Defend your right to own a car.

[David88vert]

So living in one neighborhood in one state makes you an expert on environmental factors of criminal behaviors? LOL. Pretty small sample size you got there.

Done responding to you since you're obviously either trolling, or not serious.

His sample size is still bigger than the sample size of your telephone survey that had 43 responses.

[.blank cd]

You are either assuming that he is selling to the black market, or you are not - but you are not making that clear.

Im not assuming he's selling them to the black market. I simply said "make their way"

No smart business owner would sell weapons on the black market, and risk losing his license and going to prison, so the answer would be - the same amount, the 5000 that you stated. Supply and demand for the black market would not change, as those individuals are not purchasing firearms from the owner. You cannot say that the legal production and consumption of goods regulates the black market - they do not share the same supply and demand. That's not how economics works.

You did agree that the guns had to be manufactured from somewhere, correct? The supply on the black market HAS to directly or indirectly come from S&W, correct?

This is how economics works, bud.

[David88vert]

Im not assuming he's selling them to the black market. I simply said "make their way"

You did agree that the guns had to be manufactured from somewhere, correct? The supply on the black market HAS to directly or indirectly come from S&W, correct?

This is how economics works, bud.

You really don't have a grip on the reality of economics.

The manufacturers sell legally. Their legal sales volume does not directly impact the supply or demand of the illegal market.

If you wanted to argue a trickle-down effect, then you would see the supply eventually lower, but not likely in our lifetime. Then, the cost would rise on illegal weapons as the supply was lowered; however, that would make it more likely for another gun distributor to enter the market with imported firearms, or for a private maker to produce them, seeing the possibility of profit.

Use some critical thinking.

[David88vert]

Now, back to my earlier question that you haven't answered.
The FBI says that in GA for 2011, there were 522 murders, using 370 total firearms, of which:
326 were handguns
16 were rifles
16 were shotguns
12 were of unknown firearm type
61 were with knives
83 were with other weapons
8 were with hands, feet, etc.

The FBI does not break down the rifle number into which were bolt action, semi-auto, hunting, or assault-style, but let's assume that all of them were with AK's. Can you do the math and tell me if you are more likely to get murdered with an AK, or a knife?

In fact, for the entire US, DC, and the VI, there were 12,664 murders in 2011, with 8,583 with firearms.
323 of those were with rifles, but there were 1,659 with knives, and 728 with hands and feet. Perhaps we should cut off the hands of everyone instead?

[.blank cd]

The manufacturers sell legally. Their legal sales volume does not directly impact the supply or demand of the illegal market.

Then you don't agree that guns aren't manufactured somewhere, and that somehow the black market manufactures its own guns, is this what you're suggesting?

You know every time you tell me I don't grasp economics, I get a little chuckle, right?

[.blank cd]

Now, back to my earlier question that you haven't answered.
The FBI says that in GA for 2011, there were 522 murders, using 370 total firearms, of which:
326 were handguns
16 were rifles
16 were shotguns
12 were of unknown firearm type
61 were with knives
83 were with other weapons
8 were with hands, feet, etc.

The FBI does not break down the rifle number into which were bolt action, semi-auto, hunting, or assault-style, but let's assume that all of them were with AK's. Can you do the math and tell me if you are more likely to get murdered with an AK, or a knife?

In fact, for the entire US, DC, and the VI, there were 12,664 murders in 2011, with 8,583 with firearms.
323 of those were with rifles, but there were 1,659 with knives, and 728 with hands and feet. Perhaps we should cut off the hands of everyone instead?

You and I both know if I answer this, it's just gonna force you to accept an inevitable fact that you don't want to accept. You know this right?

[.blank cd]

...to which you will inevitably backpedal on

[David88vert]

Then you don't agree that guns aren't manufactured somewhere, and that somehow the black market manufactures its own guns, is this what you're suggesting?

You know every time you tell me I don't grasp economics, I get a little chuckle, right?

You clearly lack the ability to read and comprehend.

[David88vert]

You and I both know if I answer this, it's just gonna force you to accept an inevitable fact that you don't want to accept. You know this right?

