You only want the Crooks, Drug Dealers, Bankrobbers & other Law breakers to have the Guns, Do you really Think these people are going to give up there Guns of any Size, Look at the Gangsters of Years ago, The had Machine guns, Shot a lot of bystanders, while takeing care of there Mobster Business, these people had machine Guns then and still do, no one was caught doing the Murders or much less served any time, like thay do today. maybe you would win being a Dog Catcher. You do not get all the facts. about all the Gun usage and I don't think you want to. See how many people have saved there lives because of a Gun, I am one of them.

"So, how are all of those gun control laws working out for ya in Chicago?......49 shot on one weekend with 17 killed?"

Thank you Ben and Tim for taking the time to respond. We need the dialogue. I'm not going to rebutt point by point, but let me assure you; the passion you have for your guns is the same passion I have for eleminating the dangerous ones. Ben, you watch too many gangster movies. Tim, reread my blog. The Chicago issue is exactly what is wrong. What we call gun laws are a joke. Stop manufacturining them and fewer people die.

This girl agrees with you 100%!!! While my husband has the gun locked up and does not agree with me on this issue, I am terrified of guns. I'm glad on the farm we have one for several reasons. However, those of us that want them only to protect ourselves are not the problem. The ammunition (high powered) that is available to the wrong hands is our problem. No one should be able to purchase machine guns! It seems to me that criminal background checks are not really properly enforced when applying for a gun. How do we take up the billions out there already? That is what is frightening to me.

I don't have any. Nope, not a one. NO guns in my house. No need to have the FBI or ATF search my house. Nothing to see here. Just keep moving. Probably should search my neighbor...I hear he owns lots of guns. Yeah, go search his house but no need to look into mine.

Gee, this sounds like a speech that Adolf Hitler could have given in pre-Nazi Germany!
@ David...yes, the Force does have influence over the weak-minded, doesn't it?

So, let me see if I got this right. Part of your argument is that Illinois has a high crime rate, with 98% of violent crimes being committed with guns? You do realize that guns are, for the most part, illegal in Illinois, right? No carry laws, the only state in the union with a 'non-issue' mentality for permits. So your concept of reducing handgun crime by outlawing them obviously has very serious flaws.

There's a reason you would never get elected with this mentality. Not only do we as Americans love our guns, but it's been shown time and again that restrictive gun laws make us less safe. England, which is an island by the way, and where guns have been completely illegal for quite a few years, still has a lot of issues with handguns in crimes.

Sorry, there's no logic in your post. Only emotion. And that emotion will get a lot of law-abiding citizens killed. Far more than would be saved in your example.

But I'll tell you what - you get every other gun out of the country and melted down, then I'll give up mine. If I had any, that is....

Well I know when this debate turns to whistlin' in the wind. According to Karsten, we cannot reduce gun violence like Japan because they work too hard and England has a gun murder rate less than 3% of America's and it's proof that their laws don't work. I'm glad to have presented this side of the debate. But let's not forget, I'm all for hunting and protection with long guns. Always have been.

You have my vote Count.

Sounds EXACTLY like what Hitler did.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Count, I read the post, twice to be sure of the words, the tone and for sarcastic content. Your idea is like communism..perfect in theory, but impossible to properly deploy. the criminals element of this world has always been around, and they will use whatever they can find to commit crimes; guns, knives, bats, rocks.....the list goes on. There will never be a completely gun free America. We would be ripe for attack by the evil powers in the world....like all the cartels who are using our guns!

By the way, a new gun store just opened on 124 near Kroger...check it out! I just bought a new leather paddle holster for my .380 Bodyguard..

I have one simple question: How in the world would we control the population if we took away handguns? Right now, we have drug dealers shooting each other and occasionally their customers. Without handguns, we would be overrun with drug dealers. Therefore, I believe we should have more handguns...pass them out on the downtown streets of Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, etc. The illegal drug problem should be resolved quickly (the cops may have to shoot the last man standing) and there will be at least 10% less people crowding our major cities.

Mr. President, if may, I'd like to point out that death rates due to firearms in the US tend to be highest where laws restricting those same firearms are strongest. Also, Count Mr. President, Sir, according to the FBI, twice as many murders were committed in the US in 2010 by bare hands alone (i.e., no weapon involved) than by ANY type of rifle, let alone the "dangerous" kind, whatever Your Highness has decided that is (745 no weapon, 358 by rifle-all types). Finally, I'd respectfully check with the law enforcement officials of our close ally, Great Britain, to see whether their OVERALL murder rate has dropped in the many years since guns have been made difficult if not impossible for the common citizen to obtain. (Hint: it hasn't.)

