There is no necessary reason to own a firearm that is designed for killing people

[jpgray]

There simply isn't. Let me go through the rote arguments of the gun crowd now, to save us some time.

1)Concealed pistols, civilian versions of military weapons, etc., protect against violent crime. Those who own and carry these guns legally are therefore on a level playing field with those who own them illegally for use in crime. If there were concealed carriers on campus, the VT tragedy could have been remitted.

-A shotgun or rifle with a limited magazine is superior for home security.

-As for incidents outside the home, the sad truth is that having the capacity to own and fire a gun does not give you the capacity to effectively neutralize a hostile gunman. Police forces spend years training on this, and they still get it wrong--the number of innocents gunned down by these well-trained officers attributing a violent threat to an innocent person and reacting with lethal force should be troublesome to those with a "wild west" idea of vigilante security through gun proliferation.

-Remember a certain wedding in Baghdad, wherein so many guns were around and yet so many innocents were shot once a threat was perceived. While it is possible that a citizen with a gun could stop such a tragedy before it claimed more lives, the scenario of mass murder or even mass violent crime is so remote statistically, and the consequences of misjudgment are so high, that the cure may prove more damaging than the symptom. How would the hypothetical teacher with a firearm identify the gunman if thirty other folks were wandering around with firearms? Would each person have the training and the experience to make the right choices? It's doubtful. Not to mention that increased legal proliferation of weapons designed to kill will inevitably lead to increased illegal proliferation of those same weapons.

-Violent crime is incredibly rare. Violent crime that requires possession of a firearm designed for killing people to prevent is even rarer than that. And premeditated mass murder in a school using firearms is even less common than that. I hope people who make the argument that these weapons designed wholly for killing people are necessary for personal safety in the face of these dangers do not drive cars, smoke, or eat unhealthy foods. Statistically these are far more likely to cause them harm.

2) The Assault Weapons Ban was mostly designed around cosmetic features--it would have no impact on actual gun violence.

-Here's another shady dodge by the gun lobby. While your favorite gun nut will crow about how no real "assault weapons" were banned by said ban, collapsible stocks, pistol grips, large-capacity magazines and bayonet lugs are all indicative of weapons that are designed to be tactically more effective at killing people than your average rifle. It's tough to conceal a large rifle, or several of them. It isn't as tough to conceal a collapsible stock semi-auto submachine gun clone, or several of them. It's tough to kill thirty people when you have to reload constantly--it isn't so difficult with a military-size magazine. Increased proliferation of these weapons gives those who desire to kill many people some of the most effective tools available, designed expressly for the purpose. A rifle that falls within assault ban regs, even a high-powered one, would not be as effective for the sort of school assaults we've seen in this country.

3) Ownership of powerful weapons is necessary to keep the government in check.

-If the government chose to do anything to suborn your rights, it would be sure to ignore the 2nd amendment while taking away all the others. A citizen with an embarrassingly large collection of small arms, however potent, cannot stand against a government once his or her other rights are taken away. So why would the ostensible evil government bother fighting the 2nd amendment at all? Guns do not make a people free--the rights to free speech, free press, and the right to organize all trump guns as necessary checks on the government. Take much of sub-Saharan Africa, or Saddam era Iraq, for your free examples that wide proliferation of powerful weapons in isolation does not make a people free.

4) The right to bear arms (including those expressly designed to kill people) is in the Bill of Rights! May as well say freedom of the press is wrong, or that people should be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure!

-But there is a line everyone draws somewhere, no? No one accepts the idea that every nation possessing nuclear weapons would insure world peace. Why would anyone imagine that if each person were to own extremely dangerous weapons that a town, a city, a state or a country would be any more peaceful? There are some weapons of which proliferation does less to protect in any significant way than it does to harm, and I think those designed solely for the murder of people are among them. You may draw the line at LAWs or howitzers, but I'll draw mine at the design intent of efficient killing.

Okay, now have at me. :P These weapons designed for murder simply aren't necessary or even desirable. I don't know the answer to the problem, but it seems clear to me that the less proliferation, the less likely a disturbed person will have the tools to magnify his or her dementia into a national tragedy. How to achieve less proliferation I don't know, but the current ease of obtaining weapons like this serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Deterring crime

well, the only time I knew when a gun deterred a criminal was when a friend of my husband heard someone trying to get into the house. She got her boyfriend's blunderbuss (the kind with the flared barrel) and pointed it towards the window where the noise came from. Then she heard a thump. The peeping Tom had fallen over with a heart attack as soon as he saw the barrel.

[Mojorabbit]

2. Violent crime is not rare in Orlando

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-fbicrime1906dec19,0,2369860.story?coll=orl-home-headlines
FBI: Murder rate soars in Orlando
Booming population, social problems and an influx of gangs are blamed.

Henry Pierson Curtis, Mark K. Matthews and Willoughby Mariano | Sentinel Staff Writers
Posted December 19, 2006
Murders surged in cities across Florida in the first half of the year, but nowhere as much as in Orlando, according to a report released Monday by the FBI.

The city's murder rate more than tripled from January through June, compared with the first six months of 2005.

Other violent crimes spiked as well. Orlando posted the third-biggest jump in rapes and robberies among the state's 10 largest cities and had the largest increase in arsons, according to the report.

The city tied Miami, which has nearly twice the population, with the second-largest number of murders -- 30 -- in Florida. Only Jacksonville, which is nearly four times bigger, had more: 70.

Orlando has since shattered its all-time record for murders, reaching 46 after the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old late Friday. There were 22 murders in all of 2005.

City and law-enforcement officials say Orlando is part of a larger trend. Boston and St. Louis, for example, have watched their murder rates rise, too.

But other cities have seen declines, according to the FBI report. Pittsburgh, Albuquerque and Oklahoma City, which are two to three times larger than Orlando, tallied as few as 12 killings and no more than 23 through June.

Three factors are behind Orlando's crime surge: a population boom, deep-rooted social problems and an influx of gang members from other cities, said U.S. Marshal Tom Hurlburt, the agency's top official in this area.

[jpgray]

13. 46 in a year--compare that to how many motorists kill in the same period

And then ask yourself whether more people being armed would solve the problem. Do you believe more proliferation of particularly dangerous firearms would remit the murder rate?

