>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can have gun laws (background checks and registration) implemented in just a few months and start seeing results quickly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What results would you expect to see?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In one year I would expect to see minimal change, so you'd better revamp it to restrict more potential buyers. In another year when the projected results aren't achieved you'd probably have to tweak it again to limit the types of guns that are available for purchase. That didn't work? Those semi-auto rifles and shotguns must be the culprit. That didn't work either? Well, it would be too politically damaging to revert to the way it was, so let's just move the goalposts to make it look like we accomplished something.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't see any problem with limiting semi-automatics. Unless you can explain why they have any useful purpose.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You might as well say "I don't see any problem with limiting all guns" since the vast majority of handguns and shotguns are semi-auto.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Please define "useful" and explain the "usefulness" of owning a particular type of car.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Here are 3 "useful" uses for our 2nd Amendment right : protection, sport, stress relief. Protection is self explanatory. I assume you understand the usefulness of sport since you are a fan of many. As for stress relief, http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/01/stressed-america.aspx.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mind you, this excercize is not meant as acknowledgment for your suggestion that rights need to be justified, but rather to volley the ball back to your court to see what you come up with.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are back to the 2nd amendment. The one about a well armed citizen militia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We've already danced this dance. You are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>btw: I believe you mean regulated. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stress relief? Surely you are not serious. We as a nation are relieving way too much stress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Shooting guns will be a sport when the animals can shoot back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What about skeet and targets?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are correct that the phrase is well regulated. My mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You use automatic or semi automatic weapons for skeet or target shooting? Does anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Target shooting yes. Many do. Mostly semi-automatic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Soon as "automatic" is in part of the description, Mike thinks M60.
>>>>
>>>>Mike doesn't even know what an M60 is. I do know I don't like guns whose only purpose is to kill people.
>>>
>>>Actually, some guns are used to prevent people from killing people. As we have seen all over the world, if you want to kill a whole lot of people - especially if you don't much care who it is - there are far more efficient ways to do it than guns.
>>>
>>>I'm a lot more concerned about all the crazy, evil people running around unmolested or deterred than I am about the means available to them to be crazy or evil. I realize it is easier to go after "things" that can't be part of a voting constituency rather than people but the truth is, the very people who want to clamp down on guns don't have the same fervor for clamping down on those who would actually do harm to others.
>>>
>>>I just find "gun" fantasists disturbing - on both sides of the issue. It is just too easy and gives the illusion that somebody really wants to solve a problem or protect a freedom.
>>>
>>>Making people responsible - and answerable - for their own actions seems to be a tough sell.
>>
>>I do want to solve a problem. You know I respect your intelligence. I just don't get why you find it acceptable to have a higher gun death rate, by an order or magnitude, than any other country in the world.
>
>I don't find it acceptable at all, I just want to focus on solving the problem rather than letting people get distracted arguing about "solutions" that aren't.
>
>I think we should focus on legal reform that distinguishes between violent crime and non-violent crime.
>
>We need to make violent crime very very very unattractive with sentencing desired to be punative with "rehabilitation" only a by-product if you mean so breaking the spirit of the violent offender that they cower around loud noises if they ever get out. No prisons with tv and free-weights. Chain gangs and work farms. No amenities to keep the prisoners calm. That's what guns are for. Life for the violent offender should be so awful that nobody feels they want to ever go there and nobody becomes a neighborhood hero because they went in and lifted weights for a couple years and joined a gang.
>
>Nobody going to those prisons or mixing with those offenders for drugs or any other behavior that does not otherwise result in physically harming the unwilling. Thieves and swindlers can be punished in a completely different system, where rehabilitation and paying one's debt to society is a real option. Punishment should involve restitution.
>
>There is a big difference between a thief or a swindler and a mugger or a murderer. We need to make that distinction. Violence needs to be a very dangerous thing to do. Harming the innocent should be fatal. No appeal, no way out, the only defense should be complete innocence.
>
>All violence against the innocent should be punished so harshly it literally becomes unthinkable.
>
>Notice none of this speaks to the means used to commit the violence. A whack job who wants to do what the Boston bombers and school shooters do can do it just as easily with a crowd and an SUV or any of about a thousand devices they can learn to create on the internet in an hour.
>
>People who do violent things to others need to be culled from the herd. They do not need to be understood, rehablitated or given protection. They need to be punished.
>
>I am completely in favor of ownership of guns being something for which there is complete accountability. But I don't like political bullshit and that is where the whole gun argument in now buried.
>
>A society where the violent are anathematized might lead to a less paranoid culture. Many people who believe they need guns for "protection" feel that way because they do not feel the legal system is fullfilling that role. They are not entirely wrong.

But the U.S. already has one of the punitive criminal justice systems in the western world and there doesn't seem to be much evidence to show that it results in a lessening of violent crime?

I don't see tougher sentencing being a deterrent to the mentally unbalanced, people who kill in a 'fit of rage', or accidental killings. That only leaves those who use a gun for pre-planned criminal attacks - do you think tougher laws would radically change their behaviour? Would they stop carrying guns? Or carry but have no intention of using?