It is not surprising to me that gun legislation is not very effective. Sort of like "Zero Tolerance" policies. What might be more effective is a social perspective that guns are rather tacky: before allowing their child to sleep-over at little Johnny's, the parents would require that there are no fire arms in Johnny's house - before inviting a couple over for drinks, or a get-together at a restaurant, the hosts would confirm that the guests weren't 'carrying'. Namely, gun-possessors would gradually become pariahs in society. The ultimate aim being that gun-users would ultimately be limited to law enforcement officers and violent criminals. Legitimate hunters would still be able to use their hunting rifles. Gun clubs & rifle ranges would still exist, but the local police stations would store the firearms.
On 12/19/2012 6:14 AM, Robert Hansen wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 8:01 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org > <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote: > >> All of the above seems to be simple enough logically for anyone to >> understand who has been able to understand the logic of simple >> arithmetic, algebra, and the like. > > Well, it didn't work in India, did it? It didn't work in Chicago. It > didn't work in DC. That tells me that it isn't simple. What would be > your next step in India? I mean, since the gun ban didn't work. > > Bob Hansen