General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Vexx]

The problem is, Kaijo, the minute you get edgy your real feelings spill out and they aren't the "scientific cold neutrality" you're proclaiming you have. To some degree, you're asking others to do your homework for you. You can look up studies that show where guns are effective but you don't. You could understand more clearly how firearms work but choose not to. You consciously skew the words of other posters to dismiss their posts. You engage in hyperbole. I suppose I could take an hour to dissect a few posts and mark exactly where you do that but again, that would be doing your homework for you.

If we're going to more strictly regulate guns or add infrastructure, choosing ways that actually reduce violence in general (as well as reduce gun violence) would be the "scientific" path.

FBI numbers? Violent crime still declining: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...ime-statistics

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

hoplophobes

Please stop using this word. It is factually incorrect (the vast majority of people do not have a anxiety disorder concerning guns) and you are obviously just using it to slight all those who disagree with you (it would be like calling you paranoid in every other post (especially the ones in which you rant about the government)). Kaijo, Ledgem, Don, Vallen, etc are not scared of guns. At worst they would be scared of people (since people can be pretty damn scary), but nothing they have said has indicated any anxiety disorder in regards to guns or weapons in general.

[DonQuigleone]

I'd be pretty scared of a guy pointing a gun at me! I mean, it's like staring death in the eyes.

That said, besides that guns are kinda sexy...

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

What kind of tactics do you think a dictator is going to use? Honestly, have you even heard of Saddam Hussein who gassed and bombed his own people? You really think, that if your imaginary Hitler takes control, he is going to content himself with suppressing dissent by conventional warfare? Do you really, truly, honestly think your imaginary Hitler is going to go easy on you? The whole point of a tyrant and dictator, is that they do whatever the hell they want!

Now you're begging the question of what a dictatorship would look like in a country like the US. You must remember that everything that both Saddam did and Hitler did was LEGAL in their respective countries.
If Obama or any dictator were to assault the constitution through executive fiat they will lose the legal authority to do so and thus will not be able to inflict the kind of damage you are fantasizing about.
Perhaps you should stop wasting time here and go educate yourself about Hitler, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao and learn that they had the consent of their people to do what they did.

Thank you for proving we don't need guns. Because according to you, enough of the military will side with the civilian population.

Now you are confusing association with causation by assuming that if the military would not go along with a dictatorship there is no need for an armed society. Since the constitution does not name resistance to tyranny as the reason for the militia, it is only one associated reason for the 2nd amendment. The other three reasons are putting down insurrections, repelling invasions, and upholding the constitution and bill of rights.
So no, it is not a valid reason to infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Did you, really? You went after violent crime, when the conversation is gun deaths.

Gun deaths? Really? How many guns have died this year?
The reason why all violent crime is valid in this discussion here is because firearms are used in defense against violent crime. Thus restricting them increases violent crime--which I have shown here--and does nothing to reduce violent crime.

I have every damn right, when your gun is more threatening to me, then anything else. You scare me far more than any terrorist...

McGraw Hill Medical Dictionary definition of Hoplophobia:

Morbid fear of guns and firearms-McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Hoplophobe:
"A person with hoplophobia, fear of armed citizens.-Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

McGraw Hill and Segen's aren't "right-wing" by any measure.

You, by your own admission in the above post, are a real life hoplophobe who fears law abiding citizens who obey the law more than you do terrorists.
There is nothing scientific in your posts, nor rational at this point.
I have tried in vain to show you the facts, which you have rejected out of hand.


It is my opinion that it is unhealthy for you if I continue to discuss this issue with you.
Therefore I'm going to cease talking to you about it.
You're too emotional and irrational on this subject to discuss or debate it in a constructive manner.


