Fully automatic assault knife.

TimonC346: Fissile: I'm guessing subby is being ironic, unfortunately, this is exactly the the kind of  "logic" employed by the NRA and Tea-Party types.  To wit, "People will kill each other with knives, hammers, chainsaws or beanbag chairs, so there's no reason to ban guns."

I know. This drives me nuts--if you ramp up the weapon just a little bit--say, to a tank--and ask, should we allow people who are clinically insane operate tanks?

The level of damage the object can inflict is important in these issues. I'm less worried about a psychopath with a wad of newspaper than I am of one with an assault rife. Stop playing the "it's only the psychopath" card. That argument is horrible.

A recognized class of mental illness drives individuals to be violent, with whatever means they can get ahold of.
People who wish to commit crimes will use whatever means are expedient to their ends.

Why is it so hard to understand that while you may reduce the body count by restricting the objects USED, you'll reduce the actual incidents of crime by seeking to stop the individual, and thus effort made to resolve the issues of people are of greater import than attempts to pass laws that do little to affect the types of changes you're arguing we need them for?

There's a lot of NRA executives out there, praying desperately that at least one person dies from this, so they can start their "SEE, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!ONE" campaign anew.

Otherwise, people might start comparing notes on knife-assaults and gun-assaults and realize that not all weapons are equally dangerous.

ShadowkahnCRX: Publikwerks: Listen, you can try and make this out to be an Obama joke, or try and make out knives to be more dangerous than a gun somehow, but the fact of the matter is that this is what Sandy Hook would  have been like had we had no second amendment and all firearms were banned or highly regulated.

Kepp making your jokes. Obviously, it's not too high a price.

And if we had no 5th amendment, a lot of criminals would be compelled to testify against themselves instead of being allowed to remain silent so that they get acquitted and released back into society to victimize more people.

While I'm fairly neutral on the whole "ban guns" issue (I don't believe the 2nd guarantees unfettered rights to weapon ownership, but I also don't believe a gun ban would be in any way effective) arguing that getting rid of an amendment would make some situations better and therefore it should be gotten rid of is jumping the (heh) gun a bit. If pressed I can probably come up with an unintended harmful consequence of every amendment in the Bill of Rights, and for that matter every clause in the Constitution, but such examples would not be sufficient evidence that the offending clause needs to be removed.

There is a point at which one must concede that bad things happen,  and that bad people do bad things, and that we will always have a nonzero number of homicides, no matter what we do. To that end, I'd rather personally accept the risk to myself of having a firearm around balanced against the very real reasons to have one  than be told by someone that I can't own them, or should have to go through a lot of hoops to own one, because someone somewhere might do something bad with them.

Too many people do bad shiat with a variety of implements for me to believe that just because they can be used to do evil means they should be taken away. I'm not a child.

udhq: Bravo Two: No, I'm pretty sure that violence in all forms are spurr of the moment acts, and I'm pretty sure that they occur, regardless. Guns make for convenience. They do not change the impulse towards violence. A guy who has an urge to harm his wife may be inclined to use a gun because it's there, but that doesn't mean he isn't still inclined to hurt his wife if the gun's removed, and I wish people would stop singling out gun violence as though every other kind of violence is a non-issue. It's both sickening and retarded.

And, frankly, by your logic, I'm okay with a person having to fill out a form three days in advance of voting in order to obtain the right to do so if it means any number of piss-poor laws are prevented by electing stupid candidates.

We may come to a conclusion as to what firearms are available to own and which must be restricted, but forcing impediments to even exercise my right in the manner that I see fit (presuming it is within the bounds of established law) is no different than forcing impediments on my right to free speech and the manner I exercise it (within the bounds of the law/not causing harm to others), or vote.

You act as though the 2nd Amendment is a right only in the abstract and free to be impugned at your leisure, simply because you don't agree with it.

I feel badly about violence as well as you do, but I don't for a moment suppose that it is better to diminish the rights of the man so that the few might be hindered as opposed to doing everything in my power to see that those elements that are at the root of the behavior are combated.

The argument that violence and gun violence should be treated as indistinguishable is hard to swallow in a thread about 14 people who are alive only because their attacker did not have immediate access to a firearm.

That said, the courts have long established that the right to bear arms is not absolute--see: the government's legitimate interest in infringing upon your right to bear nuclear arm ...

