If your starting position that making of some classes of weapons and communications completely illegal will never be part of the solution then everything else you are suggesting will fail.

Your flippant post read to me as this:
"Chick should have taken more lessons and used deadlier bullets if she expected to kill people-- what a loser."

Then you suggested that a weapon semi-automatic assault-TYPE (fuck your nomenclature argument I sense coming on) is actually LESS deadly than a hand gun.

First, let's agree on this - they are both meant for killing people - that's why they were made. Just the assault-TYPE weapon is meant to kill more people more quickly.

There's not ONE thing to do to stop this madness it's --- you have to do a lot of things.

And one of those things is to limit access to the guns meant to kill lots of people quickly - and also limit access of the bullets that blow people up.

Will this stop ALL murders everywhere? No. Would it have stopped this one Youtube incident? No.

But it can stop the quick mass slaughter of school children ,and people at office parties, or in churches that we are currently experiencing? It won't HURT. And it'd very likely help bring those incidents down.

I honestly do not understand your position. Reading it logically it means you want *NO RESTRICTIONS on any weapons.*

Fully autonomic machine guns are illegal - and guess what - they aren't being used in the school shootings.

WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE OUTLAWED.

So ask yourself - "Do I want all guns and all ammunition available?"

If not then it's a matter of where your mind says "I draw the line at X."

Where is your X line?

(And before you ask - yes, I'd personally be in favor in banning all guns in the U.S. permanently - but I'd go with the Constitution and allow any weapon that existed in 1788 - including canons (but only canon-hunting.))

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection