Sadly yes - and isn't that a sad narrative in-and-of itself. Wouldn't you agree Ace?
Believe it or not I do. Which is why I think how gun legislation is crafted is important. I know how it will be done if it is looked at on a black and white bases. I don't think most people on this forum will like the out come.
Ace - it is my observation that, when viewed in "black and white", the guns would be taken/banned/or otherwise controlled. Crime would then rise dramatically, as it always does in such a situation. And what would soon follow is a dictator taking over "to set things right" from one party or the other - it wouldn't really matter which party at that point. Shortly after, people would begin rebelling - with good reason. And the dictators party would begin "cracking down" - this is the part where the mass-killings begin.
We, as citizens, have 2 choices right now - and always:
1 - 9,500 (average) gun related deaths per year in the USA, half of which are suicides, less than 400 are rifles, and less the 100 are Assault Rifles (data via the FBI - posted earlier in this thread - post #31)
OR
2 - A dictator (usually socialst/communist) run country which will melt down into mass murder of its own people.
Here's the options to each of the above:
1 - a severe increase in punishment for gun crimes would lower #1 above by about 1/3.
Or
2 - or we could choose the mass murder route of over 1,500,000 deaths, average per year, continuously for the last 120+/- years, that a communist/socialist/whatever-name dictator offers a "gun-free" society - 100% guaranteed by history.
Please explain to me why anyone would choose the #2 option Ace?