Sir, I appreciate, applaud and fully support the White House's desire in this matter to stem the flood of hate, carnage and misery. SOMETHING has gone wrong in our society, and we really do need to be asking what that SOMETHING is. But this idea that removing the guns (in whole or in part) is the answer ignores the fundamental fact that murder and hate are products of the human heart and mind, first and foremost. Where there's a will, there's a way, and the lack of (some specific type of) a gun won't stop it.

Dave Ballard, GEN, Desk Top, Commander, Fort Living Room

I would really like for you to come and try to take my weapons, Raoul.....Personally, I think you are either a Gutless Coward or Felon that is not able to legally own a weapon. Your idea of a gun free America is laughable at least. No rational person would want innocent humanity to be unable to defend themselves unless they had alterior motives and I'm calling you out on this one. Another half brain that wants a vulnerable society.....Ain't Gonna Happen......if you wanna live like that, go back to Mexico. You cannot even offer a halfway logical argument about your position and back it up with fact.... your just a waste of 2 billion years of Evolution....

Long guns for protection are fine unless you are attacked in your car, on the street, or the like. As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, our founding fathers included it to protect the citizens from the government. Of course you want to take our guns away. You're the government! During WWII the reason Germany did not invade Switzerland and claim all the gold for the Reich was because Hitler knew he didn't have a standing army large enough to take on every armed citizen. Here's an idea. Instead of taking our guns away, make the penalty for illegal usage much higher. Change the jail time requirements. Our jails are nothing more than revolving doors. We pander to the criminal element and we're paying to price. The criminal element of this country will never be without guns because even if you eliminate the gun manufacturers do you really think the bad guys can't fabricate guns themselves? I can hear them now "Oops, they took our guns away. Let's just go home". Not going to happen. Count Raoul, this is a utopian idea but just not practical. Do I like owning guns? Not at all. But there isn't going to be anybody around to help me or my wife should we be a target. The last thing I would ever want is to have to shoot another human being, but don't ever break into my home, my car, or assail my wife or me on the street because I will not hesitate to drop the assailant, and unfortunately have to live the rest of my life with the consequences.

It's also interesting to me that the same government that wants to remove our firearms is the same one that has no real obligation to protect us. It's been in court time and again. So this leaves it to us to protect ourselves. Be it from government or criminals.

My answer is the opposite. Arm everybody. Do like Vermont does - they don't even issue permits to their residents - if you live there, feel free to carry. And strangely enough, they have the 49th lowest violent crime rate per capita of any state. 47th lowest murder rate per capita. Kind of strange for a state that has all these supposedly dangerous weapons. And New York and Chicago - two of the hardest to get handguns or permits in - continue to be almost highest on the list.

Mr. Count,
I see that you are trying to differentiate between weapons that are concealable and those which are not. I applaud your attempt. Maybe I was a little hard in my earlier post. I also believe with all my heart that once our government gets one, they will try to take them all.
There was a news segment tonight about armed criminals, thugs, robbing phone stores at gunpoint. I would just as soon cap one than look at them. They prey on those whom they believe are defenseless because most companies have a rule against carrying weapons. This is why Marta backed off and is allowing concealed carry on buses and the subway. The fear of dying is enough to make many of these armed wimps think twice. Until you disarm, kill or deport them, I will hold onto my pistols, thank you.

The Best thing the people who do not like Guns, want to take away Guns, outlaw guns, let the Goverment come get all the Guns from the decent citizens, is for each of you to MOVE out of the USA and go to one of the countries, that you have talked about, that outlaw guns, or move to Chicago, maybe you willsafe & secure there. Delta is ready when you are, and take the rest of the Democrats, Gays & OBama Voters with you. Now hurry up and get out.

What an insult to America and our armed forces and police. They are not obligated to protect you?
CR, if you had read the piece that Tim did on responsibility and protection, you'd know the answer to that. Problem is, you and the others won't reply to a well thought out article that doesn't provoke. You do something that you know will provoke, they take the bait, and nobody gets anywhere, because that's your point. I prefer the articles stated by conservatives since they make so much sense and the motive is to have a real two way conversation. Although, I know you've read it because you didn't reply to it, because there is very little argument to be had there. No way am I going to get involved with this. You want to talk, go to Tim's piece and reply there.