[Mojorabbit]

25. More from the article

Rapes increased 21 percent to 82 during the first half of the year, ranking Orlando statewide behind only Jacksonville, where there were 91 rapes, and Tallahassee with 84, according to the report. Some other large cities fared much better, with Miami, New Orleans and Pittsburgh reporting no more than 50 rapes each.

"I'm really surprised" about Orlando's numbers, said Julie Smith of Orange County's Sexual Assault Treatment Center. "We have not noticed an increase in rapes per se, but we have noticed an increase in the violence level in rapes."

Robberies, which jumped 28 percent to 673, became the focus of police action in the spring.

@@@@@@@@@@@
I am a woman, I have been attacked twice. A good friend was killed in his home, the old man two doors down from me was robbed while he was home watching tv. Violent crime is not just murders.
The police were no where near me when I was attacked.I will count on myself for protection.
I am fine with that. If you don't want to own a gun I have absolutely no problem with that.
I grew up around guns. I respect them. I am not afraid of them and I know how to use them.

[jpgray]

27. Again, responsible gun owners are not a problem

The question is, at what point does widespread proliferation create more problems than it solves? It's a horrible thing to ask "how many preventable rapes would you trade for how many students gunned down in cold blood?" There's no right answer, but we have to find the best balance available. In my view, whether it's a failure of enforcement or a failure of legislation, we're not there yet. Too many guns are still falling into too many wrong hands. There has to be a better way to balance self-defence with the risks of too-easy access.

[Mojorabbit]

28. But what I am seeing on this board

is people advocating penalizing responsible gunowners for what some crazy person did which will not work.
There will always be illegal guns on the street.

It is like drugs.
They are illegal but you can find them on plenty of streetcorners.The laws do not work so they get more draconian.. So people allow themselves to have their bodily fluids tested to be able to work at a cash register. Overkill laws at work to try to fix an unfixable by law problem.

When I came of age in the early seventies I would have told you you were crazy if you had said that people would submit to drug testing of urine. Loss of freedoms are insidious. All to foster an illusion of safety this world has never truly had.

I understand people wanting to do something to fix it when a tragedy like this happens but it is always kneejerk.
I think some good national health care that might pick up the symptoms of mental illness early on that could be treated would be the more sensible answer to the problem.But that makes too much sense.

[Alexander]

52. I don't think "widespread proliferation" is being advocated here.

"Again, responsible gun owners are not a problem"

That's my feeling exactly. Let the responsible people have guns, if they want to and can prove they should be allowed to. I have yet to find a DUer who seriously argues that we should "arm everybody". This is a straw man created by anti-gun people.

I'm pro-Amendment II, but I think it's a matter of choices. Some people feel safer with guns, and some people feel safer without them.

I myself have never owned a gun, I don't want to own a gun, and I don't anticipate ever wanting to own a gun.

But if I reach a point in my life where I feel I would be safer with it, whether I get mugged or beaten or whatever the reason, and I obey the laws, I don't feel I should be prohibited or even severely restricted from owning a firearm.

As long as people on both sides obey the laws in place, I don't really care what the choice is.

[K8-EEE]

55. Everybody's armed in Baghdad, it's an oasis of peace!

All you need is guns! All you need is guns, guns....guns is all you need!

[Midlodemocrat]

3. jpgray

I LOVE YOU!!!!

:smooch:

[slackmaster]

4. Federally licensed collector of weapons designed for killing people checking in

The curio and relic firearms that I am licensed to acquire and dispose of directly through interstate commerce are practically all old military weapons, designed specificially for killing humans.

I think my "needs" are perfectly legitimate, and I don't need YOU telling me what I need or do not need.

Thanks for your time.

[jpgray]

12. It's the needs of others, not your needs, that are at issue

And it is also not a problem resulting from responsible gun owners. If all gun owners were responsible, we would not ever discuss the issue. Do you believe aggressive enforcement of existing laws would serve to cut down on ease of access for those who wish to kill as many people as possible? Or is further regulation required, as in the hoops one has to go through to obtain Destructive Devices or what have you under the NFA? Do you agree with regulation on said Destructive Devices, or do you believe they should be allowed freer distribution under the second amendment? I'm wondering where a strong supporter of gun rights draws the line.

[slackmaster]

21. My needs don't conflict with the needs of others

Do you believe aggressive enforcement of existing laws would serve to cut down on ease of access for those who wish to kill as many people as possible?

Yes. It wouldn't prevent every case, but there is no practical way to do that.

Or is further regulation required, as in the hoops one has to go through to obtain Destructive Devices or what have you under the NFA?

NFA controls on DDs as currently implemented are currently too strict, as they are adversely affecting model rocket hobbyists and basically ruined the availability of reasonably safe common fireworks.

Restrictions on automatic weapons are too strict. The NFA registry should be open, and laws should be uniform across the states. It was better before 1986. I'd also like to see another machinegun amnesty for war trophies.

[jpgray]

23. Do you accept that as a weapon's power icnreases, the need to decrease availability does as well

Do you see that it's mostly a difference of where to draw that line?

[slackmaster]

26. Yes, absolutely

I think the lines are drawn pretty much correctly now, and have been since 1934.

[jpgray]

32. So in your view, stepping up enforcement or regulation is not the way to go

Is there another way, then, to limit the frequency of these sorts of tragedies? Obviously the problem starts with the behavior of the person, but is there no way we can limit the access of such people to such powerful tools?

[slackmaster]

33. Please refer to my suggestions posted earlier today in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=677292&mesg_id=677386

[jpgray]

37. So stricter enforcement then

It'd be worth a shot, so to speak.

[slackmaster]

38. One more comment about eliminating "gun-free" zones

If you really want one, that's a matter of personal choice. But if it's a university campus you damn well better put some teeth in the policy by scanning everyone who enters the place (as is done in airports and courthouses), otherwise you are setting up a shooting gallery tailor made for a wacko like the VT shooter.

[jpgray]

39. I'm resistant to that, as horrific as these tragedies are

I suppose when it comes to a choice between the freedom to acquire dangerous guns without much relative fuss and the freedom to go to college/school without passing a screen of costly and depressing security checkpoints, I'd go with the former. I'm not sure where the evidence is on what would actually work better, though. Statistically, the few dozen school massacres that occur a year don't seem worth an overbearing security presence, but how do you say that to someone who fears for their child? Or someone who lost their child at VT? :( Not an easy question to answer.

