Perhaps, Fistful, but it's articles like this one that helped form my opinion.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040170And here's how I responded to it on another forum:
As for this article, it is useful for lining the bottom of a bird cage.
"Americans are in fact queasier about guns than the national debate might suggest. Only a third of households now have guns, down from 54% in 1977. In poll after poll a clear majority has supported tightening controls"
Failure to cite sources. Polls must be weighed against the demographics of those polled. These statements cannot be evaluated without the source.
"Very few Americans support a complete ban, even of handgunsthere are too many out there already..."
The first part of this statement may be fact, but the second is clearly the opinion of the author, and should not be within the same clause.
"But much could still be done without really infringing that right."
Is that like being a little bit pregnant?
"The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed."
Banning firearms because they look scary is no way to address crime.
"No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose..."
Since no self-defense situation ever involves rapidly engaging multiple targets... right?
"but you can buy one online for $379.99."
You can order a firearm online, but it must be shipped to a Federal Firearms License holder. When you appear in person to pick it up, you are run through the National Instant Check System (NICS), which confirms your legality to possess a firearm.
"Guns could be made much safer, with the mandatory fitting of child-proof locks."
Many manufacturers already offer integral locking systems on their firearms, but the idea of making them mandatory for all pistols is only legitimate if their use was also mandatory, which is not enforceable.
"A system of registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in all other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal."
Since registration has led to confiscation in the United States, this statement is demonstrably untrue.
"Cooling-off periods..."
This snares people who have an immediate legitimate need for a defensive firearm as well as those who can (theoretically) harbor a grudge long enough to sit through filling out a form 4473 and waiting for the FBI to call back with a NICS approval.
"a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help."
The first and last clauses of this statement are referring to how Cho, the VT killer, passed a NICS check because he lied on a the form 4473 and his mental problems never warranted being reported to the FBI. Lying on the 4473 and murder are already illegal, and by what standards do we involuntarily adjudicate someone as mentally incompetent to own firearms? In this case, it sounds like Cho did enough to warrant that, and therefore should have been denied via the NICS check. Still, the person who bears the responsibility for this crime is Cho, and we should never forget that.
As for tighter rules for the trading of firearms, it is already illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to a person who cannot legally possess one. The only other option would be to outlaw private party sales entirely, which I disagree with.