I have to ask, do you think those 14 people, if asked, would say "Gee, I'm so glad that he had a knife rather than a gun?" Or do you think all of them are going to be pretty goddamn pissed that they got attacked at all? I don't think those people that got attacked would be willing to have such a desire to differentiate violence from *gun* violence.

As to your argument about the general welfare clause, I could equally argue that immediate access to a firearm is in the best interests of the general welfare of the citizenry based on the significant number of cases per year where a person used a firearm in self defense against a crime, whether by actually using it, or simply introducing it into the situation causing the antagonist to cease his activities.

So, assuming the generally published statistic of 1+ million people having to have used a firearm in some fashion to defend themselves, does that not balance against those who were victims of people using them against others in a malicious manner?

lennavan: Bravo Two: No, I'm pretty sure that violence in all forms are spurr of the moment acts, and I'm pretty sure that they occur, regardless.

Here I am, in this thread, arguing with citations, data and actual evidence.  And you're arguing with "I'm pretty sure."

Holy fark, this is the ultimate battle of imagination vs. reality.

Bravo Two: but forcing impediments to even exercise my right in the manner that I see fit (presuming it is within the bounds of established law) is no different than forcing impediments on my right to free speech and the manner I exercise it (within the bounds of the law/not causing harm to others), or vote.

Because you know, there's a huge epidemic of free-speech and voting related deaths in the country.  That's how you know these things are the same.

Fark you're stupid.  Your Boobies started out seeming so well thought through.  What the fark happened?

You know, I was about to post a knee-jerk reaction to you that would reference ancedotal experiences and other data that doesn't link to what i'm trying to say, and I can't argue with your citations and data, and I'll let the argument stand. You may even think me an imbecile, because i argue a position based on what i reasonably believe, which seems to be pretty inaccurate.

So, let me leave it at this: I understand your position, and I see what you have to say. However, as I stated in my second paragraph, I don't agree with the impugning of rights of the many based on the misdeeds of people. I believe that people are independently responsible for their own actions and that if we want to help people, we should be willing to do so in more meaningful ways than what some propose in the way of removing or restricting guns.

It has nothing to do with data, it has nothing to do with any implied scholarly position on anything, other than my refusal to have my rights tied to the actions of another individual.

I have also said in other threads on this topic that I'm willing to accept reasonable steps that we should be doing anyway: universal background checks. Better policing of dealers and cracking down on straw purchases. Finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  I will accept all of the measures that are reasonable and do not impugn my ability to exercise my rights.

As to the arguments about semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s, I abstain from the argument. I like my AR-15, it's useful for hunting certain game, and certain kinds of target shooting, and I really like shooting it on occasion, but it is neither necessary nor really a weapon I find fun to use frequently, and have often considered getting rid of it just because I don't know that it warrants owning just because I can or it has a convenient use for me.  That doesn't equate to me saying other people can't own them if they want to, but I may or may not really want to own one.

It's not my place to tell another person what is and isn't right for him to own. I don't agree with a lot of things other people do, but it's not my place to try and legislate them into compliance with my world view.

lennavan: Of farking course we do. What the fark does that have to do with anything?

Well, I'll tell you what it has to do with anything. It's a statistic that gets trotted out in these discussions as though it's significant. On the surface, it has the effect on some would-be gun owners and/or supporters of the 2nd Amendment that they might see that correlation and say "nope, not worth it".

However, I would be willing to bet that if you brought out the same basic argument that ownership/use of a vehicle correlates to higher incidence of having auto accidents, then a percentage of people would go "well, no, not going to buy a car then!" just based on that fact.

It's frankly dishonest, because you're using a skewed logic to stretch that somehow the statistics of gun-related death or injury of all gun owners correlates to statistics of how many gun owners are likely to be involved in a violent crime, which would be a more logical, in my opinion, statistic to throw out there because if owning guns could be shown to increase your risk of actually being involved in a crime/attack/whatever, rather than just the nebulous "gun related injury/death", it would mean that not owning a gun reduced the very thing that owning the gun was designed to defend against.

Also, you DO keep arguing about the role that guns play in suicide, and you turn around and ignore or downplay it when called on that very position with questions as to how the rates are affected by alternatives to simply removing guns compared to other approaches.