__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

@James: it is a technical term, and not some swear word or pejorative. Kaijo has just admitted he is more afraid of law abiding people with guns than terrorists. That is hoplophobia by definition.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The problem is, Kaijo, the minute you get edgy your real feelings spill out and they aren't the "scientific cold neutrality" you're proclaiming you have. To some degree, you're asking others to do your homework for you. You can look up studies that show where guns are effective but you don't. You could understand more clearly how firearms work but choose not to. You consciously skew the words of other posters to dismiss their posts. You engage in hyperbole. I suppose I could take an hour to dissect a few posts and mark exactly where you do that but again, that would be doing your homework for you.

I never said I lack emotions, and one of my pet peeves that I do get a bit emotional about, is the dismissal of scientific evidence. It's not perfect, nor will it ever be, but it is designed to slowly work it's way towards the truth.

And I'm not asking anyone to do homework for me. If I gave that impression, let me end it here. I am saying if someone wants to convince me, they have to provide scientific evidence. GundamFan0083 provided a link to a book written by two criminalogists, which I have spent $20 ordering, in which I intend to read. If that isn't me doing my own homework, I don't know what is.

And you're asking me to assume there is particular evidence out there, and to go get it myself. There are hundreds of thousands of papers, and no time to read them all, and even the smartest scientist lack the expertise to gauge each one. Consensus, and scientific progress would grind to a halt if we required every single paper to be vetted by everyone before moving on. We publish, and we rely on the community of people in the know (ie, biologists reviewing the papers of other biologists) to evaluate the results, and publish their own papers confirming or denying it. Everyone else just has to trust the latest papers. I have no doubt that a study here and there will be proved flawed, and a new study will prove more accurate. When that happens, my mindset will shift.

If you want to convince me, point me towards the studies, papers, or scientific research, and I'll check it out. That's the standard I apply to myself. It's up to someone else, whether they want

If we're going to more strictly regulate guns or add infrastructure, choosing ways that actually reduce violence in general (as well as reduce gun violence) would be the "scientific" path.

It would be one path. Agree or disagree: If there are fewer to no guns, there are fewer to no gun deaths.

Humans will always be violent. We can minimize the effect of that violence by denying them the tools to mass kill. What do you think would happen if every human had a nuke? That is why we forbid individuals from having nukes, and tightly regulate them.

By all means, work to lessen the rate of violent crime. But it's not the only avenue, nor is it apparent it would be the easiest or most expedient. Meanwhile, we have kids dying in our schools. And yes, I just made an emotional argument. I am human.

FBI numbers? Violent crime still declining: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...ime-statistics

The FBI numbers I linked to many posts ago, were to show that the majority of gun deaths where the assailant's identity was known, were revealed to be someone the victim knew. Let me go back over those numbers, in order to explain what I was trying to show:

The chart on this page shows that 43.8% of people killed by a gun, were killed by someone they knew. Only 12.3% were by a stranger. Conclusion: You are much more likely to be shot by someone you know, then a stranger.

And their murder/homicide page shows that 15,241 were murdered in 2009. They have some interesting charts breaking this down. You can see the charts by clicking the numbers at the bottom of the page, but...

67.1% of those homicides were by firearm (knives and others were at 13% each)
218, or 1.4% of those killed, were justifiable homicides via a gun. This includes Police Officers shooting someone, and a citizen shooting someone in self-defense. I had some numbers awhile back that distinguished the two, but I can't find them at the moment.

So, out of all the murders/homicides in a single year, only 1.4% were done in order to save a life or lives. This is one of the justifications gun rights people use to say we should have guns: to protect people. But those 218 justifiable shootings came at the costs of 15,000 other lives.

I cannot, in good conscience, say that is a good cost. Each justifiable shooting would have to have saved at least 10 lives, for it to be worth it, and I'll grant that we may never know. And remember, the number of citizen self-defenses cases is less than 218, as that number contains police offices, too (which are a much higher rate).

That is why I initially brought out those FBI numbers. Despite violent crime falling, there is still a greater chance of us being shot by someone we know, because they have a gun or have access to a gun. And it is far more likely that you will be shot, then the owner of that gun shooting someone in self-defense to save lives. GundamnFan says I am more afraid of a law-abiding person with a gun, then I am of a terrorist. He's partially right, because I am more likely to be killed by someone who takes a law-abiding person's gun, then I am by any terrorist. I have furnished the numbers to show why that is.

