could go off to another country to fight, there'd be no international wars, but there's lots of kinds of war besides that.

You get up in the morning, you get into your shitty car, and you see a rich CEO who works half as hard as you do drive down the street in his Porsche. Class War. You make it to work, and you find out that the annual drug test is today. And you just so happened to take a puff of your one-hitter a couple nights ago before dinner with your wife's awful parents. Drug War. But then, you find out that the only ones being called in for testing are your black and Hispanic co-workers. Race War. Then, you try and post about it on your Facebook, but then all your friends start arguing about what's right and what's wrong. Flame War. You finally get home, and you decide to relax by watching a program about: "Who gets the box?" "What's in the box?" "How much is what's in the box worth?" Storage Wars.

Not to mention civil wars, gang wars, and simple crimes of passion. But sure, if there was some way to magically prevent armed citizens from crossing the border, there'd be absolutely no war.

It's a device. Devices can be used destructively and offensively, or constructively and peacefully.
Have you never heard of the phrase "to beat your sword into a ploughshare"?

Isiah 2:4, one of the few interesting passages of the bible.

Like this maybe?

[Imperializt Russia]

A quick observation:
Australia has significant dangerous wildlife and some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, yet somehow they haven't been overrrun by crocodiles? Or criminals for that matter...

A gun wouldn't have prevented Steve Irwin from being killed by a stingray. (SPF40 would have, because it protects from harmful rays! )

Also the creep responsible for the "Sydney siege" a couple of weeks ago was armed with a shotgun (though I'm having a hard time finding any specific info on model), but it appeared to be a manual-loaded double barrel.
In other words, capable of holding two rounds before needing a manual reload.

How many people did he manage to kill when shit went down? That's right, two. Then police killed him.

Imagine if he'd been able to get his hands on an AR15.

Gun control laws saved lives.

It's entirely possible that the Sydney terrorist could have killed no more people, or even fewer, than he did if he'd had a semi-automatic rifle or large-capacity shotgun. I thought one of the dead hostages had been hit in the police crossfire, but I didn't bother to follow up on it after the siege ended. IIRC, other hostages were also wounded than these two killed, as well as a police officer.

Adam Lanza, who of course used an AR-15, could have killed dozens more people than he did. The manner in which he worked room to room wasn't about maximum casualties, but maximum damage. He shot all of his victims repeatedly.

[United Marxist Nations]

Not to mention that many thousands of these weapons are already in circulation, so enforcing something on the federal level would be very difficult.

I once suggested (mostly as a mental exercise) the idea that we shouldn't ban the possession of firearms, but that we should instead ban their manufacture and import, and that any firearm used in the commission of a crime or found to have caused the death of another through negligence should be destroyed. This would get guns out of the hands of criminals and people too idiotic to be entrusted with them, while still allowing responsible gun owners their rights to hunt and to defend themselves.

My main problem with that would be that it would reduce the supply (thus driving up the price), making such weapons essentially commodities for the wealthy, while denying them to the poor.