defeatist? ...yes, no doubt (because remember I also detest guns)
But you simply can not ban hand guns and have the general populace feel safe. It would take many many years of this until finally these guns worked themselves out of the system and asking decent folks to simply grin and bear it is not an option. I would love the ready availability to be a non-issue and simply stating "it should be overcome" simply does not make sense in reality. Until then, banning certain types of guns makes little sense EXCEPT (and you are the only one to admit it) where you want to eliminate all guns step by step by step without people seeming to notice? (but they DO notice)

You don't have to say that like it's anything sinister though. Why not be upfront about it and just say that obviously it would be nice if handguns could be banned but that's not feasible, whereas banning assault rifles can be done and might save a few lives ? I honestly don't see the downside really.

I love the way that gradualism or seeking consensus is regarded as some secretive agenda.

Like Sass I've got a similar view. No surprise really, as it's pretty much what UK law is, having changed it following some massacres. Handguns I would ban, but I recognise that in the US that's not politically feasible at the moment. Assault weapons ban including the kind of weapon used at Newtown seems to be a reasonable first step, and you can give it time to see if itbdoes make a difference or not.

"a reasonable first step"
...says it all really.

and it might save a few lives? and how will you measure this success?
as I stated, banning swords would also no doubt "save a few lives" as well.

tom

and it might save a few lives? and how will you measure this success?

By fewer gun deaths per thousand.
The same way that tough measures to address drunk driving have saved thousands of lives since 1992.
Just to reiterate, those measures have seen the decrease in deaths attributed to drunk driving from 15,000 in 1992 to about 10,000 now. Over time that's around 50,000 to 60,000 lives saved.

If a third of gun deaths can be averted due to a similar attempt to regulate, prohibit and educate..... that would mean 4,000 deaths and 12,000 injuries a year.

and how many gun deaths per thousand are attributed to assault weapons now?
you are speaking about a tiny fraction of a fraction, you simply could not measure how effective this was or was not.
Banning one particular type of weapon that is rarely used in crimes is not anywhere close to a comparison to drinking and driving, apples and oranges.

wait a minute

You are saying we should ban assault weapons and see if the number of gun deaths drop. That would prove effective?

Well, we don't need to do that now do we?
ever since the ban on assault weapons went into effect, gun deaths have been dropping, based on your own logic, we have the proof you yourself want!

having trouble finding the statistics you seem to love so much, but we had a total of 353 gun deaths by "Rifle" in 2011. That's not assault rifle but rather by any rifle. so about 4% of all gun deaths are by rifle, how many of these do you think are assault rifles? Even if every one was, you think you can measure success from so small a sample? All while ignoring the fact that the death rate is dropping at the same time. Some can certainly be attributed to better medical care? simply put you can not even guess at how successful such a ban might be!

tom

and how many gun deaths per thousand are attributed to assault weapons now?
you are speaking about a tiny fraction of a fraction, you simply could not measure how effective this was or was not.
Banning one particular type of weapon that is rarely used in crimes is not anywhere close to a comparison to drinking and driving, apples and oranges.

The assault weapons ban is only one part of the measures proposed, no?
Secondly, one can either respond to the evidence from several incidents or obfuscate.
Its obvious that assault weapons, and other semi automatic weapons increase the ability of deranged individuals to kill more people, faster, especially in exposed public environments like theatres, malls and schools. If you need to wait 10 years until the increased use has added to the body toll, to where they start to factor into the insurance calculations .... or you can act to prevent the carnage.
If your jolly rejoinder is, oh it'll never happen again .... think again. It was unthinkable the first time.
The application of measures to prevent gun deaths aren't about achieving perfection. Totally eliminating gun deaths. It is about reducing them.
Similarly driving laws seek to reduce damage on the roads, and don't pretend to be able to eliminate them
Trying to argue that unless perfection can be achieved, it isn't worth pursuing improvement is illogical. Imperfect drunk driving laws have demonstrably saved 50,000 to 60,000 lives since 1992. Imperfect measures taken to limit the carnage of guns, are worth taking too.
To argue otherwise, is to say as Bbauska does, that the current cost is simply the price we have to pay for the current gun liberties... I give him his due for the courage to take this stand.
But I can't comprehend why that equation makes sense after events like Sandy hook.

I thank thee for the props.

I wish that the ones who wish to increase legislation on these weapons any and all weapons would exercise the same standard of reasoning to other realms of laws as the gun debate.

This is GMTom's line of thinking. Just be honest about what your end game is, and follow the same standard across the board.

Driving, Alcohol, Abortion have all been brought up as showing the difference in the left's line of reasoning compared to guns.

Side note:

At a Seattle gun turn in there was a Surface to Air missile launcher (already fired) turned in. These are prohibited for personal ownership, and yet it was still personally owned. (no it was not me who turned it in...)

Its obvious that assault weapons, and other semi automatic weapons increase the ability of deranged individuals to kill more people, faster, especially in exposed public environments like theatres, malls and schools.

But the only ban is on assault rifles! The ban does not pertain to hand guns that fire the same way. This type of hand gun is the standard and they are all too available. To ban the rifle is simply a way to pander to the masses who want something done. Sandy Hook was a tragedy, people demanded something happen about it when in reality, it's nothing more than a terrible terrible tragedy, one evil man seeking to make his mark.

and I saw that gun collectors were at that Seattle trade in making offers to those who were trading in, it turned into a gun show!

Awww, you ruined the best part of the story! I was waiting for response...

and it might save a few lives? and how will you measure this success?
as I stated, banning swords would also no doubt "save a few lives" as well.

You can always make the case that banning something or other might save a few lives Tom. I've chosen to draw the line at certain types of firearms, which I think is a reasonable position to adopt and is logically coherent on its own terms. Tbh I don't think it's necessary for me to have to respond to every little bit of whataboutery that people throw up as an objection.

I fully accept that it's impossible to frame a law which will save every life that might have been taken by some tool or other in the wrong hands. That isn't my intent. I just think that in the particular case of firearms there isn't a sufficient justification for their continued legal ownership which would override the social benefit which would accrue through their being made illegal.