[MT2008]

Originally Posted by predator20

Now I don't fall into that "more guns, less crime" bit either. The more guns out there, then there's more that could potentially be stolen and used in a crime. But if more non-gun people are getting into guns and being responsible that's great. Gun education is key.

Education is important, yes, but without an adequate regime for implementing such education (at the federal level, not state), what we have is basically an enormous proliferation of firearms and an increase in people who might not be mentally fit or sufficiently trained to use them.

Originally Posted by predator20

What kind of regulation would you propose? Registration? That seems like it would be one step closer to having them confiscated or "required to be turned in". (I don't buy into that confiscation bit either, but people are looking for something to blame.)

I'm not sure. But let's leave aside the question of whether gun registration would lead to gun bans: Is it really such a bad thing to require guns to be registered from a purely moral standpoint? We have laws requiring registration of many, many things that are potentially deadly in the wrong hands (such as cars). Assuming we could guarantee that registration did not lead to a ban, it would be a good way to ensure that fewer weapons are reaching the hands of those who should not own them, no?

Originally Posted by predator20

There's so many of them out there right now in private hands, it would be impossible to track as well.

Agreed, which is why I think that a new AWB is not feasible (as well as unfair to law-abiding gun owners).

Originally Posted by predator20

More dangerous than hunting rifles. My father has a Remington Model 750, semi-auto .308 "hunting rifle" it takes a detachable box magazine. Usually around 5 rounds I think, it will accept larger ones as well. Making it capable of doing just has much damage as my L1A1 in the wrong hands. (I don't even want to get into that hi-cap mag or "battle clips" they are sometimes referred as.) While the AR, AK and L1A1's etc manual of arms make for a better fighting rifle. A gun is gun at the end of the day no matter what it looks like.

But some guns require less training and patience to use in ways that are particularly dangerous. Moreover, what you are saying runs contrary to the intent of many AWs' designers. An AK-47 is not, unlike your Dad's Remington Model 750, a weapon that was meant to be aimed and fired at distant targets with a high degree of accuracy (a skill that is only honed after a great deal of practice and patience); it was meant to throw out a large amount of lead and hit multiple targets, and it was meant to achieve this effect in the hands of illiterate peasant draftees who had mere weeks worth of training. This is all common sense to almost anyone, regardless of whether they're a gun geek or not.

(And again, nobody is arguing that a guy with an AK-47 is guaranteed to kill lots of people, just as it would be fallacious to argue that it's impossible to kill lots of people with a Remington Model 750. I am merely arguing that this scenario is more likely with an AK.)