[spoony]

73. Unfortunately your own suggestions go against this notion

as you would limit less powerful weapons in favour of more powerful ones.

[jpgray]

92. "Powerful" is relative--a bolt-action rifle can kill better than an AR-15 in one shot

But one would be less useful for holding a school hostage. A pistol would be better in that instance than the high-powered bolt-action.

[HEyHEY]

5. Such weapons aren't legal in Canada

But we've had our share of mass shootings. I don't know the answer.

[jpgray]

41. I understand even less about Canada than I do about cars.

:P

[northzax]

6. as opposed to weapons not designed to kill people?

there are many good reasons to own a weapon designed to kill people, including, but not limited to sport. I used to fence, so there is an epee in my closet, is that banned as well?

[jpgray]

8. Thanks for ignoring my whole post to quibble about a term I was careful to define

:D

And nowhere did I suggest banning. I only want these weapons to be less easy to obtain.

[northzax]

9. but I just pointed out a neccesary reason

to own a weapon designed to kill! :)

[jpgray]

10. It'd be tough to be murderous on a massive scale with a fencing epee. Or a biathalon rifle

:) Weapons used in sport in all cases aren't designed to kill many people efficiently in the same way as some curently available firearms are. I don't know of a one that could hold an entire school hostage.

[jmowreader]

91. There are a LOT of gun sports

Practical shooting is one of them. The guns used are police-style firearms--some guys put a LOT of money into them, but you could go to a gun store, buy a .45 and be very competitive--assuming, of course, that you know how to shoot.

One of my guys competes in Cowboy Action Shooting. This is the best gun sport there is, because it's not just a gun sport. You are REQUIRED to dress in the fashion of a late 19th-century gunslinger, you use single-action revolvers and you have a 19th-century alias.

[jpgray]

94. There are plenty of responsible uses for guns, and they aren't the problem

However making the truly dangerous guns harder to get might limit some of the tragedies we've seen.

[benEzra]

101. Guns more dangerous than ordinary civilian rifles/pistols ARE harder to get...

There are plenty of responsible uses for guns, and they aren't the problem

However making the truly dangerous guns harder to get might limit some of the tragedies we've seen.

Guns more dangerous than ordinary civilian rifles/pistols ARE harder to get,
because they are currently restricted by the National Firearms Act.

And when you talking about banning things like civilian AR-15's, you are talking about banning some of the most popular sporting rifles in America. The AR dominates competitive rifle shooting in this country, and pistols dominate IDPA and IPSC. And that's not even including recreational target shooting.

FWIW, is a bolt-action deer rifle in 6mm Remington as dangerous as a 9mm pistol or a civilian AK lookalike? I'd say, definitely yes...don't forget that bolt-actions were originally designed to kill people at extreme ranges, not animals, so you can't play the "designed to kill" card unless you're willing to ban scoped deer rifles.

Personally, I'd rather identify and treat the dangerously mentally ill before something bad happens, instead of trying to confiscate half the responsibly owned guns in America...

[monktonman]

7. Guns are fun!!!!!

I too am tired of the old I want to protect my home crowd, the right to bear arms crowd, watch out for the government crowd etc.
But ya know, Guns are mutha fuckin fun to play with!!!
Whats that? fun??? yah FUN!

I'm a grown man. If I want to shoot at something just for the fun of it, then guess what....thats what I'm gonna do. I might blow some shit up too. As long as its lawful, I'm cool with it.
I dont need any excuses. I own a few guns for one reason and one reason only.....................Guns are fun!

Now on the other side of things how about this....
PEOPLE ARE CRAZY.......they do crazy things, so be it.
There always have been crazy people and there always will be crazy people, are you gonna outlaw them???????

I think we should look at the whole incident and DO NOTHING.
theres nothing to do. Sorry I dont know what to tell you.
The answer certainly isnt outlawing guns any more than giving people more guns. There is no answer.....people are crazy.....
Maybe I am too.

[MGD]

59. Actually, I don't think you're crazy.

I completely agree with everything you said especially the part about there not being an answer. These things will happen from time to time. Once a nut job comitts to this course of action, no amount of legislation is going to prevent it from happening.

[sandnsea]

11. Best response ever

Very excellent. You've hit all the main points. My favorite is the Iraq point. Keeping a tyrannical govt in check has been a joke to me for a long time, but you put it in those sound byte terms we all love so much.

How'd an armed populace work against Saddam? Not so well? Hmmm.

[Recursion]

51. Saddam had very strict gun control

How'd an armed populace work against Saddam? Not so well? Hmmm.

Saddam had pretty strict gun control. And now that the Iraqis are openly armed they're doing a pretty damned good job against us, aren't they?

Seriously, how can anybody look at Iraq or the Lebanon war and still claim that civilians with small arms can't hope to stand up to a technologically superior force? They can, and they are.

[Virginia Dare]

71. The Iraqis abandoned small arms a long time ago, they weren't effective

for the most part. Soldiers wear too much armor now. Bombs are doing the damage now.

[sandnsea]

77. We armed the Kurds

There were weapons all over Iraq. They are fighting back with rockets, not guns. People will say anything to defend their gun obsession. Really sad.

March 5 2003



April 2003

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. The excuse is usually that the gun owner is going to defend himself

or be some kind of half ass vigilante some jolly day. In reality, gun nuts collect those things as fetish items, like children collect action figures. There is nothing as hilarious as some somber nutcase
explaining all the ins & outs of his beloved "fire arms" in a reverential tone.

[jpgray]

40. I do think there is a deep personal aspect to the beliefs of some on the issue

But it's always best to just assume objectivity is there when trying to argue politely. :D

[Irreverend IX]

15. Guns against the government

It's not as unlikely as you think. Lots of Americans own scoped hunting rifles, which can easily rip through all but the strongest military body armor and can hit targets from hundreds of yards away. Armed resistance against a tyrannical US government would not take the form of a rebel army attacking the oppressors on even terms. It would be guerrilla warfare, with lots of opportunistic sniping and bombing. Kind of like Iraq. If every other house in a given neighborhood had a bolt-action hunting rifle, it would be suicide for members of an occupying force to enter the area outside of an armored vehicle.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. I'm afraid that the gun nuts would be the first to side with the

tyrannical government. In fact,they already do.

