"...on my comment about firearms, Xanthro -- my comment was predicated on what DID happen today, as well as what HAS happened in the past, not on what is theoretically possible."

We aren't talking theoretical, the largest mass murders in the United States have all been by arson.

"However, I for one do not know of a case where a deranged killer committed an arson of similar magnitude. Does anyone have any such examples?"

You've never heard of the Happy Land Fire? Where a pissed off boyfriend who was ejected from the club went on to torch it and kill 87 people.

When we advocate laws and changes to society, we have to anticipate how these changes will affect everyone. Our murderer this morning decided to use a firearm to commit violence, arguing that sans such firearm that either the urge to commit such a crime wouldn't exist, or that sans firearm the means to commit such an act wouldn't exist is demonstratable false.

Many gun control laws cause more gun deaths because the laws writers don't understand anything about firearms. Look at capacity laws. States like California limit the number of rounds that firearms can hold, in the belief that such a law will reduce firearm deaths. The problem is the number of rounds is mostly determined by the power of the round. By restricting capacity, any potential murderer is drawn to a more powerful firearm and not less powerful.

It's always tragic to hear about someone being shot 15 times by something like a Tech9, but the simple fact is that person is dead after the first 4-5 rounds, and the rest just add time for others to escape. When the assilants switch to a standard firearm such as a Colt 45, then the number of deaths in the shooting incident go up.

The same applies to rifles. The most powerful rifles and not based on military firearms, which ironically use a much less powerful round than hunting rifles.

The most common and standard firearms such as hunting rifles and shotguns are the most dangerous if turned toward murder, but even they pale compared to the potential for mass murder that a simple can a gasoline posseses. As the 87 victims of Happy Land can attest.

Stop making bullets. If 50 years ago, gun control had been strongly enacted and enforced then most guns would now be gone in our country. Will people still be making this same arguement, that we can't get them away from everyone right now, in 50 years? If we start small now, we can help stop gun violence in the future.

------------------------------------------------------

This is the type of solution advanced by persons wholly unfamiliar with firearms. Stopping the sale of bullets would do little to curb gun violence.

We can't keep people from making bullets in prison, and a large number of people have reloading equipment in their homes.

Bullets are expensive, so almost all active shooters reload. Go to any website that sells ammunition and you'll notice that whether the round can be reloaded or not is listed. This makes a huge difference in the desireablity of the round.

If you go trap shooting and don't pick up your shells quickly, you'll have people hovering around waiting to rush in and take them if you don't want the for your own reloading.

Often, even the bullets that are fired at a firing ranged are reloaded.

All this doesn't even address such issues as buying ammunition in bulk. I buy mine in 440 round sealed containers where the ammunition will still be useable in 100 years.

Even if your proposal could work, which it can't, and gun violence were somehow eliminated, it doesn't matter if that violence is simply replaced by something else. Making a firearm is easy, I could make one in my workshop, making ammunition is easy, and sadly, killing people is easy and murderers have many tools at their disposal, of which firearms are pretty far down the list.