I'm also more likely to be struck by lightning, then killed in a terrorist attack. So I'm also more afraid of lightning than I am of a terrorist, heh.

Edit: To further expand on this, and re-include a study that actually took place near where I live:

"To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The medical examiner's case files were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim. A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Hand-guns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths. The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

Bolded part was my emphasis. You are much more likely to be shot by the gun in your home, then you are to use it to shoot an intruder.

Oh, and GundamFan, I'm not scared of guns. I fully support, and would want, police and the military to carry guns. I just don't think citizens should (or people like you). So I'm scared of people like you with guns, not the guns themselves. You aren't even applying the definition of your own term right. And actually, the term is more "irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them." You are trying to apply the former, when I am the latter.

[Kyuu]

(CNN) -- Sheriff's investigators combed through what one called a "horrific" crime scene Sunday after the shooting deaths of five people, three of them children, outside Albuquerque, New Mexico.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/20/justic...ing/index.html

NEXT!

C'mon gun advocates. Throw in your usual arguments, while we wait for the next one.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Now you're begging the question of what a dictatorship would look like in a country like the US. You must remember that everything that both Saddam did and Hitler did was LEGAL in their respective countries.
If Obama or any dictator were to assault the constitution through executive fiat they will lose the legal authority to do so and thus will not be able to inflict the kind of damage you are fantasizing about.
Perhaps you should stop wasting time here and go educate yourself about Hitler, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao and learn that they had the consent of their people to do what they did.

Not true. I can't speak for Saddam, but the Nazis did break the law on several occasions, though Hitler always kept himself very clean.

For instance the Reichstag fire was likely started by the Nazi party, and the resulting Reichstag Fire decree, which suspended German rights as follows:

"Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

It used this as an excuse to arrest their political opponents (namely the communists), and intimidate the more moderate parties into passing the Enabling act.

In all this the German people never thought to take up arms, as they were too afraid of the Communists.

As for Lenin, Stalin and Mao, they never really had the consent of their people to do anything. They came to power by force, and maintained their power by force. If Stalin wanted the collectivize the farms, the people had no choice but to obey, not because they lacked the power to resist, but because the Communists dominated any means the people would have had to coordinate with one another. Sure one peasant farming community could try to oppose the communists, but they'd just meet with overwhelming force, and would be unable to link up with any other groups that also opposed the policies of the Communists. If anyone did try to publicly oppose the communists and bring the latent opposition together, they'd find themselves in a Gulag.

Interestingly, while Communist states did tend to have some measure of gun control, every child and student was sent into military training during their time in School/University, and this still goes on in China today.

[Dr. Casey]

The characters in Wild ARMs use guns

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/20/justic...ing/index.html

NEXT!

C'mon gun advocates. Throw in your usual arguments, while we wait for the next one.

Homeowner shoots at men who break into his home
http://www.abc57.com/video/Homeowner...186927911.html

Also, the details of the story you are reporting on have yet to be release. Albuquerque is not the safest city. Just last November a guy named Jamie Vigil killed another man with a TV set and then ate portions of his face, so yeah...

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Yes, but second hand smoke is not a crime of commission, no one thinks "I'm going to roast that guy's ass with this smoke".

Good point, but if the goal or intent is to reduce the number of lives lost, then it shouldn't make any difference, otherwise you're creating a system where the lives lost via some methods are worth less than others.

Which is fine tbh, just not a view I personally subscribe to.

And, of course, it's still not a valid comparison, because we do pass laws to reduce the likelihood of those things causing deaths:

Ah, but it's the same with firearms, the key here is that you're seeking a broad ban for one, but not the other.

Most people do not have to be exposed to second hand smoke in the course of their work. Being exposed to second hand smoke is now pretty much restricted to within homes.

what about restaurants, bars, or other similar establishments? and why is the home not important? I'm sure you're not going to disregard gun deaths that occur outside of one's work place.

