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.
Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.