[Sparkly]

36. That's a point.

:thumbsup:

[jpgray]

17. If what you say is true, why haven't we been driven out of Iraq with heavy loss?

Why was Saddam able to maintain a stranglehold on his country, despite the widespread availability of AK47s, RPGs, et al? Those are far more powerful than any bolt-action rifle. The truth is it is easier for a government to divide people into disorganization and then subdue them than it is to take them on as a big monolithic revolutionary force. The latter, I believe, has never existed historically. Clever, ruthless politics and advanced weapons / training can make a militia -almost- obsolete.

[Greyhound]

19. A. We are being driven out. B. under Hussein there was not "widespread

availability of AK47s, RPGs, et al". C. An AK-47 uses is a 7.62 mm short (7.62 X 39) cartridge, and is not more powerful than most hunting rifles, it less powerful because a traditional hunting round has far too much kick for automatic fire. D. Every time, as in without exception, in the last millennium that a foreign force has invaded and tried to subdue a nation, it has failed. Over time the domestic resistance gains strength while the invaders lose it, the outcome is inevitable.

Any questions?

[jpgray]

34. But weaponry is not the significant contributing factor to those victories

It can play a part, but it doesn't play the chief role.

[Greyhound]

98. Did you reply to the wrong post?

I pointed out that every one of your assertions was false, and you replied with this non sequitur.

[Virginia Dare]

74. I agree with you about the domestic resistance..

but in almost every case, an outside government or force has come in to help with money and weapons, and realistically if we're being driven out of Iraq, it's not because the Iraqis have easy access to guns now.

[Greyhound]

97. In almost every case you are right, but consider that the relative sizes of the countries involved

in these conflicts is a significant factor. Also, the will of the invaded to resist is, IMO, an even greater factor. Vietnam for example, even without the paltry help they received from the Soviets, they were willing to lose 2 - 4 million of their citizens and never even considered capitulation. If the Soviets had not contributed to their cause they would still never give up, we could be fighting there to this day and they would still be resisting.

Sometimes it has taken centuries to get rid of the invaders, but the home team always wins. As I said in another post, the only exception to this was the Romans, and they "won" by killing and enslaving all of the conquered people and sewing their lands with salt as a lesson for any others thinking of resistance. They also made being conquered a better option for the people than most their rulers ever had, that was their hearts and minds strategy, and it worked very well.

[Irreverend IX]

20. AKs and RPGs were not widespread until right before the invasion.

Iraqis owned shotguns and pistols before, but they have nowhere close to the range or accuracy of rifles. Saddam started allowing the ownership of machine guns and RPGs when it became clear the US was going to invade. Also, the round fired by an AK-47 is only half as powerful as most bolt-action hunting rifles. The AK is also a lot less accurate. The Remington 700, one of the most popular hunting rifles around, is also used by the military as its main sniper rifle.

[jpgray]

22. You're forgetting the Kurds; and my point about our own presence still stands

We are far less ruthless than Saddam, and though our losses are a tragedy, they are far less than might be expected if we accept your described scenario. How do we do it? How did Saddam/Tito/whomever do it? With superior technology and the political cunning/ruthlessness to keep their opponents divided. We don't have access to the same extreme methods as Saddam, and it's true eventual defeat for an oppressive regime is inevitable, but it would not be as you describe. It would be a more gradual process wherein popular opinion, possibly supported by armed force or no, would eventually seal the bargain.

[Spazito]

18. Well said! n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. Hate to burst your bubble

But the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" was pice of crap.
Drafted by morons that weren't smart enough to know that they don't know enough to write the requirements. So they drafted some legalise crap that any kid who flunked out of freshamn year engineering school could design their way around.

You want a real Assault Weapons Ban. Pay some engineers to write a proper standard. One where the breach assembly is either made inoperative by modifying for auto fire or firing the first round after modification.

Bayonette Lugs, yeah lots of crooks running around with mounted bayonetts. Ditto for most of the other crap in the AWB.

[jpgray]

30. I see AWB as mostly a graceless attempt to identify and ban military-style guns

Military-style in terms of concealibility, ammo capacity, and other traits that are suitable for efficient mass-killing.

[MadHound]

29. All guns are weapons designed to kill, people and/or anything else

There is no gun that is not so designed.

I understand the point that you're making, but by trying to exempt a certain class of guns as not being designed to kill people, you are trivializing them and such an attitude only endangers other people. A shotgun is a weapon designed to kill, as are any other weapons, from knives to swords to guns. The very nature of the definition of weapon means that it is designed to kill people. Don't trivialize it.

As far as the points you make, well, unless you are willing to undertake a full ban on all guns, then we're always going to have to live with this sort of risk in our society(and still would even if we banned them). Glocks and Walther .22s are easy to purchase virtually anywhere, even in the states that have strict gun control. This guy wouldn't have raised any red flags on his background check, so he would have be able to purchase the weapons. Since he purchased the weapons a month and two months ago, waiting periods wouldn't have mattered. About the only thing that a ban on assault weapons would have done is possibly put high capacity magazines out of his reach, which simply means he would have reloaded a few more times than he did.

So again, unless you are willing to ban all guns, we're going to have this sort of incident taking place. And then, when guns are unavailable, people will either buy them on the black market, or turn to other weapons. Bombs are easily made from easy to get materials, so if this fellow didn't have a gun, he might have just blown up the building instead, causing even greater loss of life.

It isn't the weapons that are available, it is the madness that the stresses of our society produce. Address those and you won't have to worry about the weapons.

[jpgray]

31. I understand that it might seem arbitrary or unclear

But what I meant essentially was that some firearms are significantly more efficient at killing than others. That makes a purposed misuse of the weapon potentially much more catastrophic than a knife, a sword, or a shotgun.

I'm again not arguing for a ban. I'm just saying that these weapons being so relatively easy to obtain serves no useful purpose. It's true that people will find a way to inflict harm anyway, but that's like saying cars are going to crash anyway--may as well remove the brakes. There ought to be a way to at least limit the relative ease in which people can get these weapons, without sacrificing too much of the rights of responsible gun owners. The current system doesn't work to my satisfaction--others are bound to disagree.

[MadHound]

43. So where do you draw the line?

Ban assault weapons, and you're still left will semi-auto pistols like what was used at VT. Ban pistols, and you're left with long rifles, like the fellow used at the clock tower at the University of Texas. Ban long rifles and you're left with shotguns, like those used at Columbine. Where does it end? With flintlocks and muzzle loaders? Then you will simply have people making bombs and killing people that way.