Drunk driving: It is an arrestable offence! We have carried out anti-drunk driving campaigns to in order to reduce drunk driving deaths

Murder with gun is also very much an arrestable offense. Why is a public awareness campaign good enough for drunk driving, but only a broad ban on guns would do for the other?

Whereas for guns, in the last 10 years, the USA has done NOTHING to try to reduce gun related deaths. In fact, what few restrictions there were have been gutted at the behest of the gun lobby, and so we are where we are at now.

Indeed we can and should do better, and that indeed does include more sensible regulation (ie. not the all-look-no-substance type like the AWB), like mandatory background checks etc, and better enforcement of existing laws (no more criminals shooting at people, and plead out with a negligent discharge instead of the attempted murder that they should get). I just disagree that gun ownership is the root cause of the problem.

@Kaijo

You realize that those FBI numbers inherently does not include cases where gun owners defended themselves without firing a shot, defending themselves, but did not hit the criminal, or only injured them? That mom in Georgia in the news a couple weeks back that shot a home invader 5 times? that one will never end up in your statistic, because the attacker lived, and the same goes for everyone else, even Vexx, which if you recall, mentioned earlier in the thread that he's had the misfortune to had to defend himself on three occasions, those are not in any record books.

As for the rest... Vexx said it better than I could, so I'll just leave it at that.

@Kyuu

You know fully well what posting of single incidents lead to - and it's nowhere near constructive

@Casey

That's it, ban Wild ARMS! (wtb WA6 damnit! )

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/20/justic...ing/index.html

NEXT!

C'mon gun advocates. Throw in your usual arguments, while we wait for the next one.

Ah, interesting. yet another case of a home being bravely defended by a law-abiding gun owner and... oh, oops, nevermind. After my statistics, that seems even more relevant.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

The characters in Wild ARMs use guns

I liked those games, though I have yet to play 4 (still working on Alter Code F, to use the save data).

Oops, I mean, I am deathly afraid of those games and their guns becomes I am a Hoplo or something.

Originally Posted by kyp275

You realize that those FBI numbers inherently does not include cases where gun owners defended themselves without firing a shot, defending themselves, but did not hit the criminal, or only injured them? That mom in Georgia in the news a couple weeks back that shot a home invader 5 times? that one will never end up in your statistic, because the attacker lived, and the same goes for everyone else, even Vexx, which if you recall, mentioned earlier in the thread that he's had the misfortune to had to defend himself on three occasions, those are not in any record books.

Okay, as soon as you get me those numbers, we can re-evaluate things. I'll be waiting. But the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence." Otherwise, I could say I defended myself with a wooden spoon once, so obviously people should be capable of defending themselves with a wooden spoon.

But to counter: We also don't have numbers on the people who were shot by an assailant and lived(or who lived but with reduced function, ie, paralysis). Most estimates I've seen usually place about 3 people injured by a gun, for every person killed. Just an estimate, but it bears out when you work the numbers on the major massacres.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

@Kyuu

You know fully well what posting of single incidents lead to - and it's nowhere near constructive

Single?

It's a Chronic Condition. How dare you forget about all the other incidents already.

EDIT: By the way, I'm a bit watching some football to really care right now.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Single?

It's a Chronic Condition. How dare you forget about all the other incidents already.

sigh, way to misconstrue what I was saying.

what I meant was exactly what I said: you post one where gun is misused, someone else will respond with one where gun was used for proper defense, and you'll end up going back and forth, in the end achieving exactly nothing.

edit: pff, you know the Patriots will win again

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Not true. I can't speak for Saddam, but the Nazis did break the law on several occasions, though Hitler always kept himself very clean.

For instance the Reichstag fire was likely started by the Nazi party, and the resulting Reichstag Fire decree, which suspended German rights as follows:

"Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

It used this as an excuse to arrest their political opponents (namely the communists), and intimidate the more moderate parties into passing the Enabling act.

