Paul: With the RIGHT kind of control you don't eliminate gun crime but you can reduce it.
No gun control exists that eliminates gun crime.
I am sure if this guy didn't have his guns, he would have found another way.
Here's the problem, in America - there are TWO very powerful entities, both with extreme views, that are collectively keeping us far less safe:
A) The extreme "ban the gun" crowd - and while mostly on the Democrat side, there are people across the spectrum that desire this - they cling to a purely emotional view of the issue, but not one of logic. Fact is, ALL kinds of high-tech guns and conversion kits to make them virtually automatic can be found throughout the country, and in the vast millions. This means, if you banned ALL guns tomorrow, they would remain cheap and easy to obtain through illegal sales, and for centuries. And the criminals, those intent on robbery, murder and mayhem, will only laugh at the gun ban. Heck, guns show up in prisons, for crying out loud. So, the "gun genie" has been out in America for over two centuries. It's true that some cities with very strict gun controls also have high gun crime rates - with one major reason, stolen and black-market guns are everywhere. Most people who don't live here don't understand this situation. HOWEVER, that said, it still doesn't negate that there ARE some common sense controls that would make us MORE safe.
B) The other powerful, organized entity of lobbyists and political power is the NRA. While I understand its argument (SOME of which is valid) - but only on one level - as it likewise takes the position of the other extreme - I'm not sure that, short of tanks, bazookas and rocket launchers, they see any reason to ban ANY weapons (yes, I know that's somewhat of an exaggeration). And the NRA's argument is an extreme reaction to the "ban all the guns" crowd: "If you ban this gun or that, it becomes the slippery slope, and then the left and Democrats would seek to ban ALL guns - so ANY gun control will undoubtedly lead to that attempt, and eventual reality. And then only criminals will be carrying guns (that part is true!)" So you have two groups unwilling to take a sensible center on the issue, with BOTH sides presenting extreme and emotional arguments. Yes, fear of those wanting to ban all guns is a concern - but could be addressed with affirmations of rights attached to any new legislation.
The real question SHOULD be: What sensible approach to gun laws will make us safer? Citizens should be able to arm themselves to the level of the typical threat they might encounter per criminals or home invasion. Virtually EVERY house in my rural area, and in the city has some kind of weapon. That is why home invasions are extremely rare, because criminals know invading someone's home is a likely suicide mission. Also, legally owned gun crimes are pretty rare. Yes, you have unstable family members or acquaintances, having a gun around is not smart.
What level of weaponry should citizens have? Most of the bad dudes are armed with .357s, 38s (grandpa's), .44 magnums, 9 mm, etc. This and hunting shotguns and rifles are about the level at which most people need a weapon for. Fast repeating, long-range or militia-style rifles - these should be illegal. Reign in private sales and gun shows, conversion kits, internet sales. We license people to drive - a vehicle in untrained hands IS a weapon - so background checks and permits make sense. But notice, NONE of these will stop a determined criminal or one planning some gun crime. It helps with the impulsive nut jobs - but those so determined, they'll find another way. But short of a bomb, hopefully someone impulsive to kill can't QUICKLY get their hands on a weapon capable of taking down dozens of people in a fast spray of a crowd. But that is about as good as we are going to do - there is no law that can prevent every gun crime. At best, we can try to not make it too easy for nut jobs and criminals (especially those with a record) from legal purchases. Won't stop any private, illegal sales!
Last, in pruning down the list of which weapons can be legally sold, our lawmakers should affirm the right for people to own the remaining weapons deemed legal - AFFIRM that in ANY new gun legislation - so as to take the NRA and the extreme "ban all" crowds' arguments away. You'd also have to address what should be done about weapons declared illegal that are already out there.
IF I lived in a country where guns had not yet saturated the entire society, where so many guns of all types weren't already in a gazillion private hands, then (and ONLY then) I could live with a far more restrictive approach - because it would likely make people safer. But as for America, our situation is far different.