somehow I think the rate that new guns are manufactured far exceeds the rate laws aer being passed,,,,

so Im doubting they will ever be all but banned,, especially not in only one hundred years,,,

mother jones has 48 weapons that would qualify for banning,, not 20, making them the Second most often used

Not that I trust those particular numbers, but I know the reason that pistols revolvers and shotguns are used more is because in the case of handguns they are easier to steal smuggle and conceal. For shotguns, they are cheaper and more likely to hit medium distance targets and do massive damage at close range. Bolt action rifles aren't represented here either and there is no category or figures for machine-pistols or sub-machine guns like mp5s Uzis etc. The cost of assault rifles and ammo is why they are used less often , and fact that you can't walk down the street into a store or bank unnoticed IN MOST CASES. I have yet to hear of any 105mm howitzer bank robberies either. Does that mean that we should allow those to be sold to anyone who can tow them?
No. While handguns may account for the largest number of shootings, they have smaller capacity less powder and smaller projectiles that travel at lower muzzle velocities and have shorter point lethality ranges save for .50cal, 357 and .44 magnum, which an average teen couldn't fire repeatedly or accurately. Those are also very heavy very expensive and low capacity. Shotguns also have considerably short range compared to 5.56 7.62 308 338. It wouldn't be as bad if the mags held 10-15 bullets like most handguns do, but ar's and AK's fitted with normal magazines have twice the available shots before reloading than the 38spc or .45s our police used to carry. It's been an arms race since the Vietnam era between the people and the police. That was then, Now a person can potentially point and mow down crowds of people100 rounds at a time without having to stop firing to reload. If this continues the police will soon be armed with belt-fed machine guns in places they don't have them already. Do 'We the People' want that?
Guns magazines and bullets don't kill people, people kill people. How many of US want to turn on the TV and see another James Holmes? All gun owners and users have their rights endangered by sick bastards like him but the next time it happens, and it's going to happen again, a 10--15 round magazine could save lives and injuries. The latest theatre shooting was tragic, but it left more survivors than the Colorado massacre. That cannot be disputed.

Which are you?

It's funny that my reply to another thread works just as well with this one is it not?
.................................

The govt doesn't know how to fix or manage anything, much less human behavior!

All they know is control!

They create need, then take control of that need by regulation, restriction, or taxation, creating more problems, requiring more regulation, restriction and taxation to fund it.

In the end it's our rights and privacy that suffer and nothing is ever fixed..... just another problem created to start the whole process over again!

I have quite a RATIONAL aversion to guns actually

just like I have a RATIONAL aversion to dark allies

,,,you can train to handle both safely,,but why should you if its not a NECESSARY part of your life

Because
(ex.) you may forget to signal before changing lanes or not realize that your front license plate has fallen off. Because one day you might have a tail light out and an officer out of the blue starts yelling for no reason giving you a 'lawful' order that is impossible or to comply with. It might not become a part of your life, it could be the end of your life(ex.).
Just an example...

I fail to understand how having a gun would make either of those situations better? seems thats more reason to be seen as a 'threat',,?

It doesn't mean that you or anybody else has to buy carry or use a gun. That's the point. Tensing never said 'I thought he had a gun', they would have said by now that there was a gun, ammo, brass, a holster or anything that would indicate the POSSIBILITY that Dubose had a gun in the car.
You said, maybe in another thread idk, that no amount of (officer, sidearms) training could prevent this. That's not true. Tensing had a written exam where he was asked what he would do if he had to draw his weapon. His answer (paraphrased) was take a step back to assess <premeditate> OFFICER safety is #1.

All Formal firearm training instructs holding the gun with BOTH hands. Tensings left hand was reaching inside the car, possibly in the path of fire if the other hand with the gun is grabbed or deflected in a struggle.