Please answer. I will just continue to laugh at your desperation to ignore the truth.

[David88vert]

...to which you will inevitably backpedal on

You still haven't answered my original question. Seems that you are afraid that you will need to backpedal.

I give facts, you ignore them. That's pretty standard for you.

You think that legal supply from a single manufacturer is going to affect the black market? Learn:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fu...0#.UWdRvPjD99A

"According to the Justice Department, more than 1.4 million guns were stolen or lost between 2005 and 2010." Where do you think that these go to?
"According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), more than 4,000 gun stores and retailers have been targeted in the last three years, with 74,000 guns reported stolen or lost."
"An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice."

These guns are stolen - taken out of the legal and economic market - and sold via the black market - then used in crimes. No matter how you attempt to spin it, the fact is that your scenario was a bogus one from the start.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we somehow eliminated this problem, and we only have to deal with straw man purchases and corrupt FFL dealers - and yes, we can both agree that there are still quite a few of those, although it has declined since the 1990s with the increased restrictions and enforcement - both of which I support fully, as I suspect you do as well.
Even then, the purchaser is a criminal, and would get his hands on a weapon regardless of where it came from. It's just a tool - the problem is the person. And most of what they are using are handguns, not rifles. Look at the FBI statistics - there were only 16 murders using ANY rifle in GA in 2011. The bottom line is that this is the highest number possible for that period of time. Focusing on banning one type of rifle is a waste of time and resources when that is a tiny percentage of the overall problem.

[.blank cd]

Please answer. I will just continue to laugh at your desperation to ignore the truth.

Ok. I'm busy at work, so I'm not gonna fact check you at the moment. We'll assume you're able to do basic research. So we'll assume for your sake all of that's true: there were 60 murders with long guns, and 150 murders with knives and hands in the year 2011.

If we're trying to examine a policy that takes affect over time, would it or would it not be important to compare data from 2011 to a time before 2011?

[.blank cd]

You still haven't answered my original question. Seems that you are afraid that you will need to backpedal.

I give facts, you ignore them. That's pretty standard for you.

You think that legal supply from a single manufacturer is going to affect the black market? Learn:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fu...0#.UWdRvPjD99A

"According to the Justice Department, more than 1.4 million guns were stolen or lost between 2005 and 2010." Where do you think that these go to?
"According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), more than 4,000 gun stores and retailers have been targeted in the last three years, with 74,000 guns reported stolen or lost."
"An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice."

These guns are stolen - taken out of the legal and economic market - and sold via the black market - then used in crimes. No matter how you attempt to spin it, the fact is that your scenario was a bogus one from the start.

EVERY TIME you post a link, you confirm what I say! LMAO.

If S&W only makes 200k guns down from 500k, that means WalMart ordered less guns...right?

[.blank cd]

I do admire your persistence though. Even when you're clearly wrong, you never give up. I like that. Keep going though, it's fun! Lol

[David88vert]

Ok. I'm busy at work, so I'm not gonna fact check you at the moment. We'll assume you're able to do basic research. So we'll assume for your sake all of that's true: there were 60 murders with long guns, and 150 murders with knives and hands in the year 2011.

If we're trying to examine a policy that takes affect over time, would it or would it not be important to compare data from 2011 to a time before 2011?

Look up FBI Table 20 - those are the statistics. That will help you.

2011 - Table 20 - FBI — Table 20

There were 16 murders with rifles and 16 with shotguns - that is 32 if you can do basic addition, not 60. Even if you add in the 12 of unknown type, that is 44, not 60.
61 were with knives, and 8 with hands and feet. That's 69, not 150.
You might want to take basic math and reading again.


And here is 2010 - FBI — Table 20
Total murders - 527
With Rifle - 19
With Shotguns - 21
With knives - 64

Pretty consistent.

[David88vert]

EVERY TIME you post a link, you confirm what I say! LMAO.

If S&W only makes 200k guns down from 500k, that means WalMart ordered less guns...right?

Can you not understand that taking them from stores is only a portion of all of the new weapons that make their way into the black market each year? Many are stolen from homes, and have been purchased legally many, many years before.
Like I said, you're desperate.

