Um, the NRA is NEVER going to stop opposing the ban on guns and firearms.  That's kind of what they are all about. 

Like others said, 1) It is already difficult to LEGALLY obtain weapons  2) Laws would have changed NOTHING when it came to Columbine so don't try to use it for your anti-gun agenda and 3) It seems like using Columbine as a call to ban guns would be like using 9/11 as a call to stop flying commercial airplanes.  If someone wants to do something evil, they'll find a way.  The people are the issue.  Instead of blaming guns for Columbine, why not be outraged about bullies.  Being bullied is what set those kids on that path.  I know plenty of kids who can relate.  What should we do about that?

Bahu, I can show you empiracle evidence that if I remove all guns in a crime that I can 100% reduce the instance that a gun will be used in the crime. The problem with the conclusion that I am hearing is that you have reduced crime in overall.  As I stated before England did this with a gun ban.  The problem is that crime is STILL at the same rate it was BEFORE the gun ban. So if you include this into your logic you can conclude that the gun was not the instigator of the crime.  The common denominator my friend are people.

Please then tell me how a gun is different than a knife, bat, pipe bomb, fork, axe, chain saw, scissors, etc?  When the assailant is use a gun how is that different then using a pipe bomb?  How is that different than using a wood chipper? 

I'd rather get shot than those other methods

So how come the UK (no guns allowed) for example doesn't have so many issues of gun crime proportionately to the US?

Regardless I'd have thought most people could agree that you don't need to be able to purchase assault weapons to bear arms/protect yourself (compared to say a basic pistol), and hence I don't see much of an argument in favour of allowing people to own such weapons.

Aeortar, reread the statement you quoted.  Restrictive gun laws do not prevent crime.  It isn't an arguement that if you have restrictive gun laws that there isn't a reduction in gun crimes.  It is the general use of the word crime.

You ask this question because you did not read what I wrote, or you ignored it. Death by firearms is down in the UK, the murder rate stayed the same, people just used cricket bats, knives, and hammers to kill instead of a pistol or rifle. So the next logical setp is to outlaw knives, bats, pipes, and hammers because they were used to replace guns. Continuing this flawed logic we need to then outlaw rocks because if you outlaw everything that can be used to kill someone that is man made the next thing will be rocks and sticks. Will it make murder go away? No, because if someone wants to kill you they are going to try what weapon they use does not matter. With a knowledge of medicine one can kill with a bic pen or a paper clip. When murder is on someone's mind bare hands will do. Do we then out law hands?

Paladin: apparently he's ignoring anything and everything written that doesn't back his point.

He does that with all his posts, I write not to him but the people that read his foolishness so they can get some balance.

Let me add this to those following this thread.

Just last month a long time friend of mine was shot by her husband.  Let me give you the connection of her and her family to mine.  Her name is Pam and I have known here since at least kindergarten.  Her parents and my parents went to school together as well.  In fact Pam was so close to my family it wasn't until around high school that I found out we weren't related.  She was very good friends with my 2nd and 3rd cousins and was often found at our family reunions.  She always seemed to have an optimistic approach on life and was one of the least judgmental person I've known. 

She married a black guy (eventhough she was white) despite the resistance from the traditional minded family.  It is also believed that this man she married was also muslim although I have no way to confirm.  There was evidence that the man she married had issues of violence that I warned her about but respected her decision to proceed in marrying him. 

Together they have two beautiful girls. 

In January, Pam decided to file for divorce from her husband whose abusive and violent nature continued to manifest. It had become so bad that she had to have the Sheriff with her to collect her things in order to move out. 

In March, Her husband found her and shot her multiple times...ending her life.  The very next day as police were out to find him in order for questioning (he wasn't a suspect but rather a person of interest by the FBI) using the low-jack device in the vehicle he was driving.  They later found him that afternoon and proceeded to pull him over for questioning.  Before the officers were able to talk to him he had pulled out his gun and shot himself in the head.  The more tragic side of this is the two girls (5 and 6?) were in the car at the same time.

I merely state this tragic story to let you see how close I have had gun related violence/crime to me.  It took the life of a long time friend. 

Bahu (and any others supporting gun bans), to say that if Pam's husband didn't have a gun would have prevented this crime is completely naive.  The man was clearly mentally unstable.  If the man had enough hatred to shoot her with a gun what makes you think that if he didn't have a gun that this crime would have been prevented?  Sure if he used another implement (ie knife, chainsaw, woodchipper, baseball bat, hands etc) this would yield in ONLY a decrease in gun related crime but a net in the same number of crimes commited (in this case murder). 

In this scenario, one has to consider that there is only one person with a gun.  Let's consider another option.  Let's say that my friend Pam had a gun at the same time to defend herself.  She may have been able to protect herself (with every right to do so, here in colorado). 

By banning guns you are merely taking guns out of the honest citizen and putting them in a similar position my friend was.  She was easily over powered by her husband's possession of a gun because she did not. 

Name me one criminal that doesn't find the sound (*chi-chunk*) from a shot gun a deterent?  The criminals by the very name they have (criminals) have no respect for the law, WHY oh WHY, then do you want to keep guns out of the responsible law abiding citizens giving them a handicap in defending themselves? A gun ban merely supports the criminals and punishes the law abiders. 

*sigh* why do I continue to see this trend from liberals?

AdventureDude:  So sorry for your loss, and thank you for your level-headed evaluation of the role of the gun in this story.  And what part of Colorado?  The case-maker in this story is the fact that it is played out all over the world everyday.  But in many parts of the world the weapon of choice is a machete or a club or a rock.  And in too many cases, there is no "crime" committed because women are chattel, not people.  But violence happens.  And in Asia, Africa, and other backward places, the violence is tenfold what we face here. 

I have mentioned this before:  about twelve years ago or more, John Anderson was elected to be the Sheriff of El Paso County.  One of his first actions was to reduce the restrictions on concealed weapons permit procedures.  Before Sheriff Anderson, we were plagued with drive-by shootings, car-jackings, and house raids.  One month after the new carry permit policy went into effect, there was a huge drop in the number of violent crimes in the county.  It continued to drop after a few incidents of citizens shooting criminals under the state's "Make my Day" law.  Just recently there have been a slight resurgance of some of these crimes, but I guarantee you that all it takes is one armed citizen stopping one of these thugs and the stats will take a fast drop again.  Why is it so hard for liberals to see the facts before them and so easy to assume America is bad?

Thank you.  I'm only trying to logically think this through.

well, if you are up in El Paso County you may have remembered an Amber Alert Around March 24th?  She was living up in the Aurora area. 

I, on the other hand, live in the SW part of the state. 

BFD because they believe the criminal is going to think since they don't have a gun they won't commit the crime, so they become a law-abiding citizen. It's simplistic and naive, but that is the thought process for many.

But Nitro Cruiser, my gun talks to me, it tells me to KILL KILL KILL (for food that is)!

Based on this kind of logic then the person should be committed?

AD, yeah funny thing about those folks that hear voices. Their doctors should be sending a note to the ATF so these folks can't walk into a gun store and make a purchase after a background check. You never hear anyone complaining about this though.

Homicide rate in the US is more than twice that of the UK. Try again.

Oh and as to (total) crime, I'd much rather live somewhere where I'm more likely to suffer from petty crime and far less likely to be killed than somewhere with lower rates of petty crimes, but much higher levels of violent crime. But then, that's because I value my life more than things such as money. Silly me.