Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.
This is simply not a stance that i agree with. It is an option that are forefathers were aware of when they disagreed with it. To me, thinking it is an option is offensive. When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous. Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.