Count Raoul, you type very well in your sleep. Pinch yourself. You may be late for work.

What about this, Count?
(Not married to this, just an off-the-cuff starting point for discussion.)

-> NO concealed weapons of any kind, EVER (law enforcement excepted, possibly). Any non-felon private citizen may, if they wish, carry around a plainly visble, holstered, secured weapon (as the police do currently) without restriction or boundary.

Suggested penalty (whether for handgun, shotgun, machette, garden hose, etc.) would be somewhere around that misdemeanor/felony line: 5 years/$5000 unless during/in conjuction w/commision of a crime: say 20 years, min.

-> NO high-rate-of-fire weapons (let's arbitrarily set the limit at 60 rounds per minute), regardless of functionality (auto, semi, burst, etc.), beyond the boundaries of one's property, unless secured inside a hard case or w/trigger lock, ammunition separate. Exceptions would need to be made for designated, permitted areas such as hunting grounds, federally or state managed areas (parks, reserves, etc.), shooting ranges, gun shows, etc. Exception must also be made when the previously "safed" weapon is made "un-safe" expressly in a self-defense effort.
Suggested penalty for "un-safe transport:" same as above.

Since we're already regulated in these areas, it would actually amount to a "best of both worlds:" gun proponents are freed of a LOT of current regulations; gun-control folks get to see the guns around them BEFORE they get used, "big" guns are rendered inert, and criminals get pasted.

Ready: SHRED!

Guys, I love you all, though I agree with little that you have said. The comments are a bit frequent and actually, I'm sorta busy. So let me ask you this: I post at least weekly and it's sometimes political, sometimes humorous and often inane. But today, within a few hours of my post I was receiving comments from names I have never seen, There are two or three exceptions. So I am curious, how did you guys find my post? I'm not concerned about the details, just the general and honest answer. Hope y'all check back and read Count Raoul in the future. But somehow, I suspect you will not.

Facebook feed. I do live in Athens and enjoy the Patch.

As much as I don't like drive-by shooting crimes I also want the security of owning a handgun. Taking away this feedom is something my ancestors fought the right to have in the American Revolution. I don't notice crime de-creasing in countries that have strict anti-gun laws, as noted in the above comments. Please, this is about American Freedom-something that seems to be decreasing these days with every terror threat. We are almost back to seach and seizure and busting doors down again. Yes- the Kings Law not American.

Count,
As a long time police supporter and gun owner, I follow the Patch blogs related to weapons. My 'home' is the Dacula Patch, but these cross-Patch blogs allow us to join in as well. Thank you for your contribution.

You want to know why we haven't been invaded? Because we are allowed to have guns. China even admitted that the reason they never tried to invade us was because American hunters are the largest armed group on the face of the earth. Take away guns from law abiding citizens and you leave the criminals with the guns. Leave our amendments alone. You dont want to own a gun then dont. Thats YOUR personal right. You dont like it here. Then go live in England. Or Illinois. Leave my rights alone and quit dicking with the constitution to make it suit you.

Gun Toting Grandmother Stops Burglars
http://fox2now.com/2012/07/26/gun-toting-grandmother-stops-burglars/
If this independent lady had not had a gun within her reach, what would the likely outcome of this story be?

Are we a little trigger happy Count? My use of the word 'you' or 'your' was not directed, so to type, directly at you. But I've always been told a hurt dog will howl. :)

Count, let's be honest, you had to know that your original post was going to cause a ruckus, yet you made it anyway. How did you think people would react to what is obviously a very touchy subject? You just MENTION taking guns away from people and you'll incite a riot, you should know better.

It use to be that you could read some interesting blogs on the Patch, but more and more of them are inflammatory in some form or fashion. I guess it generates traffic but it is getting really old to read.

CR- This is the article that I was asking you to read and possibly comment on. You seem to think I was talking about some comment on here? You state that I ought to read what I write...uh...how about you read what I write lol. You'd have seen this if you had.
http://loganville.patch.com/blog_posts/ultimately-individuals-are-responsible-for-their-own-protection
Yes. Karsten, that's what I was talking about. Unless CR wants to front the money out of his own pocket to keep a cop in every establishemnt, and in front of every personal house 24/7, then, you are right that it's difficult to protect us by "preventing'. They can't. Most times, you see law enforcement at the scene, after the fact. i don't know what country cR lives in to suggest otherwise. So, if someone was breaking in,. pointed a gun at you, and would kill you or your loved ones withing minutes, then should you defend yourself? Of course! Otherwise, you'd have 3 dead good guys and one bad guy still walking round looking for more victims. It's almost as if these folks with the liberal mindsets are rooting for the bad guys. Sheesh!