It isn't the weapon, it is the person, it is the insanity that fills them and causes them to kill. Address that and most of these killings go away. But that is a long, expensive, laborious process that would involve changing significant societal norms in our country. Most people want an easy, simple patch, thus these calls to ban some or all guns. That's just a band aid, and doesn't address the real problems of our violent, insane society.

Yes, I do support reasonable gun control, at a levels approximating what we have now. The vast majority of gun owners aren't murderous nuts, most are people like you and I, with hunting, target shooting and collecting guns as their hobbies. Hell, my FIL has well over two hundred guns, of different makes, models and ages. He is responsible and keeps them locked in a vault. Shooting them, restoring them, working with them is one of his hobbies. He wouldn't harm anybody unless somebody harmed him. Look around you, and you will find many people like that.

It isn't the weapon, it isn't the gun. It is the person who has been driven over the brink into the abyss by the pressures our society brings to bear. This fellow couldn't take it anymore, and snapped. If a gun hadn't been available, he would have found some other means just as violent, for violence ruled his soul and demanded its own satiation.

[jpgray]

48. Exactly. Responsible gun owners aren't a problem, and any problem starts with the person.

I suppose if forced I would draw the line further towards strict licensing for pistols, semi-auto military-type weapons with large magazines, etc. As for my reasons, it's true that this won't stop tragedies from happening--people will resort to other methods such as those you mention. But to refer to your example you can't hold a school hostage with a high-powered bolt action in the same way you can with a HK94 or a Tech 9. Even a pistol has concealibility advantages in a school setting that rifles and shotguns just can't quite match. It's true that Columbine did involve shotguns, but used in conjunction with a whole array of other small arms. So that's where I'd draw the line--as far as technical specifics or whether or not it would be as or more effective than stricter enforcement of extant laws, I don't know.

I don't have any quarrel with someone enthusiastic about guns. I helped my dad build a Winchester and a flint lock when I was young, and shot my fair share of cans. I'm just saying there needs to be a way to make the more dangerous "legal" weapons less easily available--that's where I draw the line.

People will always find a way to harm each other despite any security system put in place. It would be ideal to take away the impetus for this behavior, but failing that we could at least make the tools used for such harder to get at. Yes, it's true that many nutjobs won't be detectable by any system put in place, and it will inconvenience a lot of responsible people. But it's what best makes sense to me.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Blind to reality. It's the same as "why do trees grow so high?"

[spoony]

42. Rifle for home security, genius. Pure genius.

And when that round traveling about 2300 feet per second goes through a wall, through a neighbour's wall, and kills their sleeping toddler, I trust you'll be at the trial as an expert witness arguing for whatever idiot takes your advice?

Gotta love anti-gunners who never seem to actually understand the things they hate so much. Like another OP who called him a "sniper." Geez.

[jpgray]

44. If you live out on a farm or ranch, it suddenly becomes very practical

My grandfather seemed to think so, at least. But you're just focusing on the minutiae, and not even debating the major points. Even if you had a plausible quibble, which I don't believe you do, I don't see the point of this debate style.

[spoony]

46. And so the urbanites can do....what, then?

Your suggested alternatives are nonsense at best.

[jpgray]

49. Shotgun seems tops for home defense in my opinion.

What's your view?

[spoony]

53. Yes, however it is also a favourite among spree killers.

What now?

[jpgray]

58. Is it, statistically? I've not heard that.

[spoony]

61. Research is easy

Evan Ramsey, killed two and wounded two.

Michael Carneal, killed three and wounded five.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed twelve and wounded twenty-four.

Jason Hoffman, killed two and wounded thirteen.

All of them used shotguns. That's just in ten minutes on Google, and just teens who shot up schools. Feel free to further research the matter, and you'll find me quite correct.

Oh, and do you know what other weapon pops up a lot? Family rifles. Not assault rifles, but 30-30's, .22's, stuff like that.

So your two suggested "acceptable" guns are some of the most deadly, in theory and in use.

So, again, what now?

[jpgray]

78. Ah, but how many used other weapons in addition?

And is a shotgun really comparable to a pistol or smaller weapon in terms of concealability? If all the Columbine killers had access to was a low capacity shotgun, they would not have been able to hold hundreds of students at bay. Nutjobs will find tools to do their work. The question is, why make weapons that are -designed- for mass murder relatively easy to obtain? I'm not for banning, as I've said many times in this thread. I'm for decreased proliferation of the deadliest weapons. And there are shotguns and shotguns--a DAO-12 is not your grandpappy's scatter gun.

[benEzra]

72. A .729 caliber shotgun beats a .355 pistol or a .223 rifle any day

in terms of absolute lethality.

A 12-gauge (.729) shotgun loaded with 000 buckshot, 3.5" magnum shells can fire EIGHT 9mm projectiles with every pull of the trigger. Each shot is like a long burst from a restricted police/military only submachinegun.

[jpgray]

79. True, but there is a reason why SWAT/police forces aren't armed exclusively with shotguns

To hold an entire school hostage and commit mass murder in the process, a single shotgun isn't the most efficient weapon by a long shot, so to speak. As long as we aren't talking riot control shotguns like the DAO-12 or what have you.

[benEzra]

89. The Trolley Square shooter used a 3-shot bird gun...

and that one would have been much worse had the off-duty officer not been carrying a concealed handgun and pinned him down. The shooter was shooting 2, reloading 2, always keeping the gun loaded, and had a .38 revolver for backup. Had he been in a more confined area and chained the doors like the VA Tech shooter, it would have been MUCH worse.

[jpgray]

90. Well, if he had a rifle with a massive capacity magazine, wouldn't it have been worse as well?

There's no question people will find tools to put into effect their murderous fantasies. I'm just saying ways should be found to make such tools less available for those with murderous fantasies. How to do that, I'm not sure. Banning doesn't seem necessary because the vast majority of responsible gun owners cause zero problems.

[benEzra]

100. Like the Patrick Purdy schoolyard shooting, 1989?

Civilian AK lookalike with rare 75-round RPK drum (a collector's item). Killed 5, the same number as Gang Lu killed not long after with a 6-shot .38 revolver.

I may be wrong here, but both of the worst mass shootings in the U.S. have involved people dual wielding handguns and firing slowly and deliberately. I can't think of a rifle total higher than 16 (Charles Whitman, scoped deer rifle).