Let's say for the sake of argument that in Washington DC, instead of banning handguns, they enacted a program whereby anyone who discussed suicidal desires was involuntarily hospitalized for treatment, and were given full medical care and intervention before they manifested in acting on their impulse.   If that meant the rate of suicide went from 2.6 to, say, 1.1, that would be a far more significant drop than simply 2.6 to 2.0 by removing the guns.

And this is where my argument comes into play: guns are a MEANS to suicide, they are not a CAUSE to suicide. Removing the gun may or may not reduce suicides as people don't have other options as easy, but that doesn't change the cause behind their desire.

So, you may disagree with me on this, and that's fine. But I will not agree or accept that "yes, banning guns is a good thing because it prevents suicides", any more than I will agree that banning short skirts, makeup, and other means of making a woman dress sexily will prevent rape.

udhq: Violence and gun violence are 2 distinct issues with 2 distinct sets of solutions.

Violent crime as a whole is on a huge downward trend over the postwar period, and there are a variety of reasons for that: economic prosperity, legalized abortion, and medical/environmental factors in behavioral disorders (recent research suggests that unleaded gasoline may be a social "silver bullet".) Overall. we are a much less violent society than we were 50, 100 years ago. I would consider this an argument in favor of further gun restrictions, but that's an argument for another day...

But gun violence as a proportion of violent crime remains persistently high, and in some cases is on an upward trend.

A focus on mental healthcare suggests a fundamental misunderstanding that violence is a rational conclusion. It's not. 70% of suicide attempts are taken on an impulse, action occurring within an hour of ideation. I would suggest that this is probably also the case for other kinds of violence. I tend to believe that incidences of planned violence are the exception rather than the norm. And this is where some common sense speed bumps to acquiring firearms can be effective.

People have a right to bear arms, but not any kind of an entitlement to convenience. If you have to fill out a form 3 days before your hunting trip to get your rifle, well, I'm ok with that, if it means any number of domestic disputes will not escalate to murders in the heat of the moment.

No, I'm pretty sure that violence in all forms are spurr of the moment acts, and I'm pretty sure that they occur, regardless. Guns make for convenience. They do not change the impulse towards violence. A guy who has an urge to harm his wife may be inclined to use a gun because it's there, but that doesn't mean he isn't still inclined to hurt his wife if the gun's removed, and I wish people would stop singling out gun violence as though every other kind of violence is a non-issue. It's both sickening and retarded.

And, frankly, by your logic, I'm okay with a person having to fill out a form three days in advance of voting in order to obtain the right to do so if it means any number of piss-poor laws are prevented by electing stupid candidates.

We may come to a conclusion as to what firearms are available to own and which must be restricted, but forcing impediments to even exercise my right in the manner that I see fit (presuming it is within the bounds of established law) is no different than forcing impediments on my right to free speech and the manner I exercise it (within the bounds of the law/not causing harm to others), or vote.

You act as though the 2nd Amendment is a right only in the abstract and free to be impugned at your leisure, simply because you don't agree with it.

I feel badly about violence as well as you do, but I don't for a moment suppose that it is better to diminish the rights of the man so that the few might be hindered as opposed to doing everything in my power to see that those elements that are at the root of the behavior are combated.

And just because I *hate* the whole statistic of "you are x times more likely to have a gun hurt you if you own/are around one" being thrown around, do we have any statistics on how likely you are to die in an automobile accident if you own one vs. not? Or Incidents of rape if you dress provocatively or not?

/yes, this is a "Troll" post, because I find that arguing the significance of rise in threat from an object just by proximity to be stupid for a gun when the same basic correlation exists for just about any item you can name, based on the pure fact that It's beyond obvious that if an object doesn't exist in your world, barring outside introduction by a second party, chances are pretty damn slim that one will just suddenly appear to hurt you.

lennavan: Bravo Two: Besides, Japan and other countries have a much higher incidence of suicide with a much lower gun ownership rate. How do you figure that, if it's just a matter of a gunmaking it convenient?

You simply cannot be suggesting I might think suicide is solely a function of access to guns, can you?

No, i'm simply pointing out that it's silly to argue that the removal of a tool used for suicide automatically permanently reduces the number, because in other cases where that tool is not available, the rates are as high as or higher. And, I suspect, once the initial change has worn off and people need to be more creative or look at other alternatives to commit their deed, the numbers will go back up again, just with other means being used.

udhq: To my knowledge, no one is suggesting it is an either/or between gun access reforms and mental healthcare.

I do, however, find myself having this same argument with a lot of people who spent the last 4 years fighting the expansion of mental healthcare in the ACA.

