When machetes become responsible for even 50% of homicides in America, I'll be happy to look into ways to prevent death by machete.
But a city wide law has no teeth when another city nearby allows what the first bans. That's why a NATIONAL law is necessary.
I wasn't trying to accuse you, I was simply saying that on this issue, I suppose I would fall to the left. I actually believe I fall more to the middle, because I support stricter gun control, but not outright bans of all guns.
Here's the deal about most gun owners. Most gun owners don't keep their guns for personal defense. Or, rather, they don't keep them SOLELY for personal defense. Take Alex Jones on Piers Morgan from a while back. He stated he had something like 50+ guns, is that correct? What man needs 50+ guns to protect from a home invader? None. And if the government wanted Alex Jones dead, all the legally obtainable guns in the world wouldn't protect from a missile delivered by a predator drone. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most gun owners like to point out that so many homicides in America are the result of gang violence?
The fact is many, if not most, gun owners collect guns as a hobby, a toy for enjoyment. They love to hunt with them, they love to shoot them at the firing range while BS'ing with their buddies, they love to show them off, etc. It's enjoyable for them, just as collecting technology (computers, TV, etc.) is for me. And there is NOTHING wrong with making guns a hobby. I have ZERO problem with that. It's not a hobby I would ever pursue, but neither is Beanie Babies, and those were mega popular for a while.
Can a gun be used in self-defense? Yes. Is part of the reason some people own a gun for self-defense? Yes. But are guns owned for far more than just self-defense? Absolutely. However, gun supporters cannot admit this. Once gun owners admit part of their brick wall defense of guns is about enjoyment, it makes their argument against banning certain types of guns impossible.
All of this is to explain where I stand on gun control. I'm in the middle. I don't mind allowing guns which are less likely to commit murder. I don't mind guns whose value exists far more on the recreational side than the shooting people side. But I also think it's silly to see what an incredible problem we have with gun deaths and think nothing should be done to curtail part of the problem. Banning certain types of guns and/or magazines is BY FAR the most logical approach. "Item A contributes to X amount of problems a year, so let's remove Item A". This is an INCREDIBLY logical step to take, and is one we take every day with all sorts of problems.
Anyways, you never asked, but that's where I stand. In what I consider to be the middle.
I have no problem with a crackdown on gang activity. The problem with this is the only way to crack down on gang activity is to pour money into these areas, and most of the same people who are against gun control are also fiscal conservatives.
I'm curious as to how many those on the left have argued with you about wanting to crack down on gang violence.
I know this is a popular misconception amongst gun supporters, but it has been confirmed by the Connecticut state police it was an "assault rifle" which was used.
[/SIZE][/FONT]http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284
In this case, the only media who has lied has been the gun media.
This is ALWAYS the hardest part about my gun control plan, how to legally get back the guns which already exist with a government that is already spending more than it brings in.
I don't have the answer to this right now.
This is certainly a very fair and very reasonable question. Which is why I think the first step is banning the purchase of future guns, to avoid escalating the cost of a future buyback program.
The government has already mandated that all, or at least some, cars which are manufactured must meet certain MPG limits. It's not any different than the government saying any gun you buy tomorrow cannot hold more than X number of rounds.
By the way, I do appreciate a quality and mature discussion on this, even though we are in disagreement.