That's still going about their deeds in a "legal" manner.
They passed the laws they wanted to legitimise their actions.

In all this the German people never thought to take up arms, as they were too afraid of the Communists.

Plus they supported Hitler for the most part.

As for Lenin, Stalin and Mao, they never really had the consent of their people to do anything. They came to power by force, and maintained their power by force. If Stalin wanted the collectivize the farms, the people had no choice but to obey, not because they lacked the power to resist, but because the Communists dominated any means the people would have had to coordinate with one another. Sure one peasant farming community could try to oppose the communists, but they'd just meet with overwhelming force, and would be unable to link up with any other groups that also opposed the policies of the Communists. If anyone did try to publicly oppose the communists and bring the latent opposition together, they'd find themselves in a Gulag.

And how did they maintain that force?
By having a monopoly on it.
Which is precisely why so many in the US oppose further erosion of the 2nd amendment.
They don't want any political party to have a monopoly on force.

Interestingly, while Communist states did tend to have some measure of gun control, every child and student was sent into military training during their time in School/University, and this still goes on in China today.

It is interesting, I agree.
However, having been through military training I can say that patriotism is usually what keeps soldiers from revolting.
In the US, that patriotism is directed at the constitution and bill of rights, of which, the 2nd amendment is apart.
You see DQ, if the 2nd amendment were repealed, then the dynamic of this whole issue would change.
But as it stands now, the right has been infringed far too much for any further erosion to be tolerated.
Many Americans do not feel they should have to be punished (rights stripped from them) for the actions of criminals, and I agree with that position.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by kyp275

what about restaurants, bars, or other similar establishments? and why is the home not important? I'm sure you're not going to disregard gun deaths that occur outside of one's work place.

In many European countries that i have been have laws against smoking in public locations and many other places like restaurants. Also goverments don't care what you do in your home, because if you do smoke there then you are responsible for harming people you know compared to for example smoking in a restaurant when you are harming people that you don't know.
Which will probably make the smoker more conscious what his actions leads to, eventhough this does not work in practice.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Murder with gun is also very much an arrestable offense. Why is a public awareness campaign good enough for drunk driving, but only a broad ban on guns would do for the other?

Because a car is not immediately associated by hurting/killing people, while a firearm does? (i assume that the primariy usage for a car is transport) Also i am sure that there are more people in the world who own a car than a firearm (not sure if this is true in the US)

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by hyl

In many European countries that i have been have laws against smoking in public locations and many other places like restaurants. Also goverments don't care what you do in your home, because if you do smoke there then you are responsible for harming people you know compared to smoking in a restaurant when you are harming people that you don't know.

Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, elaborate?

Because a car is not immediately associated by hurting/killing people, while a firearm does? (i assume that the primariy usage for a car is transport) Also i am sure that there are more people in the world who own a car than a firearm

Uh, the item in question here isn't cars, but rather alcohol. Moreover, I would much prefer to have laws that are based on logic and facts, rather than public perception.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, elaborate?

Weren't we talking about the smoking area restriction in many locations and why there aren't laws against it at home?

Originally Posted by kyp275

Uh, the item in question here isn't cars, but rather alcohol. Moreover, I would much prefer to have laws that are based on logic and facts, rather than public perception.

The problem is, cars nor alcohol alone will cause drunk driving. I don't care how much alcohol someone has in his blood if he isn't driving, nor do i care when someone is driving without drinking any alcohol.
Using your logic of banning alcohol, tobacco, we should also ban most people's primary way of transport because of the high amount of people dying in traffic.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That's still going about their deeds in a "legal" manner.
They passed the laws they wanted to legitimise their actions.

Kind of debatable if it's legal , because they had control of all political power.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Pluse they supported Hitler for the most part.

Due to fear, oppression and indoctrination >_>

[Bri]

Originally Posted by hyl

The problem is, cars nor alcohol alone will cause drunk driving. I don't care how much alcohol someone has in his blood if he isn't driving, nor do i care when someone is driving without drinking any alcohol.
Using your logic of banning alcohol, tobacco, we should also ban most people's primary way of transport because of the high amount of people dying in traffic.