Agreed NGW. it's getting old. We need to stop taking the bait. Maybe check out the above blog by Tim and comment there. Not one mean word, or childish namecall, but a good conversation. He hit this from a different angle- themindset of the criminal that doesn't think like you or me. They are looking for weakness and they "prey". Just like in nature- that's what predatorial animals do. Same thing. Good comparison and analysis.

Oh Karsten! Now, I see why you wre confused!!! The "not obligated to protect you?" question was a quote for count Raoul. I should have said, "CR said....

Sorry for the confusion. No, I am in full agreement with you. It looked different when I posted it than when it came into print. Looked as if I was the one saying it. Note what I replied afterwards and you'll see that. lol

I usually steer clear of these discussions but Count-- you and the folks that think like you are more dangerous to folks than the guns. Here's why-- first- I retired with 33 years Federal Law Enforcement including working with ATF when it was BATF. I have carried a gun and dealt with the Criminal Class since I was 21. In all my years I have never ever seen anything that would make me believe that you can disarm criminals. They will create a black market and all you will have done is remove guns from the law abiding folks. Can you really be so naive that you believe these folks will NOT get guns? The history of Banning things in this country (alcohol, drugs) shows how impractical that is. Look at the state of IL! Strictest gun laws in country-- doesn't work. Excuse is often that its because the bad guys can get guns easily from neighboring States. Exactly! They will get guns wherever they can and there will be a black market make no mistake. (As a matter of fact most of the guns they get now are black-market.) Your ideas are noble and goals laudable but they are dangerous to the rest of us no matter how well meaning.

Finally, a sober voice of disagreement. Dave, I respect your perspective. Obviously, the original post was mostly wishful thinking, but I still think that eliminating handguns and assault rifles is a worthy goal. I get particularly appalled whan normal people, not really criminals but maybe hot heads, settle differences with handguns because they are convenient. You read these stories all the time. Anger, fear, revenge and violence are sadly part of human nature. Why not take away the lethal means to aggravate these conditions and encourage folks to 'fight it out'.

So the last Person that said that, Guns should be given up and we just fight it out, thats good, then when the loosing person is down, he sees a rock, board, knife or some other object, picks it up and hits the other person with it & kills them. Then the Demorats, Liberal & Gays will want to ban all Rocks, All Frying Pans, 2 x 4 Boards, Knifes and just anything, Let these poeple move out of this contry so that the decent people can live, with out listening to there Stupid ideas & conversations

To ever have a chance in this argument Count, you must answer the question of how taking guns away from common folks will make them safer when we know the Criminals will still have guns. There may not be a solution to this in our lifetimes. You focus on handguns and assault rifles as if if we just ban these we will be good. The Black Market will provide.. again you only accomplish making most folks less safe. The real gun debate needs to focus on creating common sense standards for owning a weapon of any type. Here is where there needs to be reform. Here is where there is a chance for sober discussion. We can't have this discussion as long as there are loud voices asking for bans when most Americans (by vote and polls) know that won't work. These voices should elevate the discussion to asking "what common sense reforms will ensure responsible gun ownership, honor the 2nd Amendment and yet give society the safety it needs.

to answer Ben, Beth and Dave: Ben, I do not want to ban guns. Please stop acting like I do. Beth, I asked a cop the same question and he says concealed weapons on citizens is his biggest concern. Dave, common sense standards for owning a weapon will not affect the criminal element. Making it impossible to get handguns makes more sense to me.

Dave,
Thank you for putting into words what most of us think. I guess your having law enforcement experience gives you more credibility that the rest of us. It is a shame that you have to weigh in on this when most of us have already said the same thing as you, but in different ways. I favor testing for gun ownership and carry licensing, but the State only seems to care about the money. I don't really think the government expects us to use weapons, as they show no concern about who gets to buy them, or the ability of those carrying them.
As law enforcement, what do you REALLY think of those of us who carry, concealed or open, with respect to being an asset in crime prevention?