Ok, go back to work. You making money and providing for your family is much more important that discussing something that neither of us can control.

[David88vert]

I do admire your persistence though. Even when you're clearly wrong, you never give up. I like that. Keep going though, it's fun! Lol

I'm giving FBI statistics, you aren't providing anything, and I'm wrong? LOL

[.blank cd]

Look up FBI Table 20 - those are the statistics. That will help you.

2011 - Table 20 - FBI — Table 20

There were 16 murders with rifles and 16 with shotguns - that is 32 if you can do basic addition, not 60. Even if you add in the 12 of unknown type, that is 44, not 60.
61 were with knives, and 8 with hands and feet. That's 69, not 150.
You might want to take basic math and reading again.


And here is 2010 - FBI — Table 20
Total murders - 527
With Rifle - 19
With Shotguns - 21
With knives - 64

Pretty consistent.

One year isn't enough. Lets go back to say, 1992

And I rounded up for YOUR convenience.

You said 60+ knives, 80+ other weapons, and 8 hands. Sound close enought to 150 to me. This is what YOU posted! Lol.

I already said the numbers were correct! The way you're interpreting data is flat out wrong. Lol.

[.blank cd]

I'm giving FBI statistics, you aren't providing anything, and I'm wrong? LOL

And I said the FBI stats were probably right. The way you're interpreting data is wrong.

[.blank cd]

Can you not understand that taking them from stores is only a portion of all of the new weapons that make their way into the black market each year? Many are stolen from homes, and have been purchased legally many, many years before.
Like I said, you're desperate.

Not desperate. Just taking you through the step by step process of critical thought.

[Sinfix_15]

Im not assuming he's selling them to the black market. I simply said "make their way"

You did agree that the guns had to be manufactured from somewhere, correct? The supply on the black market HAS to directly or indirectly come from S&W, correct?

This is how economics works, bud.

[.blank cd]

Do you also disagree that guns have to be manufactured from somewhere?

Or are you gonna surprise me and accept the reality that guns don't come from a magic black market fairy?

[David88vert]

One year isn't enough. Lets go back to say, 1992

And I rounded up for YOUR convenience.

You said 60+ knives, 80+ other weapons, and 8 hands. Sound close enought to 150 to me. This is what YOU posted! Lol.

I already said the numbers were correct! The way you're interpreting data is flat out wrong. Lol.

How about YOU go back and dig up the data for each year. So far, I am the only one providing anything factual - you have provided nothing other than comments from the peanut gallery.

Rounding up? You round up percentage, not FBI provide whole numbers. I didn't need anything rounded up for my convenience - I already had the real numbers.
You said, "there were 60 murders with long guns, and 150 murders with knives and hands " - 32 (rifles and shotguns combined) is a far cry from 60, and 69 (knives and hands) is a far cry from 150. I took you literally - not assuming that you meant something other than you stated.

The numbers that I gave you came straight from the FBI. There is no misinterpretation - 16 murders using rifles in 2011, and 19 in 2010 - so how much of a threat are these assault style rifles? What would Feinstein's bill really accomplish?

[David88vert]

And I said the FBI stats were probably right. The way you're interpreting data is wrong.

Explain. The numbers are pretty clear. 16 is 16 is 16, no matter how you try to convince others that it's something different.

[David88vert]

Do you also disagree that guns have to be manufactured from somewhere?

Or are you gonna surprise me and accept the reality that guns don't come from a magic black market fairy?

Guns have to be manufactured somewhere - but that does not have to be from a manufacturer inside the US under US government regulation, or from a business at all. Perhaps you are unaware of the illegal gun manufacturing in the Philippines? Perhaps you should download the recent documentary episode of Vice S01E01. It was on last week.

Guns aren't rocket science or nuclear weapons. Just as when Prohibition was implemented, if you banned making guns, people would just make them illegally. As long as there is profit to be made, someone will try to make it, even if they must risk breaking the law.

