I just sent the author this comment:
Subject: weak facts and reasoning on guns
I don't understand how you can allege that AK-47s can be bought at gun shows without background checks - AK-47s are machine guns - nobody can lawfully deliver one until the buyer obtains a tax stamp from the BATFE. If you mean some other type of gun, that is not a machine gun, you should not use the term AK-47. It's like callingHUMMER a tank.
There was nevera "ban on assault gun purchases" in the United States. First, the 1994 assault weapons act you refer too, expiring in 2004, did not ban purchases of any guns - just banned new importationor domestic manufacture of certain cosmetically offensive normal rifles firing one round per pull of the trigger. All the existing cosmetically offensive weapons continued to lawfully possessed and traded/sold. Further, you can't honestly believe that the Second Amendment permits Congress to ban normal garden variety rifles commonly in use across our country, can you? See United States v. Miller; Parker v. DC.
I do like your cites to Milton Freidman and the RAND corporation regarding the proposition that "prohibition of socially disallowed drugs can increase their cost, it can never halt demand." I have met Milton Friedman, and worked at RAND. And soI find it odd that you refuse to apply this logic to "prohibition of socially disallowed guns." Right now, across America, Americans largely have freedom of contract in guns - no background checks or registration of private transfers, see map at http://www.opencarry.org/transfers.html. And generally, Americans need no license to openly carry guns in America.
Mexico has a crime problem despite it's own internal draconian gun control laws. Criminals' demand for guns will be price inelastic just like the drug user's demand for drugs. And making it hard for Americans to exercise their natural and constitutional right to arms will be the only real result of your policy recommendations.