[Aelinsaar]

The cost argument is sound, and I'm not disputing it, but rather I'm thinking in the broader terms of the "Gun Control" debate. At some point in the future, maybe a decade, maybe two, supply-side gun control is going to be a pointless exercise. My argument however, is that the time has not yet come, although it's clearly on the horizon.

For now "Just get a CNC mill and learn how to use it" is still a substantial hurdle. I think it's fair to say that it's a hurdle that Adam Lanza wouldn't have managed to overcome.

[abakker]

Gun buybacks are the best gun control method I can think of. supply side is problematic especially in the US, where the amount of owned, unregistered guns is enormous. I think the first step is reducing the supply of used guns. and, it has the side effect that the people who sell guns to government for cheap, likely would sell the gun for cheap to anyone. Might as well be the government, though.

[hga]

In the US at least, there are three classes of people who are willing to sell guns cheap at a buy back, and this is why the concept has never taken off, along of course with the cost, which isn't effective at buying votes:

Criminals wishing to dispose of weapons used in crime.

Savvy types who sell guns that are worth less.

The ignorant/those who don't want to be bothered to easily dispose of guns that they've inherited or whatever.

The savvy types will work the line to buy guns from the latter that are worth significantly more than the price.