Even with guns made by licensed gun manufacturers, they are not selling them to criminals. They sell them to FFL dealers, who then make their sales. Those dealers are regulated and are supposed to only sell to legal individuals who pass background checks. Why should these citizens who legally purchase their firearms be targeted by government legislation INSTEAD of criminals who illegally obtain and use these tools? Use your head and think rationally and tell me how Feinstein's bill will lower crime statistics when it only targets legal sales? Criminals go to the black market because they can't go through the legal process of procuring a firearm. Is that too hard for you to understand? When these criminals commit a serious crime like murder, they overwhelmingly go for a handgun, instead of a rifle, so why are we only talking about legislation against assault style rifles?

[.blank cd]

How about YOU go back and dig up the data for each year. So far, I am the only one providing anything factual - you have provided nothing other than comments from the peanut gallery.

I'm trying to teach you how to interpret data! I want you to provide the data so I can show you what to do with it, so that we can take the accuracy of the numbers out of the equation.

Ex: If I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of drivers licensing on car accidents, do you think it's important to know how many plane crashes there were in one particular year?

Why do you think it's important to know how many knife stabbings and knockouts there were in one particular year if I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of stringent restrictions of guns on gun crime, unless you're seriously advocating for knife and hand restriction?

Knife data is a red herring. It means nothing in this discussion.

One year of crime data says absolutely nothing if you're trying to determine the effectiveness of a particular policy over time. If I want to examine a new assault weapons ban, I want to look at the last ban, a couple years before it was implemented up until a couple years after it went away.

If you want to discuss knife restrictions/control, we'll need another thread

[David88vert]

I'm trying to teach you how to interpret data! I want you to provide the data so I can show you what to do with it, so that we can take the accuracy of the numbers out of the equation.

Ex: If I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of drivers licensing on car accidents, do you think it's important to know how many plane crashes there were in one particular year?

Why do you think it's important to know how many knife stabbings and knockouts there were in one particular year if I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of stringent restrictions of guns on gun crime, unless you're seriously advocating for knife and hand restriction?

Knife data is a red herring. It means nothing in this discussion.

One year of crime data says absolutely nothing if you're trying to determine the effectiveness of a particular policy over time. If I want to examine a new assault weapons ban, I want to look at the last ban, a couple years before it was implemented up until a couple years after it went away.

If you want to discuss knife restrictions/control, we'll need another thread

I've shown you where to go get the data - so you can go get it.
I lived through the last assault weapons ban - as an adult. You wouldn't know anything about that though.

[.blank cd]

Guns have to be manufactured somewhere - but that does not have to be from a manufacturer inside the US under US government regulation, or from a business at all. Perhaps you are unaware of the illegal gun manufacturing in the Philippines? Perhaps you should download the recent documentary episode of Vice S01E01. It was on last week.

If you want to discuss the implications of the UN Arms trade treaty, that's another thread.

Guns aren't rocket science or nuclear weapons. Just as when Prohibition was implemented, if you banned making guns, people would just make them illegally.

This is a straw man. You're arguing from a position that doesn't exist. Banning doesn't explicitly mean illegal, and it doesn't mean someone's coming door to door taking what you have.

Even with guns made by licensed gun manufacturers, they are not selling them to criminals. They sell them to FFL dealers, who then make their sales. Those dealers are regulated and are supposed to only sell to legal individuals who pass background checks. Why should these citizens who legally purchase their firearms be targeted by government legislation INSTEAD of criminals who illegally obtain and use these tools? Use your head and think rationally and tell me how Feinstein's bill will lower crime statistics when it only targets legal sales? Criminals go to the black market because they can't go through the legal process of procuring a firearm. Is that too hard for you to understand? When these criminals commit a serious crime like murder, they overwhelmingly go for a handgun, instead of a rifle, so why are we only talking about legislation against assault style rifles?

imagine for 5 minutes that Feinstein is making an effort to get the other side to come to the center of the discussion. Does it make more sense now?

[David88vert]

If you want to discuss the implications of the UN Arms trade treaty, that's another thread.

This is a straw man. You're arguing from a position that doesn't exist. Banning doesn't explicitly mean illegal, and it doesn't mean someone's coming door to door taking what you have.

imagine for 5 minutes that Feinstein is making an effort to get the other side to come to the center of the discussion. Does it make more sense now?