From all the people who failed to support healthcare reform--including the NRA--the mental healthcare argument is merely a smokescreen, a roundabout way of arguing that we should do nothing to address the issue of gun violence.

I, personally, am arguing that it's a very real issue that affects far more americans in far more ways than gun violence, which is already declining, and that the ratio of gun control : mental healthcare/resolving the causative issues of gun violence should be much more weighted towards the latter.

Frankly, I'm disinterested in addressing any kind of violence or problem merely by bandaiding the means to commit it. I'm more interested in resolving the problem by seeking out and treating what caused the person to go that route in the first place.

But, as I said upthread, It's far easier and simpler for people to combat the problems by simply removing the tools with which the problem manifests, rather than fighting the root, because that would take more effort and much more introspection and long-term planning, along with a fundamental shift in society's views about being committed to actually helping each other. It's much more simplistic to simply say "nope, you don't get to have a gun" and wipe their hands of the mess, even if that didn't really fix the individual.  And THAT pisses me off, as does half-assing ANY solution.

I wouldn't, for example, go into a house with a leaking roof that caused rot in ceiling plaster and beams and simply replace the plaster with waterproof stuff and say "there, now the roof can't cave in or rot because the materials aren't subject to it!" and figure I'd fixed the problem. The leak's still there, it just can't damage those particular items.

Likewise, I wouldn't look at my kid who liked to beat the dog for fun and say "Gee, well, I'll just get rid of the dog, so then he can't beat it!" instead of saying "Gee, my kid's farked up and needs help".

But, sure, let's continue to ignore the problems of the individual person and instead be a society that just keeps restricting things because we're afraid of the tool and not the wielder.

lennavan: Bravo Two: Honestly? because if someone wants to commit suicide, they will commit suicide

That's a fundamentally incorrect view of suicide.  Much like pretty much everything, you need both means and motive.  Just because someone has the motive to kill themselves, does not mean they will actually do it.  If you ban handguns, suicide rates go down.  As it turns out, it's a teensie bit easier to kill yourself with a gun than it is with something else, so the bar to suicide is a bit lower with a gun.

And if i'm committed to killing myself, then I'll do what I have to do.

Besides, Japan and other countries have a much higher incidence of suicide with a much lower gun ownership rate. How do you figure that, if it's just a matter of a gunmaking it convenient? Wouldn't that mean that the US should be the highest rate in suicides, simply because we have the highest number of guns?

vrax: lennavan: phenn: lennavan: I agree you have a right to defend your life. I agree with your right to own a firearm to defend yourself. I don't agree with your pretending like it is the only or best method to do so. You own a gun, you are therefore significantly more likely to die from a gun. That's fine, that's your choice to make. I get it, you'd rather have a higher chance of dying as a result of your own actions than a lower chance of dying where you can't do anything about it. It's about maintaining power instead of being helpless. I completely get it.

But there's just no way you can make a societal argument guns are the best method of defense. It's a personal choice

Okay. Name a better tool that is legal for me to own.

Why don't you drop your raged up defense of guns for just a second and re-read what I just posted.  I cannot name a better tool for you to own.  For your own personal situation, a gun is the best.  You're okay with a higher chance of death in return for increasing the chance you control the situation.  Fine.  But for others, maximizing their chances of survival defines what is better so owning a farking toothbrush or a candy bar instead would be better.

He just doesn't understand these things:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

We all by now agree that having an object increases the risk that that object may be involved in something bad happening to us. I'm more likely to get in a car accident if I own/drive a car. I'm more likely to get bitten by a dog if I own a dog than if I don't.

However, isn't it just a wee bit disingenuous to assume correlation = causation and ignore every other factor? Because I'm pretty sure if we continue with that logic, we could pretty much correlate availability of doughnuts and fast food with obesity rates, too.

justtray: Are you trolling or just a moron?

You think the right to not quarter soldiers in peacetime is of equal importance to the 1st? or 2nd?

So if they are equal, you're clearly not opposed to registering all weapons, just like you have to register to vote then right?

Idiot.


Speaking of idiots have you looked in the mirror Lately?

Yes they are all equal; but your false equivalency isn't.

When you vote do they record who you vote for? Didn't think so; registering to vote is like the background check when you purchase a firearm, it verifies that you are legally able to exercise that right, it has nothing to do with the govt. keeping track of how you exercise that right, like gun registration does. See the difference Moron?

