Here it comes...

Was the Las Vegas shooter a criminal? Sandy Hook? Orlando? etc, etc. None of them had criminal convictions but all had access to legal guns to perform the greatest mass shootings in American history.

Correct, so because THEY did something bad, YOU will be assumed guilty. No guns for YOU. If YOU own a gun YOU must surrender it or YOU go to jail. YOU will not receive compensation. YOU must pay for the actions of others because YOU are guilty by association.

Let's look at Las Vegas man for a start

"Between September 25 and October 1—the day of the shooting—he stockpiled an arsenal of weapons, associated equipment and ammunition that included fourteen AR-15 rifles (all of which were equipped with bump stocks and twelve of which had 100-round magazines), eight AR-10 rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. "

Then explain to me why one man would need so many legally acquire guns?

Then we get to Sandy Hook

"Under Connecticut law at the time, the 20-year-old Lanza was old enough to carry a long gun, such as a rifle or shotgun,[24] but too young to own or carry handguns. The guns he used had been purchased legally by his mother. He did not have a criminal record"

"Lanza used a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle during the shooting spree. Three weapons were found next to his body; the semiautomatic .223-caliber rifle made by Bushmaster, and two handguns. An Izhmash Saiga-12, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun was found in his car"

Pray tell, why any family needs an arsenal of weapons like this, unless the answer is America is a sick, violent society full of psychopaths so we need to be just as violent as them. It's madness and yet American politicians are willing to let kids die for donations from the gun lobby. You've been sold out.

I cant explain why he needed so many guns. If your government allows that many guns then that's why he had them, because he could. If you don't like that you should run for office and change it.
In SH, you answer your own question. The guns weren't his. They were his mothers. He shouldn't have taken them.

The NRA's point is a good one. Today liberals want to put limits on guns. Tomorrow they will want more and the day after even more until they are all gone. You have the right to arm yourself for a reason, if you choose not to exercise that right then fine. Unfortunately you have bought into the idea that denying that right to yourself and others is your goal, and that is sad.

Criminals do, however, have to obey the price tag.

And what happens to the price of a commodity when supply is very low, say, as a result of increased legislative regulation?

So they will sell more drugs and steal more stuff to afford a gun. Brilliant plan.

Pretty sure they're already selling as many drugs as the market will let them.

Maybe the occasional super wealthy criminals can soak up the extra cost, but everyone else is looking at maybe buying one weapon when they used to be able to buy ten.

Black market cost of an AR-15 in Australia is about $25,000. In the us you could get one for as little as $600. Basic knowledge of market economics should tell you what volume of sales you'll get at market equilibrium.

A black market is still a market.

And fewer guns in the hands of criminals is the goal.

Fewer guns in the hands of criminals IS the goal, on this we agree. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens solves about 5% of the problem.

Statistics prove that handguns are primarily used in crimes in Canada.
Statistics prove that they primarily come illegally across the US border
Statistics prove that they are primarily trafficked by immigrant gangs

While the government should be tackling gun smuggling, immigration and gang violence, voters dont respond to those things. A gun ban will bring out the voters.