You have no idea what you are talking about. We currently receive arms from other countries. Do you think that all of our guns are made in the US currently?

Study history - its not straw man, and it is happening now in other countries. Learn from other's mistakes.
banning - the act of prohibiting by law
prohibit - to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law
forbid - to prohibit (something); make a rule or law against
Seems pretty clear to the Justice Dept and myself - you just seem confused.

No one is coming door to door as they don't know where all of them are. They just want to register them first, then take them when you die - or when they decide that you aren't fit to own one anymore. Are you aware that the police decided that MLK Jr wasn't fit to own a firearm? Trust the authorities?

Feinstein is not trying to meet in the middle. She is looking to immediately reinstate her previous assault-style weapons ban, and continue to push for a complete firearms ban - as she has clearly stated since before you were born. I remember the previous ban - you need to learn about it. That bill was written and prompted by her as well.

[.blank cd]

You have no idea what you are talking about. We currently receive arms from other countries. Do you think that all of our guns are made in the US currently?

Study history - its not straw man, and it is happening now in other countries. Learn from other's mistakes.
banning - the act of prohibiting by law
prohibit - to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law
forbid - to prohibit (something); make a rule or law against
Seems pretty clear to the Justice Dept and myself - you just seem confused.

No one is coming door to door as they don't know where all of them are. They just want to register them first, then take them when you die - or when they decide that you aren't fit to own one anymore. Are you aware that the police decided that MLK Jr wasn't fit to own a firearm? Trust the authorities?

Feinstein is not trying to meet in the middle. She is looking to immediately reinstate her previous assault-style weapons ban, and continue to push for a complete firearms ban - as she has clearly stated since before you were born. I remember the previous ban - you need to learn about it. That bill was written and prompted by her as well.

Is Sinfix back in here?

[David88vert]

Is Sinfix back in here?

As I said, you offer neither substance, nor facts. You do not answer any questions with logic or reason.

[Sinfix_15]

Democrats think its ok to dry up the gun market to reduce availability of guns to criminals. While i do not want guns in the hands of criminals, i dont want my access limited in any way at all to accomplish this task. The reason no gun control legislation at all can be accepted is because it only serves as a foot in the door for a bunch of politicians who will spend the rest of their lives trying to make america gun free period.... not just take guns away from criminals.

The bottom line is..... it doesnt matter what the law or rule of gun transfer is.... criminals dont give a shit. You know this.... but you're ok with just attacking the gun market as a whole to weaken criminal supply.

[Sinfix_15]

Is Sinfix back in here?

No need for us to gang up on you, it only takes one of us to make you look stupid. When David started up on you, i called it a night.... mercy stoppage.

[.blank cd]

No need for us to gang up on you, it only takes one of us to make you look stupid. When David started up on you, i called it a night.... mercy stoppage.

Unfortunately, you both are failing miserably.

[David88vert]

Unfortunately, you both are failing miserably.

You are the only person that believes that, but then, we've already established that you're delusional.

You want data back to 1992? Go get it yourself, we know that you won't as it would prove you wrong.

Here's something to chew on though:
In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.
Since the inception of the Brady Act (1994), over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000).
Among the 21 state agencies that reported reasons for denial, a felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason to deny an application in 2010 (31%). A state law prohibition (16%) was the second most common reason (excluding other prohibitions).

I have all of the FBI and DOJ statistics, and the numbers support what I have been stating. You have presented nothing, as you have no data to support your opinions.

You never answered, how does 16 not equal 16?

[Sinfix_15]

Even if you submit to the point he's trying to make, it's still stupid.

[.blank cd]

You want data back to 1992? Go get it yourself, we know that you won't as it would prove you wrong.

Here's something to chew on though:
In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.
Since the inception of the Brady Act (1994), over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000).
Among the 21 state agencies that reported reasons for denial, a felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason to deny an application in 2010 (31%). A state law prohibition (16%) was the second most common reason (excluding other prohibitions).

What point are you trying to make with all that? Get. To. The. Point.

I have all of the FBI and DOJ statistics, and the numbers support what I have been stating. You have presented nothing, as you have no data to support your opinions.

