Well, since they would have to buy them, I don't think it's much of a problem. An Apache is what, $21,000,000? Practically speaking, I don't think it's much of an issue. For people with that kind of money, this level of weaponry is already freely available on the international market. If someone wants a Stinger, they can be had, laws or no laws. But, since they cost about 20,000 a pop, they aren't really the issue. So I'm pretty comfortable with this position. The vast majority of people who are killed by guns know their killer, and both killer and victim have prior records of violence. So, if you want to be safe, stay away from people with violent tendencies. Seriously.

That's a subjective term, "awful lot". I know a lot of responsible gun owners. I don't know any that I consider irresponsible. Criminal gun dealers are criminals. Already. Don't need any more laws, just need to focus on the ones we have. Irresponsible handling of guns is already a crime, it's called negligent homicide. Don't need more laws. To the extent that we have the problem, it's simply proof that laws don't dissuade those at the fringes of society. Never have, never will. The fringes are the cost of a heterogenous society.

Um, your slip is showing. Fully automatic weapons are not freely available. The kids at Columbine had some semi-autos. The fact that the guns were semi auto rather than other forms of action mad no difference to the people that were shot. The issue was that those kids were clinically crazy. I'm not sure that's a risk that can be legislated away.


Well, unfortunately, that's kind of what a free society is about, isn't it? Treating us as if we are responsible citizens until we demonstrate otherwise. The Patriot act is offensive because it violates that principle, as are firearms laws, and laws against pot smoking.

Anyway, enough of this. Lets go fish sometime and argue while we're backtrolling.