Again....But it's never the guns!

[The Grand Nudger]

As for the 2nd amendment, it was written when the most advanced weapon commonly available was a Pennsylvania long rifle, a one shot musket that typically takes between thirty seconds and a minute to load each round. I seriously doubt that our founders ever intended for or imagined that the average American would be allowed to own a Bushmaster assault rifle with a 30 round clip, and many other large caliber repeating guns. Banning hand guns alone could potentially cut the gun murder rate in half. Ban assault rifles and semi-automatics as well. Place restrictions on the number of guns an individual can own. Keep the rest if you truly feel the need to own a gun. But hey, that's just my own damned opinion.

Seen this one alot, and, respectfully, I'm going to have to throw a wrench in it. That Pennsylvania rifle was the most lethal and horrible personal weapon ever conceived of at that point. They intended that. Now, whether or not it was a good idea at all would be a different story (and an area where you and I disagree, clearly) - but lets not imagine that our founders didn't write in an amendment that - if it were written today- would include belt fed tripod mounted 50 caliber machine guns with nightvision and thermal. They were the founders of a nation, not sages or unfailingly wise oracles. There's a very strong current of attempting (from both sides) to paint ones own position as the position of our founders - as if that would lend our own positions any more weight in the here and now-. Well, it won't. What was or wasn't a good idea back then may or may not be a good idea today, and who did or did not agree with something then may or may not have had a very good reason for doing so. Perhaps they felt that John Q should have a gun because they had very recently been rebels, insurgents. Just throwing that our there.

Now, as for banning handguns. I don't think they should be banned, but we clearly need to -enforce the existing legislation regarding their procurement-. That's right......there's existing legislation. It's actually not bad, except that it really isn't enforced. Banning assault rifles and semi-autos? Why? Your own graph says "handgun" not "ak-47" or "semi-auto 22lr". Why place restrictions on the number of guns I can own? Am I more likely to commit a crime, or more likely to cause harm based on how many rifles there are in my cabinet? A restriction is already placed on the number of guns a convicted felon can own - precisely zero guns, btw. There are other federal gun laws in place, with regards to domestic violence - again zero, and a whole host of other conditions and situations....all being the sum total to the right of ownership of precisely zero guns -of any kind-. Folks...these laws already exist.....................

But while we're banning things, maybe we should ban optics? /sarcasm
We both have hobbies, and so long as I'm not shooting people, and you aren't spotting them and calculating my solution for me...neither of us needs the fed to ban our toys, rgr? Even if we were, why should our little urban sniper team lead to others toys being made illegal? People who commit crimes should have the weight of the law pressed on them, and those laws should be enforced (or why have them at all?). Simpy -enforcing- already existent laws might have the effect you desire, without the unpleasant side effect of criminalizing a law abiding citizens hobbies or freedom. Will enforcement of gun law eliminate gun crime, no, probably not. On the other hand, we're not really in the business of making it impossible to commit a crime (and this is what the idea of banning guns, or certain guns, amounts to), and there are very good reasons why we probably don't want to get into that business.

For humor, did you know that it's trivially easy to legally purchase a mortar? Easier than getting your hands on a handgun. Why don't we see more buildings getting shelled? Don't even get me started on illegally purchasing a mortar - or an rpg........