Rifles and pistols have different advantages and disadvantages, and I've thought through this a little in the "what if somebody broke in to our house" scenario. If you are speaking of civilian-length rifles (i.e., minimum 16" barrel length, minimum 26" overall), I think rifles and shotguns have the advantage if you are defending a fixed position from somebody who wants to come and get you, and pistols are better if you are moving (i.e., opening doors, getting your kids to safety, checking out the proverbial bump in the night). Applied to the Va Tech incident (confined quarters, moved about with gun concealed before the attack, no one shooting back, covering himself with a second gun while reloading, opening doors) I don't see how a rifle or shotgun could have caused more mayhem than this jerkoff did with a pair of pistols. You can certainly think up scenarios where a rifle would be more dangerous than a pistol, but IMHO this isn't one of them.

Now, if you are talking about police/military weapons (very short barrels and selective fire), the equation might be different; SWAT teams, after all, do commonly use short-barreled automatic carbines instead of handguns for building raids). But that's more of an Iraq thing than a U.S. thing.

[IronLionZion]

66. shotguns are best for home security

you don't even have to fire it. Just showing it scares the shit out of anyone. Load it with shot and you can neutralize an attacker without killing him (Cheney!). And it is unlikely to ever go through to anyone else's house. People who live in rural areas often keep a shotgun.

A wise Southern Democrat told me that if you're going to have a gun, you need to be trained on how to use it and be mentally capable of killing someone and facing the consequences. He said if you have to shoot someone, make sure you put two in his chest and one in the head so that the court only hears one side of the story.

[benEzra]

70. Fragile .223 bullets actually penetrate less than pistol rounds...

which is why an AR-15 is a safer home-defense choice than a pistol or revolver, from that standpoint. A 40-grain .223 hollowpoint penetrates a lot less wallboard than a 230-grain .45 hollowpoint. That's one reason a lot of police agencies are ditching their 9mm submachineguns for M4's.

Of course, the OP wants to ban them... :eyes:

[jpgray]

80. Nowhere do I mention banning anything

Finding a way of decreasing proliferation as a weapon's lethality increases seems sensible. We all have a line to draw when it comes to that, whether with Destructive Devices or whatever.

[benEzra]

84. Upthread, you endorsed banning AR-15's, mini-14's, and whatnot...

Nowhere do I mention banning anything. Finding a way of decreasing proliferation as a weapon's lethality increases seems sensible. We all have a line to draw when it comes to that, whether with Destructive Devices or whatever.

Upthread, you endorsed banning AR-15's, mini-14's, and whatnot--whatever the repubs at the Brady Campaign label "assault weapons"--but perhaps I misread you.

If you want to ban those, then I have a big problem with that. I don't hunt, so I don't need high-powered deer rifles or bird guns; I mostly own small-caliber autoloading carbines, and I'd surely like to keep them, if you don't mind.

I also want an AR-pattern .223 someday, when I can afford one--I'm dad to a special-needs 8-year-old and have medical bills out the wazoo, so I can't afford to drop $1200 on a rifle just any day--but if I see a ban on the horizon, I will get one if I have to take out a second mortgage to do so.

As I mentioned in another post, rifles are almost never used in criminal homicides (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders, less than half as many as fists and feet), so I don't see why it some people consider it SO important to outlaw AR's, stocks with protruding handgrips, and whatnot. In the context of currently legal civilian guns, it would seem that the "most lethal" ones would be the ones that kill the most people, no? Which is why handguns are subject to somewhat stricter controls than rifles and shotguns.

[jpgray]

85. You're right about the rifles not being used often in violent crime or homicide

However, my point remains that as a weapon becomes increasingly lethal on a large scale, the need to decrease proliferation also increases. The question is, how to do that? I don't support banning these weapons, as responsible owners are never the problem (I didn't mean to be unclear on this point, sorry if it seemed that way). But what safeguards might be put in place to limit the relative ease of acquiring the tools best suited to the purpose of mass murder? Because while responsible owners won't cause any problems with them, it only takes one person to create a massive tragedy, given a powerful set of tools. Now I'm not saying that removing the most lethal guns from the equation would remove these tragedies entirely. Other tools would be used, inevitably. I'm just saying make it less easy to acquire the weapons most suitable for holding a school hostage.

slackmaster has some enforcment ideas upthread that I tbink are worth a shot. In any case, I believe something has to be done.

[benEzra]

86. Upthread, I understood you as wanting to ban AR-15's, mini-14's, and whatnot

Nowhere do I mention banning anything. Finding a way of decreasing proliferation as a weapon's lethality increases seems sensible. We all have a line to draw when it comes to that, whether with Destructive Devices or whatever.

Upthread, you endorsed banning AR-15's, mini-14's, and whatnot--whatever the repubs at the Brady Campaign label "assault weapons"--but perhaps I misread you.

If you want to ban those, then I have a big problem with that. I don't hunt, so I don't need high-powered deer rifles or bird guns; I mostly own small-caliber autoloading carbines, and I'd surely like to keep them, if you don't mind.

I also want an AR-pattern .223 someday, when I can afford one--I'm dad to a special-needs 8-year-old and have medical bills out the wazoo, so I can't afford to drop $1200 on a rifle just any day--but if I see a ban on the horizon, I will get one if I have to take out a second mortgage to do so.

As I mentioned in another post, rifles are almost never used in criminal homicides (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders, less than half as many as fists and feet), so I don't see why it some people consider it SO important to outlaw AR's, stocks with protruding handgrips, and whatnot. In the context of currently legal civilian guns, it would seem that the "most lethal" ones would be the ones that kill the most people, no? Which is why handguns are subject to somewhat stricter controls than rifles and shotguns.

[karlrschneider]

45. As you say, you don't know the answer. I agree.

...

[jpgray]

50. None of us knows "the answer." I'm just posting an opinion

[frustrated_lefty]

47. We need the guns to take care of varmints.

[K8-EEE]

56. SNARF!!! Spewing out pinot grigio!

DAMN YOU!!!

That was funny!!!

[LibertyorDeath]

54. Yes there is

It may be one of the few things that stops the Fascists from taking over

in America...

Sad but true imo...

A well armed public is dangerous to the State as well as individuals

like it or not that's the way it is...