Jim

Count-- you argue your for preventing the law abiding hot head from using a gun in an argument .. common sense standards address this! Not the criminal element! I'm listening-- tell me how you will realistically make it impossible to get handguns? There are some anti-guns cops but in my experience more are pro-gun... as a matter of fact I don't personally know any antigun cops. We are taught to deal with people as if they are "armed" at all times. Sometimes this is disconcerting to the public when we ask them to empty pockets, keep hands visible etc but banning guns will not make us change procedures because we have to assume everyone is armed for our safety. We know bans don't work-- we are not willing to bet our lives that your unarmed... as officers. The public has the right to say the same thing.

Ben,
What do 'Demorats, Liberal & Gays' have to do with this? I can just imagine what 'they' are calling you!

ALL- This article is just a waste of time, though, since we elected a President named Barrack Hussein Obama, a President named Raoul is not so far fetched.
Raoul- This article just tends to exacerbate gun owner's fears that if assault rifles are banned, the next step is hand guns. It only galvanizes your opposition. Good job.
Guns are here to stay, I recommend you buy one and learn how to use it. Or, if you rather, when a deadly situation occurs (heaven forbid), please hit the deck and let us handle it. Also, don't scream like a girl as we find that distracting.

Jim- I agree there is room for sober discussion. I encourage law abiding citizens to get concealed carry permits, take some training that you will probably have to pay for, carry insurance if you can; you must take responsibility for yourself and family. Law Enforcement can never be 100%. I do not fear the law abiding citizen with a gun... if you make the decision that carrying a gun is not for you.. that should also be your choice.

Rebecca,
I have already agreed with Raoul that we don't need machine guns and RPGs in our living rooms. But we have a highly disfunctional government that tends to mess things up, and this is too important an issue to give to them.
Dave, thank you. I carry extra insurance, and have taken lessons. I don't get enough time to practice, but can hit center mass with the first round at 15 yards. And, I know my limitations, so I will not try to hit a fly at 100 yards.

Frankley, I don't Care what the Democrats, Liberals & Gays Call me, If you read, hear about, a topic like Gun Control, Gay Rights, Taxing the Rich, Illeagal people, You hear this from the Democrats, Liberals & Gays. Not all Democrats are Gays, But all Gays are Democratic

Rebecca... the incidents you mention did not involve known criminals. Your premise is that if there were no assault rifles or large magazines they would not have done this. Your willing to bet my life and other citizens lives on this premise. It seems to me that the burden should be on you to flesh out this argument. A sick person bent on destruction will find a way-- you can build bombs out of commonly available materials that would do more damage. In the case of the movie theater consider what would happen if the gunman had encountered even 1 trained citizen. Unfortunately well meaning folks banned concealed carry from the theater. That made everyone "less safe". There is always a counter argument. We won't win this or lose this here on the Patch. We can as neighbors have civil discussion and try and understand our neighbors points of view. Please tell me how your ban would still prevent the individual who goes off the reservation from getting into a more destructive device like a bomb or buying the assault rifle and magazines on the black market? Should you not argue that allowing concealed carry in the theater would not have made people safer that day?

This conversation has long ago degraded into something which is impossible to have logical debate. There are plenty to debate in your original post, with specific facts, but I have long since realized that having a debate does more to sharpen your own feelings, and raise your blood pressure, than to actually change the minds of the folks your debating. Thankfully, in our country, no President has the power to do what you suggest, at least currently. The way things are going, especially with the small arms treaty, the 2nd Ammendment might just be trumped before the end of the year.

As for the Japan argument, We can take snippets out here and there whenever we want to support our personal views, but if you look a little deeper into what makes it even possible in places like Japan, you see all types of other issues that one could ask, "Do you want that in America too"? For instance, Japan is on a 2 year roll of having extremely high suicide rates for their country. They pretty much always rank in the top 10 (currently #6 or #7) on the list of countries with a high suicide rate. What is the point? Specificallly you can't compare and apple to an orange. You can't take specific pieces out of one country and compare it to another country without also comparing every other aspect as well. Where do we start that list? I don't know, how about the fact that in America we have an abundance of gangs like MS13, etc.

wow Rebecca.. building a bomb when you can't think straight..... did you miss what he did in the apartment? Your now going emotional and making pronouncements and like many of these conversations that basically ends any debate. "The general population doesn't need them period". Wow. Thats a great argument and is sure to sway people. Todd is right.. its now to a stage where I'm out... I hope folks think about the arguments and come to an informed opinion.

