mass murder gun should be banned by statute

Well, you had two paragraphs so I will go over each of them in turn. "first. if the population is really increasing so much we need to be concerned, then instead of arming the populace as you propose, we should work on getting the populations fed etc. this can be done if you have faith... there's already ways to make alt energy, nuclear etc. ways to increase the energy of our food. we eat what we eat cause it tastes good, not cause it's msot productive. people starve because we can't agree how to handle poverty in africa... how to control them, how to make the economy there. most of it's laziness. poverty does not have to exist." >>On your "first." Yes you are right, we should work on getting the population fed, however this is something we have been working on for some time now and we are seeing results. We still have a great deal of people in poverty however and a great deal of people starving all over the world. The simple fact is, our ability to feed people is slowly diminishing as the people become greater. The growth of people is outstripping our ability to create new food. Your next couple of sentences concern me moderately. "this can be done if you have faith... there's already ways to make alt energy, nuclear etc. ways to increase the energy of our food." >>This appears to be a combination of religion, nuclear energy and food. Very scary! Nuclear powered food is a baaaaaaaaaad thing. Then you say people starve in Africa because we don't know how to handle it and that poverty does not have to exist. You may have a point on poverty not having to exist however even if everyone was a millionaire we still need food to support the population. People die now because they cannot get to food, what is it going to be like with 9 billion people on the face of this earth? So here is my conclusion. You are right to attempt to increase the energy content of our food, create hybrid foods, micro nutrients etc... However this is not mutually exclusive from my plan of action. We can attempt to create new foods while stemming the growth of the population. Keep in mind this would be gang growth we are stemming, not much of a loss to anyone. Onto your other paragraph. "also. even if that argument doesn't work, which it does. then don't allow AKs but allow other guns. AKs etc simply kill people. it's known for bad, never known for good for the normal citizens. you can defend yourself with just a pistol in todays society just fine. AKs would only make things worse." >>You may have a point actually..... perhaps if we allow rocket launchers, more impacts, more k-bang. No wait.... they do damage to the surrounding area, that costs extra money... ack! No it has to be AK-47s they are the most reliable to get the job done. Though I'm a little confused on your position. You seem to be under the impression that AK-47s kill people. Its people that kill people with guns, AK-47s just help the killing. So I suppose your position could be classified as: killing less people is better. Thus I would like to offer you a quote from famous scientist Paul Ehrlich: "Sooner or later population would completely outstrip the capacity of any other nation to supply food. For every 1000 people saved now, perhaps 10,000 will die when the crunch comes." So lets examine this quote really quickly. For every 1000 people saved now, 10,000 people will die when the crunch comes. Mr. Ehrlich is arguing in this scenario that death checks are natural and that each person saved now will result in 10 dieing later on because of overpopulation. So let me apply this to your scenario. For each person you save by taking your AK-47s off the street, 10 will die later. Is that what you want?