Summations Only

Who cares, though? What good is it to reduce one category of deaths at the expense of a greater increase in others? Again, gratz on the guns or whatever, but if more people were murdered in aggregate, what the fuck was it worth? I don't think society has a vested interest in shifting how people are murdered. Can you explain why you think it does?

Who do I attribute it to? Be specific.

No one has presented any evidence as how many of those guns are revolutionary war era guns.You really need to learn about the subject before you start trying to make points.The first site
Does not have any Revolutionary War era guns. The oldest is pre civil war but not 18th century. What you presented was revolution and civil war and of those 68 items 25 are weapons. All civil war era.The second site has Kentucky rifles but knowing how old they are is challenging. A quick look makes me feel about 50% are pre 1840 maybe a couple are pre 1800.
The one I looked at was made by W.S. Chase. He was a gunmaker from 1854-1891. There is no way to tell how old a lot of these are without more info. For example Hawken rifles were manufactured until the 1880's.These are extremely rare and expensive pieces.

These seems to be originals. Hard to tell but the Kentucky Rifle guy looks legit. As for in firing condition impossible to tell without having a competent antique rifle gunsmith looking at them.Some will be, a lot probably not.

Big difference between working and in firing condition.I have a working 1908 belgian 12 gauge shotgun that I would never fire. The action works great. But it isn't safe to fire.

That is the fucking point. This stuff would have to be smuggled. That makes it harder to do. That is the purpose of doing these things. To make it harder.

I think I know enough about the subject to make a few points, although not relatively major ones. After all, I am for Gun Registration and more regulations, just not for an overall ban (and I am not even a gun owner, and never wanted to be)I was not sure on the exact dates on the weapons, but my main point on this is that these weapons are pretty durable. Even if we go with the low end of the dates that these guns are from, let's say this Hawken rifle, we are still looking at some weapons surviving 123 years. I do not think that banning guns and then waiting that long for them all to disappear or fall into disrepair is the most effective strategy we can devise. This is why I keep pushing to try and determine another course of action aside from a blanket ban.

Clearly, not you.
Fuck those kids, right? They weren't.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Again, using Mexico and the War on Drugs as a analogy...tell that to the Marijuana Dealers. Seems they get product here quite easily enough because they know the demand exists.

Oh, I see: no-one said it.
Strange that you think it is relevant then.Carry on...

Hi Rahvin, There is also the issue of the number of crimes\murders committed with Revolutionary guns for his argument to have a point in this debate.Else it is just more gish gallop.Enjoy.

A blanket ban is stupid. No they won't just disappear, but guns do take maintenance. The average criminal is probably not going to maintain his gun so that it will function for years and years. Improperly stored or maintained and a gun can become inoperable in a very short time.That being said regulating them through registration and logging ammo sales is probably two good steps to start. These are rare examples of weapons that were well cared for. This not the norm. These are exceptional pieces that many people took care of on a regular basis. They were not stored in someones closet.

I don't know about where you live but around here it is all USA grown.

I get it, but I am telling you it is much easier on the shoulder to fire a .223 Remington in a rifle with a buffer spring than a .308 in a bolt action. I was awarded Expert marksmanship on a M16A1. It is a breeze to shoot accurately.I am a hunter, I shoot a .308 winchester. I also hunt with a shotgun. Both of these can be used for violent crimes. But I keep them locked up in a safe.I own a ruger superblackhawk Single action army for home protection and target shooting.All these fire arms can be used for violent crimes. But non of them are rapid fire. None of them are easy to dispel volumes of lead down range. In other words more likely then not , not a choice weapon to carry out a mass shooting.For that you'd want a high capacity, easy to load and shoot weapon with shit loads of magazines at your disposal.Kinda like a AR rifle and a double action semi auto pistol.Kinda like what these mass shooters all have in common it seems.
If I owned such weapons and the government wanted to ban them for the sake of the common welfare I'd go along.
I'd do it as a gesture of good faith that I did something to try and stop this continued slaughter of innocent people.

Yes, in this current year I would agree. But it was not the war on drugs that led to this good ol' homegrown USA weed. Rather it was the removal of the blanket ban and allowing growers to operate in medicinal marijuana states. Prior to that the good stuff came from Canada and the cheaper stuff from Mexico. Legalizing medicinal weed and removing that blanket ban was the first step, correct? I think you and I are actually at s similar position on gun control actually.