I'd like fellow WMDers opinions on some of the ideas I have. They are purely speculative, but I think they're interesting (of course I would, they're my ideas). Anyways, you need to presuppose some things in order for the ideas to make complete sense. One such presupposition is that politicians are willing to use any kind of information to their advantage, and bring focus to such information in order to justify their actions (not too far of a stretch). This kind of assumption is not limited to either major party; both Democrats and Republicans could be seen as guilty of this in different situations. Another such presupposition is that some people are so adamant and steadfast in their beliefs that no matter what the contradictory evidence may be, they will never change their opinions. Now that those are out of the way we’ll move on to the ideas. I’m not going to separate them into parties, but by ideals (Pro-gun and anti-gun). The pro-gun crowd favors gun ownership a long with the benefits that it entails. These benefits include but are not limited to the joy of shooting sports, hunting, self defense, deterrence, etc. The anti-gun crowd is against gun ownership because they believe the negative aspects outweigh the benefits. These can include such things as police fatalities, robberies, accidental deaths, etc. Right now you’re probably thinking, “Good job pointing out the obvious, asshat.” But bear with me. When viewed in this way, it can be inferred that the anti-gun crowd is in favor of greater gun crime and accidents. If these numbers were to decrease it would weaken their arguments for gun control and they’ll start to lose credibility. If their ultimate goals are actually the complete and total eradication of private gun ownership with the façade of “lowering crime” then at best they will only ignore such facts. Worst case scenario would be having an extremist in the group that realizes eliminating gun ownership has the potential to increase crime, but just doesn’t care because, in a very Machiavellian sense, so long as guns are gone their goal is accomplished. Think of it this way, you’re totally against the idea of gun ownership and believe all types of firearms should be eliminated from society. You know that if you outlaw firearms then one of the things you argue against, the amount of crime associated with firearms, is going to be exacerbated. I, as an advocate of complete gun control, would be in favor of such legislation. It just adds to my argument that more guns need to be taken away, because the previous restrictions were just not sufficient to solve the problem. If I’m lucky, by the time people begin to realize I’m not looking out for their best interest, but solely looking to bring my personal agenda into reality, it’ll be too late. I think it’s pretty scary to think that these legislators may consciously be deciding to put us in more and more danger, the very people they were elected to look out for. The members of this board always scoff at yet another gun buy back program and how it will have no effect on crime, only taking away antique guns from grandma. I think the people really in charge of these know they’ll have no effect on gun crime, but it’ll still serve its true purpose. It can be cited later on as an attempt to have people turn in their guns, but it just wasn’t working, therefore, more proactive measures need to be taken. My ideas aren’t fully formed and I could expand but it’s almost 3 am and I’m afraid at this point I may just be incoherently rambling. For those of you that took the time to read this I thank you and look forward to your opinions. I might repost this in On Topic and see what kind of a response it gets.