I like the idea alluded to in thread above; if bullets were banned, the only thing we could do with our guns would be to use them as bludgeons!

Of course, the corollary to Zandru's "Perfect Scam" is that the Republican Party will create a fiasco so great that it will be claimed only Republicans are smart enough to fix it.

Hear, hear - I'm not talking about the dangers of hunting rifles or butcher knives, but of handguns that are easily concealed (even when you have several) and can be used at extreme close range as well as farther away to put down dozens of people. The kind of everyday tool needed to chase stray moose out of your IT office lounge.

I would hope that women rightfully concerned with their personal safety might opt for a Taser or mace over handguns, because if a victim is grabbed from behind before s/he can reach for their gun, it can be used against them.

US law allows states to sue cigarette manufacturers but not gun makers. Because we have the "right" to carry lethal force. I, of course, don't have the "right" to angrily confront someone who shoved me in the street without worrying that s/he is packing. As for those of you who are *sincerely* frightened by the prospect of a totalitarian regime you might need to defend yourselves against, all I can say is that the NRA tends to support the most repressive, anti-liberty politicians...

Many people love their guns like they love their cars, and it's tough to argue about the greater good. When I was a teenager, I really wanted a gun. I wanted a Glock that could hold 19 bullets, plus one in the barrel. How could you not - they're so incredibly cool! And what a feeling of power: if I had it on me, I could maybe use it if the situation called for it...

"My owning a gun HARMS NO ONE! Until and unless I use that gun in a manner that..."

And there it is. Guns are only sold to people who obey the law, until the day they break the law by using those guns to kill others. Maybe they snapped because our culture is getting more "brutal and alienating", or maybe they were drunk, or in a rage against their ex-wife. Perhaps they chose to defend themselves against someone trying to pick a fight with them. Maybe they were 7 years old.

We can increase penalties for gun crimes, but those who commit murder-suicides won't particularly care if their corpse is electrocuted after its court appeals run out. Having cooling-off periods for purchases hardly helps if a person blows their top again a few months or years later.

People accept to have criminals arm themselves so they can defend themselves with guns against those armed criminals. After all, there are already so many guns in circulation that gun laws won't work and the criminals will still get them.

But what about bullets?

I'd like to dream (if I may) of a day without handguns and assault weapons; of a nightmarish future in which "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their children sneaking downstairs to watch Conan."

A terrifying future where those criminals who aren't smart enough to find work could always master advanced metallurgy & weapons ballistics and secretly manufacture assault munitions in their basement.

We'd still have bootleg bullets and cocaine smuggled north from Columbia, of course, but perhaps the FBI could track those more easily than every angst-ridden teen who's been dumped upon for years and wants to lash out with his dad's Magnum.

You know, I always felt bad about Canada having stricter gun laws but also a porous southern border for guns to slip through - maybe it could be our turn.

Would be to severely increase the penalties for crimes committed while using a gun, as opposed to trying to ban guns altogether. It's not an argument I formulated on my own, but trying to regulate something where there is a robust black market is difficult, if not impossible, and the useful life of an existing gun is essentially forever, so banning manufacture wouldn't work. So, if the penalty for a mugging goes from one year (say) to five years if you do it with a gun, I'd think that could act as a potential deterrent. Granted, crazy people will act without regard for consequences, but you can't prevent every violent act--you just can't. Certainly not as satisfying a solution as banning guns, or giving everyone a gun, but I imagine legislation such as this would get the approval of even the NRA, which means there's a far greater likelihood of passage.

I totally agree with the first part of your post...of course a person in a rural area has every reason to own a gun. In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone other than the most ardent anti-gun advocates argue against rural citizens owning rifles.

but you MUST see the difference between your situation and someone who lives in an urban setting. They do not have to worry about coyotes or bears or any other dangerous animal. You can't deny that guns in a high density area leads to a higher possibility for unintended victims.

the point is: nobody, i mean NOBODY wants to take guns away from a person on the frontier...in the city its a totally different ballgame.

In a rural area, we deal with coyotes, feral dogs, and on very rare occasion, a suspicous person trespassing on the property. Dialing 911 will result in a 30 minute or more wait for response - we must take any necessary immediate action ourselves. Having a .22 rifle (we have no handguns) helps.

(Please understand that people asking for directions to so-and-so's house are not immediately threatened ;-}}

I believe in the 2nd amendment - because we would not have won the Revolution without armed civilians, and I don't believe that the Founders ever intended that citizens be helpless against an armed, oppressive government in the future.