<i>justtray: We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

I've been a proponent of imposing a 5% tax on guns and ammunition sales in this country specifically to fund mental health care initiatives. Further, a percentage of a nominal (sub-$50) fee on background checks from everyone could be used as well.</i>


OK lets really fund it!

We can have a 50.00 dollar fee on ballots and we can also charge for voter registration CA-CHING!
Then to insure we have enough lets do a say a penny a word "mental health" surcharge on all media,including sights like FARK you know it is important to fund this and really what is a couple of dollars when it is for the good of the Nation.

Please don't give me any of that "but the Constitution" Crap either since it only shows you want to not help the mentally ill!

sodomizer: May, 2013: Killer uses rock and stick to bash four peoples' heads in.

June, 2013: Congress introduces background checks for gravel and stone purchases, and a tree registration program.

You're so clever.

udhq: Bravo Two: Now subtract roughly 60% of that number which are suicides...

Why?

Are we supposed to ignore the well-established fact that gun bans significant cut suicide rates?

Why should we draw an artificial distinction between a behavioral disease violently attacking others versus it's own host body?

Honestly? because if someone wants to commit suicide, they will commit suicide, and for those who choose to do so because they are suffering from a physical condition that they have no way to cure, they should be allowed to do so. Further, I absolutely believe that if you wish to end your life, that is your choice as an adult, but you should attend counseling with your family members first so you understand the implications of the decision.

Why should we stigmatize suicide when there are legitimate reasons to do it, to the point of using it as a strawman to inflate gun-related death rates to argue for gun control, when it's an issue that hardly involves guns and is more about the problems the person is suffering from?

CrazyCracka420: If only the victims had knives this would have never happened

Deep Contact: There wasn't one good guy with a knife around?

Satanic_Hamster: This would never have happened in a more gun friendly state.

fireclown: The only way to stop this is with more guns and knives.

/getting a kick

Lonestar: Hey guys whats going on in this thread?

/LOL

mbillips: Dimensio: mbillips: You don't have to be in favor of assault weapons bans, though, to be annoyed by the blatant lying by their defenders. Face it, idiots want .223 ARs so that they can pretend to be ready for guerilla warfare, and their proliferation makes the lone nut gunman that seems increasingly prevalent a bit more dangerous. There are much better guns for hunting and target shooting. Admit that it's a toy that you don't want taken away because you like your toy, and quit claiming there's any compelling reason for people to own semi-auto versions of military rifles, chambered in a varmint cartridge.

Please identify rifle models chambered in .223 Remington better suited for hunting and target shooting than the AR platform. Please explain why, if I wish to "pretend to be ready for guerrilla warfare", that I have modified my AR rifle to fire .22LR caliber ammunition and explain why I own no .223 Remington caliber ammunition.

Here's 44 of them. Most states limit the number of rounds you can have in the magazine when hunting, so the AR is particularly ill-suited for sporting use. And the fact that you modified an AR, rather than buying a Ruger 1022 in the first place, pretty much proves the "pretend" appeal of that platform. I didn't say you were actually prepping for guerilla warfare.

How do those firearms differ, functionally, from an AR-15 platform rifle, assuming identical magazine capacity? Are you unaware that magazines of capacities of ten or fewer rounds of ammunition are available for AR-15 pattern rifles?

I modified an AR-15, rather than purchase a Ruger 1022, because I already owned the AR-15 (intending to use it for outdoor target shooting) and a 22LR conversion kit was less expensive than was purchase of a new firearm.

stonicus: Not a doctor?  Shut up about your broken leg!

POSSIBLE broken leg. You cannot say that, because you are NOT a doctor, Sir. You are not qualified to say what that bone sticking out actually is.

mbillips: Registration doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, either. Registration is actually pretty sensible, because it allows cops to trace guns used in crimes. Unobtrusive, too; all they'd have to do is not throw away the background check info. The only argument against it is herpaderp paranoia about the gun grabbers coming for your guns if they know where they are. Personally, I'd kind of like to see the cops take guns away from lunatics, convicted felons and domestic batterers. Probably save a fair number of lives.

