You say that it's a shame that "kids keep dying for the blessed right to bear arms." Yet the ban at issue in DC v. Heller doesn't appear, at least, to have stopped kids from dying. From the year it became law to 1991, the murder rate went up about 150%, and from 1987 to 2005 the murder rate was higher than pre-ban levels.* I haven't read any of the statistical analyses that I'm sure have been done, but it seems like a stretch to say that kids are dying for the right to bear arms when the city in America that's done the most to abrogate that right doesn't seem to have gotten any less violent for such abrogation. As for the UNC case in particular, you appear to have a guy who shot a girl for her car and ATM card. Are you really asking me to believe that a man like that, someone willing to kill for a cheap car, would respect a handgun ban? Or do you think there's some type of gun control so stringent that it could actually prevent anyone from illegally procuring a gun?

* <link>

If one assumes (quite likely the case, in my opinion) that no reasonably likely scenario for gun control legislation would significantly impact gang killings (these gangs are already dealing in illegal guns, so they would just have a more profitable business there), it still leaves the rate of fatalities from accidental shootings in the home, or the impulse killings due to family disputes (presuming that ordinary citizens might actually obey the law) MIGHT be reduced.

Personally, I am skeptical, based on our track record in banning things people really want -- we have done so well with banning alcohol during prohibition and drugs in the past few decaded!

trayduece,

Gun bans don't make guns spontaneously dissapear. Guns are also be brought across state lines. Go to a gun show in the next town over, buy all the guns you want with no background check and then drive them into DC and sell them for a huge profit. So having a ban on guns in DC won't necessarily cause a reduction in the number of guns on the street. You might think this is a good reason not to ban guns. I would argue, however, that in the LONG term a larger, national ban on guns would actually lead to a reduction in handguns, which would lead to an overall reduction in gun violence, which would lead to a lowering of the murder rate. What you would need, to make your case, is a statistic showing a shap decrease in the number of guns and a simultaneous increase in the number of violent homicides. Given the much lower gun violence rates in places like Canda and the UK, my guess is you're not going to find it.

It's very difficult to stab 18 people in the space of an hour on a university campus.

When you talk about the 'long term', this overall reduction you claim MAY occur would only take place IF society was willing to jail those that violate the ban (i.e. have illegal guns).

I just don't see society willing to enforse the ban. (just like immigration laws). Enforcing the ban would be a problem because everyone that violates the ban will claim they were just doing so for self protection. Let says one gets 5 years for a violation of the gun ban. Are YOU willing to throw these types in jail;

1) Single mother in gang area that says she had to have the gun for safety.

2) Young Man in gang area that is NOT a gang member (well as far as anyone can tell) that needs a gun to protect himself from the gangs.

3) Family man in poor area (and lets make him a white man in a minority area to really have 'fun') that has a gun for protection.

etc...

Are YOU willing to give all of these people 5 years for a violation of the ban? If NO, then WHO does get the 5 years? i.e. what type of people WILL the ban be enforced on? It better NOT be mostly minorities or this will be like the crack verses cocaine issue.

My main point here is that in the communities that would benefit the most from a gun ban it will be the MEMBERS of those communities that this gun ban will ALSO put in jail.

BUT these MEMBERS will NOT want their children put in jail so the ban will NOT be enforced. Thus, like immigration, the laws are a joke an not much changes.

HEY, I don't own guns and I'm willing to support more gun control. It is the communties that need it that are NOT willing since it means THEIR KIDS are the ones that go to jail.

Here in So Cal, the communties ask for more police to stop the gangs. Then the police shoot a gang member and the same communities ask that police don't attack their people.

Yea, the police do make mistakes.

You assume nobody in the country has mounted an effective gun ban. Chicago has had a very effective one. Crime has not disappeared but incidents of violent crime have gone down drastically since it was enacted.

Gun bans clearly pay dividends but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with the idea of negating a Bill of Rights amendment that was put in place for reasons that are still important today. GOP and DFL moderates need to work across the aisle without spouting off weak propaganda statements if they want to make any headway on what they want which I assume are:

DFL: To prevent idiots, mentally unstable people, and criminals running amuck with firearms. What we could to do better make our case:

- Show a better understanding of the problems. Concealable automatics with high magazine capacities are the most dangerous of the lot yet we focused on assault rifles. Why?

- Stop assuming the most vocal of the gun rights crowd are representative of the whole.

- Recognize that saving lives just by itself is not a valid argument. We could make ourselves absolutely miserable preventing deaths if we wanted but we do appear to allow for some level of acceptable losses for the liberty to do risky things or live in a world that isn't just a series of padded wall corridors. The free operation of motor vehicles for instance...

- Learn to recognize the difference between gun "rights" and gun "recklessness"

GOP: For people to stop arbitrarily questioning their judment simply because they believe that the role of gun rights in enabling the citizenry a greater opportunity to revolt and/or defend themselves from an oppressive regime.

- Stop with the conceal/carry nonsense. Even if you need to rebel against a totalitarian regime you'll be breaking the "law" anyway. Carrying a firearm "just in case" or out of fear that some criminal is going to "get you" is unreasonable. Even reasonable people exert poor judgment some of the time and your failure to acknowledge this makes the whole movement look like a bunch of Chuck Bronson enthusiasts. Locked up in the back trunk of your car or locked up and disassembled in a box anywhere else, I'm okay with.

- Recognize that the NRA is a creature of the gun lobby who is quite happy to romanticize gun ownership and exaggerate the criminal threat for profits. If you want the opposition to take you seriously, you have to take this stuff more seriously than parroting slogans, "studies," and real-life "accounts" that are obvious propaganda frequently indulging in subtle racist garbage to piss people off.

-Learn to recognize the difference between gun "control" and gun "ban"

It's very difficult to stab 18 people, and it would also be very difficult to prevent a kid bent on killing 18 people from getting a gun. Not only that, but I don't think that you can just ignore an express provision of the Constitution just because today we think it's stupid. On that logic we could all just quit using the Electoral College today without amending the Constitution. The EC is a lot more outdated than the Second Amendment - for which a lot of reasonable arguments can be made even today. If you look at the briefs in DC v. Heller, there are all kinds of briefs from women's groups and gay groups making the self-defense argument. If a woman's being beaten to death by a crazy abusive husband much stronger than she is, how else can she defend herself but with some sort of weapon? Gay groups point to hate crimes. Then there's robbery. In countries that do have really stringent gun bans, burglars are much more likely to break in to someone's home when they're at home because they know that the residents will almost certainly be unarmed. The burglars themselves, however, often are. It's a complicated problem and while there are certainly great arguments to be made for gun control, I just thought it was a bit of a stretch to say that kids are dying for the right to bear arms like that's some kind of empirical fact.