I was well into a long response to this message when I somehow screwed up and lost it, so this will be briefer.

>I'm not at all opposed to some kind of system where 'sick' people don't get their hands on guns.


We agree on this.

>But lets bring the career criminal back into the discussion because these are the ones who really
>make up the statistics. The mass shootings are horrific and grab the media spotlight. But far more
>people die at the hands of the gangbangers and robbers and the like.

FWIW, rather a large percentage of murders are young black men killing each other. (I had a link to statistics for victims and murder, but I can't find it again.) Given the concentration of murders in cities (and really in certain neighborhoods of cities), I think it's reasonable to infer that a significant proportion are gang-related with both murdered and victim gang-involved.

>Just like in the Taylor case.
>This wasn't a mass shooting, but an example of a typical home invasion robbery that the general
>public needs to defend against.

Did you see the statistics I posted elsewhere in the thread last week? If such crimes were evenly distributed, each household could expect one night-time burglary (which might or might not include armed burglars) in 200 years. Yet, gun proponents make it sound like we all need to be prepared for home invasion at any moment.

In looking for other statistics, I came across this page: http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#children

Some eye-opening stuff there.

Tamar