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.

Gary Tupper

On 12/19/2012 6:14 AM, Robert Hansen wrote:

On Dec 19, 2012, at 8:01 AM, GS Chandy <gs_chandy@yahoo.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