>>>Because the things that were done were already crimes.
>>>There is/was legislation already covering it.
>>I said NEW legislation -so that means a NEW law.
>>For example CREATE LAWS for guns shows, etc.
>
>"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
>
>>>More legislation won't work ... at least in this case where
>>>there are already multiple crimes on the books for what was done.
>>
>>I disagree. If there was a law preventing someone from getting their
>>hands on a gun in the first place then all they laws they broke once they
>>had the gun don't really matter anymore right?
>
>"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
>
>Most people would not feel comfortable requiring another agency to defend them, such as the police. A bad guy shows up with a gun, most people would desire to be able to defend themselves there on the spot. And most bad guys would think twice before attacking someone knowing that any of the people around them could be carrying a firearm. This statistic has been proven in countless locations which have unrestricted concealed carry policies.

Yeah and those statistics also show that a bunch of more people end up getting shot too. More guns = more shootings.

>In Australia, where they outlawed not only handguns but also most rifles, there are several statistics which demonstrate that gun-related injuries and deaths have decreased. But at the same time, new crimes began appearing on the scene because the would-be assailants knew that they would not encounter firearm-based resistance when breaking-and-entering into a residence even when the occupants are home.
>
>Most people would prefer to be able to defend themselves Johnny on the spot, rather than being at the mercy of the hoped-for good behavior of other people in the world, or in waiting for a police man to arrive because unless he/she happened to be there already ... it would be too late.
>
>In terms of raw human being safety ... gun bans in any form do not make sense. If everybody had the opportunity to freely have a concealed weapon, nobody would know who actually did have a gun unless it was visible, and before things escalated too violence, the dozen or so bystanders who pulled out their weapons and trained it on the would-be-bad-guy have just foiled the crime. When no guns are present, the would-be-bad-guy (who likely has a gun) is a threat to everybody, and in danger from almost nobody.
>
>Gun laws don't work the way people hope they will. They just make regular citizens who desire to defend themselves less able to defend themselves.

The problem is that the ATF has been blackballed from being able to do anything about it. If they could have the database and such then these gun laws might actually work. Furthermore I see no reason why any citizen needs to have an assault riffle.
As for the regular citizens line - that is not realistic either. Take yesterday for example - guy in a college gets into argument with a guy and ends up shooting the guy. Yeah ok so he defended himself with a gun. greeeeeat - another dead kid. The problem is that people end up using deadly force to defend themselves when they really didn't need to.
Now as for the "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." comment - that is pretty lame. I didnt' say take away all the guns. But if you want to be totally unrealistic then hey if there were no guns for the outlaws to get then I guess they wouldn't have them then either.