Han wrote:

Yes, the crackdown on petty little offenses and crimes was absolutely
key. That way the police caught people who were illegally carrying
firearms and other weapons, burglary tools, what have you. Plus a
little cooling off in holding cells. In addition, there appeared to
be a change in demographics to "calmer". Don't ask me details, but
something like that is often quoted.

Heybub, of course there are no illegal guns, only illegal possession,
use, modification of guns. But, US law uses a concept of ... Oops,
now I can't find the phrase, it's like the homeowner is at fault if a
drunk or kid wanders onto his property, falls into and drowns in a
pool that's not fenced.

The concept under the Restatement of Torts is called an "attractive
nusiance."

IMO, just giving out or selling guns to
people without some kind of regulation will lead to many more
incidents of illegal use etc. Or do you consider Gabby Giffords and
victims like that just collatera; damage of the freedom you desire?

Of course the definition of "opinion" is "a sincerely held belief not based
on facts." You, of course, cannot be stopped from fantasizing, but your
imagination may not be consistent with the real world.

Regarding your question on Giffords, I do consider that regrettable incident
collateral damage, she was an innocent victim - as far as we know.

First, we should never base laws on one or a few particular, anecdotal
events. Laws have to be based on results in the aggregate.

Second, we've already made the decision on the acceptability of "collateral
damage" in almost everything else. We don't require licensing, training, or
identification when someone buys a toaster just because there have been
exactly three bathtub electrocutions with toasters since they were
introduced in the 1930's.