[dairydog91]

57. So now I'll go through some of your "refutations"

-A shotgun or rifle with a limited magazine is superior for home security.
A rifle is generally unsuited for home security, due to overpenetration and size. A short shotgun is very effective, but what would be the point of banning handguns and not small shotguns? They're both concealable, so I guess the only major difference is that the shotgun is more powerful. And a handgun can be a very effective weapon for self defense, especially if you add a laser sight and shoot hollow points (Accuracy and minimal penetration of walls).

-As for incidents outside the home, the sad truth is that having the capacity to own and fire a gun does not give you the capacity to effectively neutralize a hostile gunman. Police forces spend years training on this, and they still get it wrong--the number of innocents gunned down by these well-trained officers attributing a violent threat to an innocent person and reacting with lethal force should be troublesome to those with a "wild west" idea of vigilante security through gun proliferation.
Good training with your weapon does allow you to neutralize an assailant, provided that he can be identified.

-Remember a certain wedding in Baghdad, wherein so many guns were around and yet so many innocents were shot once a threat was perceived. While it is possible that a citizen with a gun could stop such a tragedy before it claimed more lives, the scenario of mass murder or even mass violent crime is so remote statistically, and the consequences of misjudgment are so high, that the cure may prove more damaging than the symptom. How would the hypothetical teacher with a firearm identify the gunman if thirty other folks were wandering around with firearms? Would each person have the training and the experience to make the right choices? It's doubtful. Not to mention that increased legal proliferation of weapons designed to kill will inevitably lead to increased illegal proliferation of those same weapons.
Well, if our hypothetical teacher is facing a scenario similar to Virginia Tech: He hears gunshots, locks the door, draws his gun, and prepares to shoot the assailant if he comes bursting through.

-Violent crime is incredibly rare. Violent crime that requires possession of a firearm designed for killing people to prevent is even rarer than that. And premeditated mass murder in a school using firearms is even less common than that. I hope people who make the argument that these weapons designed wholly for killing people are necessary for personal safety in the face of these dangers do not drive cars, smoke, or eat unhealthy foods. Statistically these are far more likely to cause them harm.
First, that is very much a matter of where you live. Two, shit happens, and it's better to at least have a fighting chance if something goes wrong.

-Here's another shady dodge by the gun lobby. While your favorite gun nut will crow about how no real "assault weapons" were banned by said ban, collapsible stocks, pistol grips, large-capacity magazines and bayonet lugs are all indicative of weapons that are designed to be tactically more effective at killing people than your average rifle. It's tough to conceal a large rifle, or several of them. It isn't as tough to conceal a collapsible stock semi-auto submachine gun clone, or several of them. It's tough to kill thirty people when you have to reload constantly--it isn't so difficult with a military-size magazine. Increased proliferation of these weapons gives those who desire to kill many people some of the most effective tools available, designed expressly for the purpose. A rifle that falls within assault ban regs, even a high-powered one, would not be as effective for the sort of school assaults we've seen in this country.
Unfortunately, that "shady dodge" is based on actual crime statistics. Rifles were never popular with criminals, and the government noted that there was no discernable affect upon crime from the '94 Ban.

Second, the features list was very silly. Pistol grips are used because they bring the stock in line with the barrel, lowering barrel drift and improving accuracy. Collapsible stocks make your weapon a little shorter, but there are limits upon the minimum length of a rifle which ensure that even a folded stock will leave the weapon rather long. Unless the shooter is a linebacker with a penchant for trenchcoats, the folded-stock rifles would still be rather obvious. Ditto on submachinegun clones: They must have an awkwardly extended barrel to be legally sold. Bayonet lugs: Well, I've never heard of a bayoneting taking place in a school shooting. Magazines? These can be changed very quickly, probably in less than 5 seconds with an ammo vest/belt. Very little difference in rate of fire.

In terms of power, military-type ammo is designed to injure and incapacitate, it's not designed specifically for instant kills (Like hunting ammunition). The reason for doing this is that the enemy will spend more resources treating wounded soldiers than they would burying dead ones. Hunting ammo is considerably more powerful and usually has much better range. You'd have to go back to the Korean War to find the US military using a service rifle that shot rounds powerful enough for hunting (The M1 Garand, chambered in .30-06).

Oh, and most guns are expressly designed to kill/injure something. Ordinary hunting rifles are designed to instantly incapacitate large game; Hence they fire powerful ammunition that would easily punch through body armor and kill a human from hundreds of feet away. Remember, Charles Whitman didn't need fancy "military-style" guns to do his evil work.

Edit - Imagine if instead of trying to set up some mythical "lethality line" where hunting guns become Evil Killing Maachines, we were instead to revamp NICS so that they had better access to more complete mental health records? Or if we devoted more funding to arresting shady gun dealers?

[jpgray]

96. It's tough to draw the line, but it needs to be drawn better

As for your other points, the main one I'll address is that of the AWB. It's true the differences were cosmetic, but many guns that fall under the ban -are- better suited to a school assault situation than a simple rifle or shotgun, even if as you say they are less directly powerful. "Powerful" is a relative measurement, though--a bolt action rifle might have more power than an AR15, and is more likely to kill in a single shot, but the AR15 would be more tactically successful at holding down a large number of people. Less time is needed to reload, less time is needed between shots, etc. Your example of Charles Whitman also tends toward my argument--if he had used a weapon with a larger magazine, a superior scope, etc., wouldn't that incident have been more tragic? It's not necessarily about preventing all such tragedies--this would be almost impossible. It is about minimizing the damage when they do occur. Increased controls on certain weapons most suited for mass killing would at least help some. Again, I don't support outright bans of any weapons currently available. Just stronger controls and background checks for some.

[CaptainRant]

60. So you want the Bushies to have all the guns?

Sounds like a bad plan to me.

[jpgray]

93. Responsible owners are not a problem--no matter who they support

But making guns less easily available to people who are likely misuse them seems like a good idea.

[maveric]

62. A San Diego cop told me that If I were to shoot an intruder, pull him back in the house...

before the cops come. Then it would be considered "justified", in CA.
I have a gun in a lockbox under my bed. I unlock it at night and lock it up when I go to work in the morning.

[slackmaster]

95. It doesn't have to be in the house to be justified

On your property is often so, but in your house it's airtight provided that the person entered forcefully and violently.