I haven't posted an opinion at all. Could you go back and quote what you believe was my opinion?

You never answered, how does 16 not equal 16?

I never answered because the question was never raised. Who said 16 doesn't equal 16?

[David88vert]

What point are you trying to make with all that? Get. To. The. Point.

I haven't posted an opinion at all. Could you go back and quote what you believe was my opinion?

I never answered because the question was never raised. Who said 16 doesn't equal 16?

You stated that I was misinterpreting the data when I simply posted the FBI numbers. I asked you to explain - you never did. Re-read what you just stated. The question was raised, and you posted an opinion that I was misinterpreting the data. Once again, you show that you lack the ability to read and comprehend.
BTW - I asked you a question several times yesterday -- you never answered, just ignored. Again, the question was raised, you just couldn't or wouldn't answer it.

[.blank cd]

You stated that I was misinterpreting the data when I simply posted the FBI numbers.

I said the all the data was correct and I wasnt going to fact-check you, did I not?

The question was raised, and you posted an opinion that I was misinterpreting the data.

Here is the penultimate question: Assuming the data is 100% correct, are you suggesting that gun control doesn't/wont work because there were 150 murders with knives/hands/other in 2011?

OR

Are you suggesting that knife/hand control is something we should seriously examine?

[Sinfix_15]

I said the all the data was correct and I wasnt going to fact-check you, did I not?

Here is the penultimate question: Assuming the data is 100% correct, are you suggesting that gun control doesn't/wont work because there were 150 murders with knives/hands/other in 2011?

OR

Are you suggesting that knife/hand control is something we should seriously examine?

Guns are knife and hand control, someone attacks you with a knife or hands, a gun neutralizes them. While your grandmother, wife, daughter, sister are completely helpless against an attack from hands and knives.... a gun gives them a fighting chance.

Question: can you limit the supply of guns to criminals without limiting the supply of guns to citizens?
Are you willing to limit the supply of guns to citizens to limit the supply of guns to criminals?
Do you think background checks will have any effect on the transfer of guns between criminals or is it simply part of limiting access overall?
How many years do you estimate it would take for guns to be rare in america?

Assuming that every law abiding citizen who says "from my cold dead hands" actually means it, do you think the number of "cold dead hands" would be more or less than the current number of people murdered by guns?

[David88vert]

I said the all the data was correct and I wasnt going to fact-check you, did I not?

Here is the penultimate question: Assuming the data is 100% correct, are you suggesting that gun control doesn't/wont work because there were 150 murders with knives/hands/other in 2011?

OR

Are you suggesting that knife/hand control is something we should seriously examine?

I'm saying to look at the numbers, and use rational and logical thinking, rather than emotion, to write laws.

If you read the data, murders committed with a rifle as the tool of choice is consistently one of the lowest calculated numbers. You are far more likely to be killed via a handgun, but the current legislation is not addressing handguns, only rifles which are used far less in the commission of a murder than knives or baseball bats. Feinstein knows that she will not be able to restrict handgun ownership, knife ownership, or baseball bat ownership, and thus is not making public safety her top concern, as she is targeting the weapons that she feels that she can get a possible ban on, instead of focusing efforts and tax dollars on the appropriate concerns. This is not how we should be using Congressional efforts.

If public safety was really a top concern, assault style rifles would not be the focus. Instead, Congress would be focusing it's efforts to prevent individuals from utilizing any tool/weapon by addressing the source of the issue - individual people.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a lot of violence using assault style weapons. Gangster rap and video promoted the lifestyle of having firepower on you pretty much 24x7. I know, I lived through that period. Once Tupac and Biggie were murdered, the government targeted a lot of gangs, including the Bloods and Crips, and locked up a lot of them. Even here in Atlanta, the gang task force did raids on Buford Hwy. I witnessed this, you were still too young to know about it. Locking up a lot of these gang members did a lot to reduce the desire of young people to join these gangs, and once the daily dose of firearms being promoted on TV went away, you saw that young people just didn't think about wanting a gun as much.
If you want to have a lasting impact, you have to address the right place - the minds of people, not the tools that they use.