The major difference between the dangers of easily available guns and ownership of cars, baseball bats, etc. is that, given that they can be dangerous and are sometimes used as weapons, is the fact that the purpose of baseball bats is to hit baseballs, and the purpose of cars are to be mobile, and on and on. Of course it would be draconian and foolish to ban them. But the purpose of handguns and assault rifles is to kill. That's it. That's what, for me, makes the "logical extension" argument such as case of apples and oranges. There will be outlaws who have guns, and exasperating that situation are discrepancies in gun laws from state to state and country to country. But on the whole, I believe we're safer with gun control. The worst situation is when criminals have access to firepower that is superior to police firepower. We just need to somehow get away from being such a gun-laden and gun-fascinated society. A society where guns sometimes illegally get into the hands of the wrong people is safer than one where guns get into the hands of law-abiding citizens who might become criminals (someone goes postal, road rage, crimes of passion, etc.) AND where guns illegally get into the hands of people who intend to use them for crimes. Doug, I agree with you on some issues, and disagree with you on others. I greatly respect you and your opinions, but sharply differ on this one. Would you concede that an assault rifle or handgun in the hands of someone who intends to use them for crime can cause much more mayhem than someone who uses a baseball bat for the same purpose? (the obvious exception would be in an airplane, a very special situation, as we all know what people armed with box cutters did). I also totally agree with Fionn's point about gun production.

chanteyranger (who rarely weighs in on political threads but feels too strongly about this one)