BTW I've found that a large majority of San Diego PD officers are quite OK with civilians using firearms defensively. Some of them are serious gun collectors and shooters.

[LSK]

63. K&R - great arguments

[aikoaiko]

64. Nonsensical.

You wrote in your subject line: There is no necessary reason to own a firearm that is designed for killing people

And then you wrote: -A shotgun or rifle with a limited magazine is superior for home security.


So tell me -- how exactly do your use your shotgun or rifle successfully for home security without it having the designed ability to kill someone?

[jpgray]

83. A hunting shotgun works well enough

You don't need a riot shotgun or something outrageous.

[krkaufman]

65. One-word reason for owning a weapon: Blackwater n/t

[Virginia Dare]

76. How are you going to fight Blackwater with a rifle or a handgun?

that didn't work in New Orleans, they disarmed everybody first. Six big Blackwater goons show up at your door, and what are you realistically going to do? These guys have state of the art body armor and weaponry on them, and don't forget, they're technically private citizens as well.

[Orsino]

67. Neither statistics nor anecdotes are persuasive...

...in attempts to take away an individual's right to prepare a defense.

If I believed that owning a gun might save lives at some point in the future, I would be entitled to place the burden on you (or on anyone advocating restrictions) to prove that gun ownership could never make a difference in any conceivable situation. That proof might be a prerequisite for any discussion of abrogating civil liberties.

"Guns don't make people free" make be true as far as it goes (which isn't far), but guns can defend against people trying to take away one's freedom. "Weapons designed for murder" is a bit over-the-top, as well; self-defense, or the defense of one's loved ones, need not involve any legal definition of murder. Someone breaking in with a weapon, for example, might be deterred if a resident turned out to be armed, and that seems to me reason enough to protect the right to bear arms.

"Design intent of efficient killing" is begging the question, frankly. There are peaceful uses for guns, in which no one dies or is injured.

[benEzra]

68. IF that were true, rifles would be commonly used in murders.

They're NOT.

Rifles are almost never misused, statistically.

Maryland, 551 homicides in 2005, all rifles combined accounted for only 4.

North Carolina (my state), 566 homicides, only 20 by rifle.

Washington, 205 homicides, 8 by rifle.

Ohio, 549 homicides, 13 by rifle.

Pennsylvania, 734 homicides, 15 by rifle.

New York, 868 homicides, 10 by rifle.

Illinois, 448 homicides, 4 by rifle.

Virginia, 459 homicides, 6 by rifle.

Oregon, 79 homicides, 5 by rifle.

See a pattern here?

Civilian rifles are not a crime problem in this country and NEVER HAVE BEEN.

The AR-15 platform is the most popular civilian target rifle in America--and is the least powerful of all centerfire rifles, to boot. You appear to have fallen for some repub Brady Campaign scaremongering...



-----------------
The conservative roots of U.S. gun control

[Threedifferentones]

69. I'm not sure I agree with point #3

You seem to be claiming that since a heavily armed Iraqi population was still dominated by Hussein and his army that gun ownership therefore does not protect people from totalitarian governments. But, it is important to note that, as the course of our ill-conceived occupation is proving, Iraqis seem to lack the unity as a people that is required to fight an organized army. If even half of the gun owners in each American town organized themselves into militias against the government, that would be a large obstacle to martial law. And don't you think that if a large, broad segment of the Iraqi people had decided to set aside their differences in order to resist Saddam's army that they would have been close to powerless without guns? Nonviolent resistance can work wonders, but not against groups that are willing to just mow down protestors.

Our own freedom was won with guns, and may yet have to be protected in the same way. I don't think any private citizen should be allowed to carry guns around, concealed or otherwise, but it would make me very nervous if the Bush WH controlled every assault rifle in America.

[jpgray]

82. It's true that a monolithic revolutionary population has little to fear in the long run

But that's true even if guns aren't part of the equation. So long as an armed population is divided and not organized (say, the US's, for example) it is easy for regular military/police to deal with.

[Matariki]

75. You clearly have never had someone break into your home at 4am

with the intent of raping you.

[jpgray]

81. Neither has 90+% of the population

And in that case, a good shotgun will work just fine. A tech 9 or a DAO-12 isn't exactly necessary, and the current ease of obtaining like weapons serves no worthwhile purpose. Responsible owners are not the problem.

[Matariki]

87. yeah well, I have. so I get to say you don't know what you're talking about.

a shotgun? you're kidding. that's unwieldy. i wish I'd had a pistol, it would have been much cleaner than the hatchet I did have.

[jpgray]

88. A personal tragic experience, however horrible, is not good to base legislation on

We need a system that prevents the most harm while holding to the letter of the law. So far, I don't think we have it. Any system will still allow tragedies such as yours. If we can maintain a workable defense against them while still decreases proliferation of the deadliest weapons, well then we're getting somewhere.

[benEzra]

102. The fallacy here is your conception of what are "deadliest weapons"...

Crime stats say .38/.357 revolvers are the deadliest weapons.

Close range lethality says that shotguns (.68 to .73 caliber) are the deadliest.

Long range lethality says that bolt-action hunting rifles (a.k.a. sniper rifles) are the deadliest.

Short-term rate of fire says that self-loaders and pump-actions are the deadliest.

Rate of sustained fire says that anything with a detachable magazine is the deadliest.

Bradyite BS says that rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out are the deadliest.

Your "designed to kill people" argument says that nearly all guns are the deadliest, including Mauser-style deer rifles.

Personally, I'd say that crew-served weapons, automatic weapons, and weapons firing explosive projectiles are the deadliest, personally. And those are already tightly controlled by Federal law, and have been for 73 years.



I think one big problem here is that you are taking VPC talking points about "assault weapons" as gospel, forgetting that the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch started out as a FUD campaign to build momentum for a handgun ban.

[ends_dont_justify]

99. I agree to an extent, but also disagree. here's why:

I don't really know any weapon that strikes fear into people, or non-weapon tool, that can easily deter burglars, murderers, rapists etc. that could be immediately and easily identified as a deterrant. I think if they put more research into it and we had something that could easily fend off people trying to harm us, yet at the same time be relatively less fatal, or completely lacking any fatality but giving people another reason to be deterred, would be great. We did live in a time before guns, and people would fend for themselves well too. What's needed is a 'popular' device...sadly, there's just too much to gain from people misusing guns. When there are killers with guns, gun sales increase :/