The net effect is already known. We have jurisdictions with strict gun control in the US, and there's no causative decrease in armed crime. Gun control, at best, hopes to effect the supply, the supply is already massive so it can't do much there, at worst it's an attempt to control ownership which no law can accomplish: laws can only regulate legal commerce. Black markets just pop up and go around fhem when there is massive demand, and with the already massive supply prices stay relatively low. Example: the so called drug war. No impact on supply or demand. And with vigorous gun laws, you will create a black market.

So if you want to reduce supply, you have to get rid of guns: confiscation or buy back with significant incentives, and even then you can't eliminate supply. But thats what youd have to do. And to reduce demand you have to both reduce crime, and increase penalties on gun crimes to something so severe you both deter and slowly eliminate law breakers.

If you're serious about reducing gun violence, look at the root cause of most of it: drug control laws. Get rid of drug prohibition and a large percentage of all violent crime goes away. Anything else, including gun control laws, is only going to make a minor difference, at best, and is likely to just make things worse. You have to eliminate the root cause of violence, the gun is not the cause, it's just one means, and don't kid yourself if a lot of money is available to a criminal element, they will get all the guns they want no matter what laws you pass.

Suicide rates aren't effected by firearms control laws. For example, in Japan the suicide rate almost twice that in the US, and in both the UK and Australia the Suisse rate did not decline after gun bans were instituted. And if you really need proof, here's a quote from the NC Juvenile Justice Department:

"Of all children and adolescents, those incarcerated in the juvenile or criminal justice systems are at the highest risk of serious suicide attempts (Gray et al., 2002; Penn et al, 2003). Despite around- the-clock supervision and a lack of access to firearms, the methods for suicides and attempts used in this population tend to be more violent and more successful than those of young people in the general population (Penn et al, 2003)."

Dispondent people find a way, so don't pat yourself on the back that gun control laws will prevent suicides. They won't, suicide isn't a gun control issue, if you really care about suicide prevention drop the political rhetoric.

It's ever sillier than that, Adam Lanza mother was reported to have taken his son to the range to shoot her firearms. So it stands to reason, in the hypothetical, that she would have programmed the firearms to allow her son to shoot them, and if her son was like most young people today he probably would have had to do the programming for her. So it's a double fail, he likely would have already been allowed to shoot the, by his mother, and even if she tried to deny this to him he likely would have gotten around it.

You forgot the quotes around freedom.

Oh boy, I sure hope this game lets you blind fold and shoot people that didnt go along with the glorious Cuban revolution!

http://www.therealcuba.com/page5.htm

Wow, you really don't get it. He's right, this is what holds women back: hypersensitivity. You don't have a right to not be offended in this world. In fact it's not even possible to promise that can happen. Offense is in th eye of the beholder. But with stupid temper tantrums like Ms. Richards, peopl can get fired for what is nothing more than silly jokes, and not even sexists one you dolt.

And because people can lose their jobs, they don't want to work with people who are known to make a big stink about the slightest thing. It's common sense, who would want to put their livelihood on the line with a person that twitter shames someone for a joke about a dongle, made in private? It's basic common sense, no one. There's billions of people in this world, why risk it, hire someone with a sense of humor, thicker skin and who isn't on some personal quest to destroy anyone that makes a joke she perceives as sexist.

Keep kidding yourself that this kind of behavior is something you're entitled to. You don't have a right to a job, you can't demand someone hire you. There are plenty of men and women in this world who can handle basic human interaction with aplomb, and this lady she ain't one of them.

Your kidding right? So every piece of literature that's pornographic in nature is unhealthy?

This statement is just wishful thinking "we have more troops than we need in a world in which we will no longer focus on fighting large, boots-on-the-ground conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Yes, the same thing was said after every single war in the 20th century as well, and was the mantra of the 90s after the Soviet Union fell. No one thought we would be fighting the kinds of wars that happened in late 90s (Serbia, Bosnia, etc.), or the Watson the early 21st century and yet here we are. This is just wishful, hopeful thinking, sure a world without wars like Afghanistan seem possible but let's face facts we didnt suddenly inherit a world filled with peaceful stable nations. There are plenty of screwed situations in the world that will likely cause more wars.

The realy problem with the pentagon is the procurement system. Things costs too much because weapons platform developers can get modifications to their contracts, which means more money, if they don't deliver. They basically play games with the contract, unbidden with a partial solution that appears complete to dod, a well written contract, wich means they did what they said, yt need more money to deliver a complete product. It's all very legal, but its so prevalent that its a sick joke in dod.