[thisisdallas]

I agree that making something illegal won't make it go away and that is why I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else. I'm not talking about wacky conspiracy theories or a government military takeover but something along the lines of someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation. I don't think it's "to protect Americans" but to pad the pocketbooks of politicians, appease lobbyist or some other sort of twisted expression of this recent uprise in government corruption.

The article mentions a staggering obvious truth, "Why would we rush to ban guns, when almost all of our mass murders and most of our violent crimes occur in places with the strictest gun control?" There is also the fact that the proposed gun control laws all talk about assault rifles. That's fine, go after assault rifles but don't overlook handguns too. Last year in Chicago, more people were killed by handguns than the total number of those killed in all of the mass shootings over the last decade. How can those proposing gun control ignore that? Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US yet it has one of the highest rates of murder in the US…most of which results from the use of handguns. Yet, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are the problem….

[Steko]

"I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else..... someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation.'

So you're saying that the universal outrage over all these children being murdered couldn't possibly lead to good faith attempts to reform society to prevent similar events? You're saying it's probably a front for ... something? That the powerful archery, knife and karate lobbies were just waiting for any pretext to get rid of guns so they can start raking in the bucks?

[kcima]

No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns from everyone because of this. It is not logical.

32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car.

If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?

I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to understand?

Let me put it a different way.

Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in prison.

Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.

[Steko]

"32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car."

Plenty of new regulations related to cars and highways every year to make them safer.

"If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?'

Are you really asking that if reality was completely different would I maybe believe different things then I believed in this reality? Maybe. The Newtown tragedy is not a singular event. It's just the latest event.

"how is this so difficult to understand?"

How is the empirical fact that gun control works and limits deaths in many countries so hard for you to understand?