When you present FACTS that are dubious, cititions are called for. Source? Stick to the USA, as we're not trying to ban guns in Indonesia. Further, not one single politician is trying to ban guns. Regulate? Sure. Introduce waiting periods and background checks? Sure.

Adam Ulbricht's argument about "If you look at some of the worst areas for gun violence/murder rates, you'll notice they have more restrictive weapons laws" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Law Enforcement reports indicate that guns used in such areas flow like water from municipalities that have lax gun laws.

The argument that prohibition doesn't work is true, but you can easily see that we do, in fact, regulate and otherwise restrict things like alcohol and tobacco (things that tend to be considered for prohibition) to keep them out of the hands of minors, and in some municipalities, create convoluted scenarios to attempt to keep 40 oz malt liquors out of the hands of chronic alcoholics. …show more content…
Agreed. They are a tool designed (in the case of handguns) to kill people. AR-15s in their infinite variety are also designed to kill people. They are not deer hunting rifles (they can be used for that, but it has never, ever been their intent). Arguing that *nothing* should be done to control their prevalence and use because someone, somewhere will still use a gun to kill someone is infantile. It is not a switch one turns off and killings drop to zero, just as having OWI laws does not completely eliminate drunk driving. Would you advocate for no OWI laws because they don't stop ALL