I agree with your plan, Count. We own shotguns so we would get to keep those. My boys enjoy shooting clay things and my husband once said the mere sound of the cocking of a shotgun would scare off anyone considering invading our home. No handguns assault weapons necessary!

Rebecca-- by the way-- thanks for what you do etc. Community discussions are good because neighbors talk-- thanks for facilitating that.

I stated this before but no one made any comment so I will repost:

"Long guns for protection are fine unless you are attacked in your car, on the street, or the like."

What then? I cannot imaging private citizens carrying around long guns in their daily routine.
As for assault rifles, I don't see them in the same argument as hand guns. I do not own one and never will. I do not like them. But the fact is that you will never get them out of the hands of the bad guys. They do not play by the same rules nor the same thought process as law abiding citizens. If you are a liberal, have you ever tried converting a conservative? If you are a conservative, have you ever tried converting a liberal? Will hardly ever happen. Same with the mind set of a criminal (or wanna be).

Leon there are several reasons. First, I'm not at all mentioning the legal issue of ridding the country of handguns and assault rifles. There's lots of fantasy here. Remember, the whole thing starts with an annonymous 'Count' being President. Justice Scalia appears to be a level headed jurist and one of my favorites. But sadly the entire court is rather political these days with Roberts using the Obamacare decision to show his independence. And in my opinion, to allow his court to go further right now with an example to point back at claiming balance. But mostly, I look at Roe v. Wade and how it's opponents do not give up just because a liberal court pronounced abortions legal a generation ago. I think DC vs. Heller might have been a different decision years ago, or years from now.

I thought this one had all been settled.

Count, in support of your latest post, NYPD cops actually only hit their intended targets at about half the rate you mention (15%-20%). The good news is, police stats indicate that concealed-carry citizens (CCC from here out) routinely hit their intended targets 3 times more often (60%-65%), and hit 6 times fewer bystanders than the police.

The biggest differences between the two groups of would-be "good guys" seem to be that the CCC <i>1) tend to be just as well practiced in the skill of drawing and firing</i> (no really, they spend just as much time at the range, and in some cases MUCH more), <i>2) they tend to be shooting in daylight or well-lit conditions, </i>compared to the poor lighting most police shootings take place in, and <i>3) are usually by themselves when they shoot. </i> This avoids the "bunch-shooting" phenomenon seen so many times in NYPD and other police records.

You can find some insight into questions regarding the comparative ineffectiveness of police firearm useage and training, and some ideas for further research here: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

Dave, I went to your 19 page ppsc report and found I could not muddle through it. But I will take your word for the stats you provided regarding police accuracy. I certainly do not doubt that well trained sober people are likely to be accurate and occasionally (rarely) find themselves in a position to defend a life. BUT, America allows criminals to walk into gun shows and buy handguns and assault rifles without a waiting period or background check. Now I've never done this, so tell me if I'm wrong. If you paint me a picture where only citizens as upstanding as yourself are granted the ability to buy these guns, and these guns will never be stolen or sold to criminals, I will listen. 'Till then.... ban 'em.

That's the point, whole Count: you can't keep them out of of any hands EXCEPT the law-abiding citizen, and a lot of people just don't like the idea of being at that sort of disadvantage.

Incidentally, some of the numbers regarding the recent Empire State Building police shooting got my attention:

16 shots were fired by 2 officers (9 for one, 7 for the other).
10 of the 16 rounds hit the perp.
9 bystanders were hit and injured in the shooting.
3 of the bystanders were hit directly by police rounds (not fragments).
0 shots were fired by the perp (after the one killing the original victim inside the shop, that is).

Don't misunderstand, the perp got his just desserts, and the officers probably did the right thing by shooting. But these are the mysteries of bunch-shooting: why 16 rounds on a non-shooting subject (when theoretically a non-cooperative, threatening subject could be dropped with one or two each)? Why did only 10 of the 16 hit from 5 yards or less, even though both officers are certified out to 25, and it took place in daylight during good weather?

It also brings into question the rationale of using hollow-point bullets solely to reduce or prevent injuries to unintended objects/people nearby due to bullets passing through the target. (cf. this rather old NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/nyregion/new-york-police-will-start-using-deadlier-bullets.html - and this much more recent Wash.Times editorial: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/23/dispelling-bullet-myths/)

I apologize for being slightly off-topic, but I thought it might interest some people following the thread here.