[vernotixas]

Add "while it's happening and after, we'll have the despicable circumstance of criminals having more access to guns than normal citizens."

Clearly keeping things as they are now isn't working. No "normal citizen" pulled out his sidearm and killed the criminal.

[chuecafresss]

You're probably tens of thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than attacked by a crazed gunman. These events are tragic but occur maybe once every two years in a country of over 300 million.

[Lhtfajba]

Add "while it's happening and after, we'll have the despicable circumstance of criminals having more access to guns than normal citizens."

Criminals use cars to commit crimes. Cars are useful so we don't ban them. Same goes for guns.

Can't argue with this logic, can you?

Cars and guns -- you can't have a modern society without either.

[floadaVonfoli]

There are guns still in frequent use that are 60 years old. Newer guns last even longer.

This is an amusnig statement.

[dupratac]

We understand the materials used, and there have been few revolutions in design. As a general rule, guns that don't break in their first decade, don't break.

[pipittujbk]

You seem mighty proud of your logic, Lori, but I once saw a guy shoot a computer and the computer totally bit the dust. Guns >>> Logic.

[BoarmomorurrY]

Elok -

I saw that video as well and I have to disagree.

With a little time to rest and recover that computer would have been back in the fight.

[HOTgirlsXXL]

This is an amusnig statement.

Heh, I meant to put "should last even longer". You're right, of course.

[lYVgWWcP]

x-lots

We have data, we have equations and everything. Engineers design these things, not hillbillies. Guns are overbuilt for their ammunition, because the consequences of not being overbuilt can be...spectacular. If a gun fails, it was either cheaply constructed or there was a flaw in the metal. Either way, failure happens sooner rather than later due to the stresses that come with each and every shot.

[Slintreeoost]

It crosses the line if you agree with the point he was saying was indefensible.

No, it crosses a line either way.

[loginereQQ]

Would you trust 100-year-old ammunition, though? That's where you start.

Sure, you can get home-made ammo- but it's a good starter.

Unless you're opting for a total ban on guns, I don't think you could only ban handgun ammo. Consider that .22 LR, the most widely used and least expensive ammo, is used in both handguns and rifles.

This is all not even addressing the fact that any such gun bans would be found totally unconstitutional.

[GentlieGant]

Would you trust 100-year-old ammunition, though? That's where you start.

Sure, you can get home-made ammo- but it's a good starter.

Please. Loads of people make home-made ammo all the time. The components are readily available everywhere and it requires no significant amount of specialized expertise. It's called "reloading" cartridges. It can be way cheaper than buying the ammo at a store and it allows for customized loads.

[fectsnanteemy]

You don't need to be killed by a crazed gunman. You're more likely to be killed by someone you know with a gun.

No one is saying guns raise crime rates. Guns just increase lethality.

If you argue that point, shoot yourself in the ****ing temple with a gun and spare us.

The vast majority of people killed in gun violence had it coming, either by cheating on their spouse or dealing drugs or participating in crime in some way.

[mikajuise]

Please. Loads of people make home-made ammo all the time. The components are readily available everywhere and it requires no significant amount of specialized expertise. It's called "reloading" cartridges. It can be way cheaper than buying the ammo at a store and it allows for customized loads.

And you can make home-made bombs too. So, clearly, they should be legal, right?