Still a don't-drink-while-shooting-people campaign would be comedy gold

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Okay, as soon as you get me those numbers, we can re-evaluate things. I'll be waiting. But the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence." Otherwise, I could say I defended myself with a wooden spoon once, so obviously people should be capable of defending themselves with a wooden spoon.

and therein lies the problem with using crime statistics in these discussions - those numbers don't exist, period, as law enforcement agencies DON'T COLLECT THEM to begin with. There are only estimates, but that's all they are - estimates.

But to counter: We also don't have numbers on the people who were shot by an assailant and lived(or who lived but with reduced function, ie, paralysis).

Why wouldn't they? unless the people who were shot treated themselves at home, the hospital would'e notified the police, at which point they would be logged.

Here's what the FBI have to say about using their statistics:

Originally Posted by FBI

Caution against ranking: Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use the figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.

now expand that to include multiple nations all with their own definitions and criteria....yea

Originally Posted by hyl

Weren't we talking about the smoking area restriction in many locations and why there aren't laws against it at home?

ah, I see (I KNEW this would happen!). Naw, I'm not actually advocating a ban on alcohol or smoking etc, I'm merely using them as examples to show the double standard that some have.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Ah, but it's the same with firearms, the key here is that you're seeking a broad ban for one, but not the other.

For the US I don't think a broad ban is the way forward (at least not yet). I'm neutral on whether banning "Assault Weapons" will do any good. And ideally, just as I'd have a broad ban for guns, I wouldn't be personally opposed to a broad ban of cigarettes, or maybe even alcohol (I don't smoke or drink, though I am partial to cooking alcohol in my food...). Though I don't think it would work.

what about restaurants, bars, or other similar establishments? and why is the home not important? I'm sure you're not going to disregard gun deaths that occur outside of one's work place.

Where I am Smoking has been banned from Restaurants, bars and all such establishments (and the same is true in most US states), and I think it's a great thing (I can eat without vile smell now!).

As for the home, that's different, as the home is a person's castle, and they should be able to do whatever they like in it, so long as it doesn't endanger anyone. There would be a good argument for a home smoking ban in homes where children are though, but it would be difficult to enforce.

Murder with gun is also very much an arrestable offense. Why is a public awareness campaign good enough for drunk driving, but only a broad ban on guns would do for the other?

Well, I think a public education campaign about Gun safety would be a good idea (and I believe that was one of Obama's executive orders). But guns are a bit different from alcohol, as alcohol and cars largely only cause harm in combination with one another, so the key is to prevent drinking+ driving, and the best way to do this is to have cops pull people over for breathalysers, pass laws to prevent bartenders from serving drivers excessive alcohol etc.

As for Guns, they cause harm all on their own, though they have the most potential to cause harm in combination with criminality and mental illness, which is where the focus should be starting out.

Indeed we can and should do better, and that indeed does include more sensible regulation (ie. not the all-look-no-substance type like the AWB), like mandatory background checks etc, and better enforcement of existing laws (no more criminals shooting at people, and plead out with a negligent discharge instead of the attempted murder that they should get). I just disagree that gun ownership is the root cause of the problem.

Yes, in terms of the AWB, I'm not really sure it would practically work (from what I can see, most massacres were carried out with handguns). That said, I think an important consideration is talk to Law enforcement. I'm sure their job is made a lot harder by criminals having easy access to high powered rifles.

Unfortunately, I don't hear the voice of the police much in these debates, when they're the ones who are having to face these guns on a day to day basis, they tend to get drowned out by the soccer moms on one side, and the Alex Joneses on the other.

The Police are serving their country in much the way soldiers do, but while there's much fanfare when soldiers die in the line of duty, there isn't as much thought given for men in blue. Police have to face the prospect of death in the line of duty on a regular basis due to the easy access certain criminals have to guns.