Concerns that registration will lead to confiscation would be paranoia, had registration not previously and demonstrably led to firearm confiscation.

mbillips: You don't have to be in favor of assault weapons bans, though, to be annoyed by the blatant lying by their defenders. Face it, idiots want .223 ARs so that they can pretend to be ready for guerilla warfare, and their proliferation makes the lone nut gunman that seems increasingly prevalent a bit more dangerous. There are much better guns for hunting and target shooting. Admit that it's a toy that you don't want taken away because you like your toy, and quit claiming there's any compelling reason for people to own semi-auto versions of military rifles, chambered in a varmint cartridge.

Please identify rifle models chambered in .223 Remington better suited for hunting and target shooting than the AR platform. Please explain why, if I wish to "pretend to be ready for guerrilla warfare", that I have modified my AR rifle to fire .22LR caliber ammunition and explain why I own no .223 Remington caliber ammunition.

Publikwerks:
Lets add a third category there:

Rifles:                       323
Edged weapons:      1,694
Handguns                        7,398

So, you must obviously not have any issue with a handgun ban then?

The point is that since December the huge push has been assault rifles, those big scary rifles that are infrequently used to do horrible things, even though millions of them are owned by millions of citizens across the nation.  The push should be to keep violent and mentally unstable people from committing violent acts against one or many innocent individuals.  The problem is that is a really really damned hard job, and people are generally lazy and want to do as little work as possible - so banning shiat is the easy but ineffective answer.

TimonC346: Fissile: I'm guessing subby is being ironic, unfortunately, this is exactly the the kind of  "logic" employed by the NRA and Tea-Party types.  To wit, "People will kill each other with knives, hammers, chainsaws or beanbag chairs, so there's no reason to ban guns."

I know. This drives me nuts--if you ramp up the weapon just a little bit--say, to a tank--and ask, should we allow people who are clinically insane operate tanks?

The level of damage the object can inflict is important in these issues. I'm less worried about a psychopath with a wad of newspaper than I am of one with an assault rife. Stop playing the "it's only the psychopath" card. That argument is horrible.

He was a nut case who carried a stuffed monkey around. Current background checks worked and he couldn't buy a gun.

TimonC346: Bravo Two: TimonC346: Fissile: I'm guessing subby is being ironic, unfortunately, this is exactly the the kind of  "logic" employed by the NRA and Tea-Party types.  To wit, "People will kill each other with knives, hammers, chainsaws or beanbag chairs, so there's no reason to ban guns."

I know. This drives me nuts--if you ramp up the weapon just a little bit--say, to a tank--and ask, should we allow people who are clinically insane operate tanks?

The level of damage the object can inflict is important in these issues. I'm less worried about a psychopath with a wad of newspaper than I am of one with an assault rife. Stop playing the "it's only the psychopath" card. That argument is horrible.

A recognized class of mental illness drives individuals to be violent, with whatever means they can get ahold of.
People who wish to commit crimes will use whatever means are expedient to their ends.

Why is it so hard to understand that while you may reduce the body count by restricting the objects USED, you'll reduce the actual incidents of crime by seeking to stop the individual, and thus effort made to resolve the issues of people are of greater import than attempts to pass laws that do little to affect the types of changes you're arguing we need them for?

I don't think no one should have the right--I think arseholes like the NRA need to man up and admit that background checks don't violate the second amendment.

No, background checks don't violate the 2nd Amendment. Attempting to pass federal law to regulate in-state commerce which clearly violates the constitution and the commerce clause is.

I would almost guarantee you that if the NRA said "WE support background checks as long as they don't include mandatory registration or submission of records to federal agencies", people would find some other reason to biatch.

/I support background checks as long as that doesn't involve mandatory registration, and doesn't add a burden of making me use an FFL or pay some exorbitant sum to sell my private property...

Publikwerks: Mikey1969: mbillips: Weird, nobody was killed? I thought it was just as easy to go on a murderous rampage with a knife or baseball bat as with a semi-automatic .223 rifle.

More killed by knives than all rifles, smei-auto, "assault", etc. Included...

Rifles: 323
Edged weapons: 1,694

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

But hey, believe what you want, I guess. You've obviously been on 'selective filter' mode, anyway.

Lets add a third category there:

Rifles:                       323
Edged weapons:      1,694
Handguns                        7,398

So, you must obviously not have any issue with a handgun ban then?

Now subtract roughly 60% of that number which are suicides...

The NKA has issued a statement, "If everybody was armed with a knife, this wouldn't be a problem. The right to bear arms is not limited to guns".

But they told me if everyone had gunz this could never happen!