= new reply since forum marked as read
..."gun-control fail" and more of a "imply Obama/Democrats are to blame".
Suggesting there's a link, positive or negative, between a president, his party and violent crimes committed during his/her tenure is bizarre. The fail of the "fail article" is that:
- It's a lie to say gun-control under Obama fails since there has been no new federal laws passed.
- It's a lie to say that Obama issued executive orders relating to gun-control since the items were in reality executive actions.
Statistics don't show causation. Figure lie and liars figure. 
IMHO, the first and most basic purpose of the right is assure that civilians are afforded the ability to defend themselves. This is announced in the Constitutions of several states back to the 18th century. Our federal Constitution mentions the militia only because the federal government had nexus to regulating interstate activity not the day to day conduct of individuals. At the time of the founding the people were skeptical of a big country with a big government far removed from them as individuals. They trusted the state they lived in and knew.
As far as me and my home, I have to say my landscaping could certainly benefit from a few claymores and some foo gas but I try to be a good neighbor. 
Heller v DC established that banning handguns is unconstitutional.
...which is as efficacious as a handgun for personal self-defense.
In reality banning all handguns would:
A- Do nothing to remove them from the criminals that have them now
B- Take them from many who legally own them for a variety of reasons
C- Turn those who fail to comply (for valid reasons IMNSHO) into criminals (this exercise has creating new criminals as a goal right?) 
D- Wouldn't ban 3D printers...
E- Wouldn't stop those determined to acquire one from stealing one from a cop
F- If the cops are banned as well, will they just be unarmed or will just take on a more complete resemblance to the Waffen SS?
A: I have a problem with the "bake time" on your "recipe".
Remove handguns from the batter and wait 80 years.
B: All rights are to be respected? Can you narrow the focus of the question, please?
C: True, failing to follow a law is illegal. Should I infer that your answer to fighting crime is to create more criminals?
D: I conclude that, since the war on drugs is going so well, you propose starting a war on handguns.
E: Harder? Well in some ways but not others. Cops are harder to find than civilians because there are fewer of them. OTOH cops are easy to identify (uniform, car...) and they mostly all open carry. As a side note, look up the percentage of cops that favor handgun bans.
F: I infer you mean owning an armed AAM. Disarmed missiles are legal. The explosive portion is regulated by some complicated laws but can be had after enough time, money and background checks by local LE and the ATF. I drive a Chevy not a Grumman. A personal defense tool like a handgun is the topic. Crew served area and theater scale weapons are outside the topic.
"Godwin": absolutely but I like the picture.
I think the police have attributes that make them different from civilians and some of them don't deal with those differences too well. I'm referring to the cops who kill civilians with insufficient justification. The infusion of military weapons, the ones the general public is mostly restricted from, isn't working all that well, but that's is a different problem.
Guns and heroin: Cutting off the supply of heroin (or alcohol or marijuana) is, in some ways, a different task than banning handguns. A bit of heroin is single use while a handgun may be used over a course of decades and its mere presence as a threat often serves the purpose of the holder, good or evil.
From inmates serving time for crimes such as robbery and burglary the number one concern wasn't police or alarms, it was encountering an armed victim. To paraphrase Will Smith, 'That's what I call a close encounter.'
A medium length answer about full-auto: I support removing the 1986 limit on full-auto guns. I don't see that full-autos will have the impact that handguns do on crime. When full-autos could be bought at a local hardware store, they were never popular. The gangsters who used them generally stole them from law enforcement or the military.
so it is not so strange. The author was probably taking advantage of some blatant irony, made possible by the posting I made. But irony passes by like a noisy locomotive on this site.
As to that posting, we can always talk about both measures. But what has been done is to create a "new" measure (MassShootings© or apples), and then make the dubious case that they have increased massively when the only longitudinal measure we have is for the last 4 or so years of the life of the new measure, OR we must measure MS against the older Mass Murder defnition -- oranges. Boy, that 'll get you a ready-made increase! 
In other words, what is the data for justifying the contention that MassShootings© have increased massively?
The controllers & MSM love the new measure, and have pasted together a rationale for some big increase; the RW says to the controller "fair game: By your own standards, the biggest increase was on Obama's watch," hence my errant heat-seeking missile metaphor.
Am I making myself clear?
But to say it is increasing massively as some commentators contend without a basis for seeng that phenomenon is propagandizing.
ON EDIT:
I Googled "Mass Shootings Increasing" (I have trouble linking on this cheapo tablet), and found a spate of articles saying they are, and some which say otherwise. Controversy centers on dicey definitions, poor histories of shooting data, and little to support the contention of an increased rate over the long trend. Of particular interest is "Are Mass Shootings Really on the Rise -- Or do We Just Think They Are," by Jeanna Birch, writing in Yahoo, Nov. 10, 2015.
On edit: What's a little time warp between friends? Edited for one century. Still at it. 