Officer safety or PUBLIC safety? Serve and PROTECT. Officers are supposed to represent and enforce safety. Officers do face violent criminals, terrorists, at times. Nobody is upset about the death of Richard Matt or the shooting of David Sweat. Dubose, Garner, were not armed, combative, or violent criminals. In the Dubose case specifically Tensings response which was entirely his own creation foreshadowed the attempt on the stop where the driver shot the video of him. Think about it. Take a step back, assess if I can make this look like I had to shoot the guy and end up with some evidence to justify my action, "self defense". Both drivers were told to get out of the cars, but they are wearing seatbelts. Suddenly raising the vocal tone would not only provoke suspicion from another officer on the scene but also cause the driver to flinch or make a jerky movement. Tensing told Dubose to take off his seatbelt then for no reason STOP STOP, bang. Grabbing the seatbelt as if to take it off the driver would have 'connected' Tensing to the car making it lookllike he was dragged. He missed the seatbelt and of coursenot wanting to be dragged or run over he instictually falls back instead of on his side elbow or shoulder consistent with being dragged and released.
It wasn't just premeditated, it was covering up the shooting from before the shot was fired.

Hay right on.

When people actually quote statistics,
well, that's powerful.

The sheeple and the insecure are fleeing for the exits

Lets face it, thanks to the acceptance of nerds and their scientific brethrin,...well, the tenor of the times is a changing, and we're using logic more and more. This catalyst for change should be followed by one of the restoration of humanity. as our social consciousness score rises on the journey from Morocco to Scandanavia.

to all who choose to have guns,, more power to ya,, nothing wrong with your choice

I am one who chooses to stay clear of them, and nothing about that choice is 'irrational'

The choice is not irrational nor are your feelings on the subject.
There is a flaw in your equation though.
It doesn't matter that you choose to stay away from guns, this doesn't mean that people with guns will stay away from you. Every time you see a police car, have to call the Police they are right there. Nobody chooses to be at the scene of a driveby shooting, robbery, or be in the path of a stray bullet meant for someone else. It just happens (to the unsuspecting unintended victims).


Guns rarely kill anyone or anything without a person holding it cleaning what they think is unloaded or knocking it over,

Laws are not passed for each individual firearm. They cover categories. Full auto weapons are banned. Short barrels are banned. Suppressors are banned. Illegal to own or possess a firearm if you were ever a felon, or have a restraining order, or are considered a danger to yourself or others.
There is now a push to prohibit those receiving disability from purchasing firearms. There are also pushes to ban pistol grips, heat shields, adjustable gun stocks, flash hiders, Magazines that hold more than 7-10 rounds, and certain types of ammo. Also a push to greatly increase taxes on ammo and limit how many bullets you can buy at a time. There has also been talk on limiting how much ammunition you should be allowed to store in your home. Not to mention pushes for laws that make the owner of a firearm responsible to crime committed with said firearm AFTER IT HAS BEEN STOLEN.

There are strict carry laws that almost make it not worth carrying. But more importantly, many view guns their own evil entity and great prejudice is given to those who own them. Meaning, you are carrying and reach for something on a high shelf in a grocery store, handle of the gun is now visible through the shirt, people panic and call police. Police are told you have an armed suspect and they come into the situation with weapons drawn, ready to shoot. You have broken no law, but are treated as criminals because of the irrational fear of firearms.

We are currently unable to enforce current regs and laws on guns. Government agencies don't communicate with each other and our government has grown so big, it can't effectively manage things like background checks (I have examples). Passing more laws under these conditions is not only foolish, it's reckless. It also follows under several foolish ways of thinking. #1 The reason we are in danger is because we have too much freedom. #2 People are not responsible for their actions.

Whats sad is the situation of gun violence is actually improving on its own. Has been for decades.

I am reminded of a movie "Wolf on Wall Street" When Leo Dicaprio is teaching a lesson on salesmanship. "Sell me this pen" he would request of his student. When a student would try talking positively about this pen he would cut him off with "Next!". This was until he asked someone who took the Pen and requested Leo write something down. The lesson, of course being; You have to create a need for something in order to sell it. This, ladies and gents, is how politicians get elected, and how media sources get paid.

Very few, democrats or republicans have actually tried to help with issues as of late. Again, anyone serious about decreasing gun violence would have taken the NRA's offer of helping to fund mental healthcare. The media posting assailants' photos all over the world, making attackers infamous and forever remembered, would also be discouraged.