Fewer guns mean fewer killings. We want a handgun ban.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. You really don't catch the "ban them all drift" do you?

Let me explain my take: there are 2 groups of people in the world of privately held firearms. Group 1 are regular folks with no ill intentions. Group 2 vary from maybe folks with newer non-violent felonies (like embezzling, fraud...) who don't divest themselves of guns they used to legally own but now are prohibited from keeping to active rapists, drug dealers and gang members. We all know that most of group 2 won't be simply handing in their guns because Uncle Sam said so. I think that a some banners would like to see the 30 year old auto mechanic with a felony for something relating to pot possession locked up for 10 years after inheriting his family's house and contents (including a hunting rifle).

Now group 1, they expect will mostly comply with the law and do whatever they need to do. (This assumes this crazy scheme actually becomes law which it won't.) But to continue their dream, that maybe 5% of group 1, who never broke the law for more than parking tickets or late library books, there are folks who are just not okay with registering their private property or storing it at a secured protected government facility or whatever new hoops have been established. Those folks opposed this expensive (and useless) ban and left a bad taste in the mouth of those who worked so hard to make the world safer and should also, as examples, spend a decade thinking about their crimes in the state pen.

I believe that almost no one resorts to violent crime when other options are there. I believe that investing in building the options for people rather than backing them into a corner with laws that protect the non-desperate "good" folks are the direction for freedom and progress. The other option is basically elitist.

The idea of non-violent folks spending time in prison while the violent remain free sickens me.