If we install super-conductors into the ground everywhere in the world, guns would become useless as well as being able to have flying cars. It's killing 2 birds with one stone.

From a theoretical standpoint I agree with you. No guns means no gun crime. If only that were the end of the argument. If we were talking theory then removing the instrument used in crimes or murders means such crimes or murders involving said tool cease to exist.

But reality is more complex then that. If you're ultimate goal is to reduce "gun" violence then yes eliminating or reducing the number of guns will serve that purpose. But the story doesn't end there. Do you want less "violence" and crime in general? That's even more difficult to address. It's also not easy to draw ready comparisons between disarmed nations and our own because the stats can vary wildly. For instance, Thailand has no gun ownership but higher rate of gun crime than us. Japan has virtually no gun violence when compared to ours. But you have the UK which has 3.5 times the violent crime rate than us but lower gun crime rate because surprise, there are no guns. So it's a lofty and honorable goal to reduce the number of "deaths" due to guns, but I've seen little data to prove that less guns means we are less safe from violent crime.

Plus you have to examine the practical standpoint of how to disarm a nation where there is close to one gun for every man, woman and child in this nation. And not all are going to disarm willingly. Believe me. Short of a foreign power occupying us and FORCING us to disarm like we made Japan and Europe do, this is going to be an expensive and incredibly difficult job to accomplish even just from a logistical standpoint.

So while I understand the position of "let's get rid of all the guns so all the murders will stop", I don't think it's rooted in reality. I think some measures need to be taken to regulate guns, yes more than we currently have now. But I also think more energy needs to be spent in looking at violent crime as a whole and to look at root causes. Like in medicine, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (and as Doctor I can tell you we don't cure anything....we treat )

3 birds with one stone. The superconductors would need to be cooled to extremely low tempertures and that would cool everything around them also. And with them being everywhere it would solve global warming.

Might as well make that 6000000 birds with one stone since everything around it would freeze to death.

Ha ha ha ha!

well... Admiral Yamamoto said it himself, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

I think that the American desire to own guns can ultimately be exprest in purely Freudian terms-

The men have some form of castration anxiety, which is why they need to secure themselves by owning something so overtly masculine and phallic. The gun, then, in both shape and purpose, is extremely masculine and phallic- it is a tool of destruction and domination.

The women have penis envy, they want a gun as a replacement for the penis they do not have but unconsciously desire.

This really good Extra Credits episode "The Myth of the Gun" http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-myth-of-the-gun on Penny Arcade really explains America's preoccupation with guns, albeit from a gaming point of view but its enough to get some of the point across.

Now there's the question of why someone needs weapons capable of mowing down dozens of people at a time. Such weapons, semi-auto assault rifles for instance, are absolutely terrible for hunting. They are very inaccurate at long range, and good long range accuracy is what you need when hunting deer, elk, moose, bear, and etc. Also, you only really need one or two rounds to bring down most game, not a magazine that holds a dozen rounds or more.

People make the argument that they need such weapons for protection. Protection from what? Some say criminals, other say the government. Well, if you're in a situation where you need military weapons to protect yourself from the government then you're already screwed. As for criminals, if they're so bad where you live that you need an a small arsenal of high-caliber, semi-auto rifles to protect yourself then you're doubly screwed. Where the heck do you live, Afghanistan!? Its ridiculous how people come with the lamest excuses for why they need to own enough assault rifles and ammo to equip a small army.

Getting rid of guns isn't the answer. If history has taught us anything its that prohibitions do-not-work. The prohibition of alcohol didn't work, and made the mafia so powerful they could do whatever they wanted without fear of the law. The prohibition of drugs is a failure, its costs tens of thousands of people their lives, turned drug lords into veritable kings with their own private armies, and filled our prisons to maximum capacity. Where has it gotten us? Nowhere, that's where. We've made no progress in the War on Drugs, in fact its gotten worse rather than better. Mexico is a warzone because of our drug prohibition. The same can be said of the prohibition of sharing copyrighted material, the prohibition of child pornography, and the list goes on and on and on. Prohibitions do not work, history has proven this time and time again. Its time we started listening.

So, how can we fix this so something like Newtown, Columbine, or Virginia Tech won't ever happen again without taking away everyone's guns? Yeah, not so easy now is it? But, its not impossible. It'll take several things, there's no easy way out of this, no magic pill that can fix everything. I'll also take courage, lots of it. First, we need to change how we treat mental illness in the United States, and better measures need to put into place that prevents unstable people from owning guns. Second, we need to improve the quality of life overall for everyone in the country. Most of the gun violence in America is a direct result of poverty. Many people turn to violent crime because they feel like they have nothing more to loose. The factors which create such an environment must be changed, and we need the courage to make it happen. Even if it means we have to shove those to the side those who point and scream "Socialism" at us, but have nothing more constructive to bring to the table on how we should fix this problem (I'm looking at you Republicans).

This nation is sick, we have to cure the patient, not just treat the symptoms. We've tried that already, its not working.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

I'm not an American, thank the gods.
What I meant was that no civilian needs an assault rifle, 2nd commandment or not.

That's assuming the status quo continues.

In the event of a societal collapse, depending where you live, an assault rifle may be necessary since some areas (aka Los Angeles) could very well degrade to an Afganistan level of chaos until an agreed upon order is restored.

Yea I totally understand and agree. Laws only work theoretically because there will always be lawbreakers.
And people always tell me Chinese medicine work better in solving the root cause rather than mostly treating the abnormal processes xD

If it were not guns it would be knives. I do believe that you need to be trained to be safe with any tool. Do we train for safe use of a car, boat, moble crane, punch press, fork lift or welding equpitment? Yes we do and a gun should be the same way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0
One of the best I have seen on magazine ban.

Hell no! if guns are not as easy to have access to, there would simply be less deaths.

yes because clearly no one in any government ever has ever murdered anyone - ahhh never mind i forgot about the 260 million people killed by Democide last century.