(12-22-2015 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:50 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Law breakers will break the law regardless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

So then the Chicago example can't be used? But it is constantly.

Sure it can. You've got some of the strictest gun laws and they find ways around it...... because they want to commit crime.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

(12-22-2015 08:56 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:50 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Law breakers will break the law regardless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

So then the Chicago example can't be used? But it is constantly.

Sure it can. You've got some of the strictest gun laws and they find ways around it...... because they want to commit crime.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:56 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:50 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Law breakers will break the law regardless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

So then the Chicago example can't be used? But it is constantly.

Sure it can. You've got some of the strictest gun laws and they find ways around it...... because they want to commit crime.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:56 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:50 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  So then the Chicago example can't be used? But it is constantly.

Sure it can. You've got some of the strictest gun laws and they find ways around it...... because they want to commit crime.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:56 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Sure it can. You've got some of the strictest gun laws and they find ways around it...... because they want to commit crime.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

(12-22-2015 09:21 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:56 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

Not really. The same porous borders where you smuggle drugs like this



can and will be used to smuggle guns the same way. Once you have your smuggling network in place it doesn't matter if you are carrying 150lbs of heroin or 150lbs of guns and ammo.

(12-22-2015 09:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:21 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

Not really. The same porous borders where you smuggle drugs like this



can and will be used to smuggle guns the same way. Once you have your smuggling network in place it doesn't matter if you are carrying 150lbs of heroin or 150lbs of guns and ammo.

Who said guns were going to be illegal, I didn't. I just said it's way too easy for gang members to acquire them and kill other gang members, but also innocent men, women, and children. and not just gang members, innocent people die from gun wounds all. the. time. It's a much different situation than drugs in that guns are in our constitution, so therefore we have this "well, stuff happens" attitude toward gun deaths. When in reality there could be some rather simple modifications to try and slow down the problem of gang members, mental patients, and minors purchasing weapons.

What "simple modifications" would stop the gangs?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-22-2015 09:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  What "simple modifications" would stop the gangs?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Most gang guns are trafficked in using three different techniques.

Corrupt Dealers: Trafficked guns most often come from licensed firearms dealers who sell inventory off the books. Strong dealer regulations like videotaping transactions and employee background checks help curb this practice.

Straw Purchases: Felons and other people prohibited from possessing guns often engage another person—someone who can pass a background check—to execute the paperwork when purchasing a gun. How can we stop this practice?

Private Sales: Many states do not require a background check for the private sale of a gun, which makes it shockingly easy for prohibited people to get their hands on firearms. Universal background checks prevent dangerous people from accessing guns.

(12-22-2015 09:42 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  When in reality there could be some rather simple modifications to try and slow down the problem of gang members, mental patients, and minors purchasing weapons.

Gang members with criminal convictions and minors aren't purchasing guns legally now, so I have no clue how you are going to stop it with another law. Please explain the logic behind the train of thought that you are going to stop an already illegal action by adding another law. "Well homie I really want a gun to use while I commit crimes but I don't want to break the new law."

As for mental patients while I tend to agree I want to see some specific concrete criteria and a methodology of recourse to remove the prohibition before I agree. Far too easy for the gun grabbing leftists both in the government and academia to abuse a law like that.

(12-22-2015 09:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:42 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  When in reality there could be some rather simple modifications to try and slow down the problem of gang members, mental patients, and minors purchasing weapons.

Gang members with criminal convictions and minors aren't purchasing guns legally now, so I have no clue how you are going to stop it with another law. Please explain the logic behind the train of thought that you are going to stop an already illegal action by adding another law. "Well homie I really want a gun to use while I commit crimes but I don't want to break the new law."

As for mental patients while I tend to agree I want to see some specific concrete criteria and a methodology of recourse to remove the prohibition before I agree. Far too easy for the gun grabbing leftists both in the government and academia to abuse a law like that.

You can be in a gang and not have broken a law yet, and then provide the guns to the gang. It's called a straw purchase. And all i'm doing is starting the conversation. You guys all know gun deaths are a problem but you don't want to act on them. It's like liberals and global warming. I'm simply trying to come to a consensus to a large problem that America has when it comes to gun deaths. Work with me here.

(12-22-2015 09:21 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:56 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  But they are able to access them across state lines, which others will argue a need for a federal law on guns. Also, since everyone has a gun and still everyone is dying, doesn't that negate the "well go get a gun and you'll be safe" idea?

So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

I grew up in one of those neighborhoods. Drugs kill innocent people. Why do you think there is a driveby? Some thug was selling on some other thugs turf, so they had to hit him. The fools hit everyone but the intended thug. Have you seen a crack addict. Or, even worse, a heroin addict. Those people will do anything for a fix, including hitting pregnant women and old people over the head just to get the money for a fix. All of these nice drug addicts usually have kids that are left to fend for themselves and they eventually end up in a gang and/or become addicted and become part of the problem in a cycle.

Guns are a tool...no different than knives or cars. Some people use them responsibly and some people don't....and, some people use them to kill others. Yet, no one is talking about knife control or car control. The gun argument has always been about disarming the populace and not about whether this is a problem that should be prioritized over those caused by knives or cars. If we really want to "save lives", we should focus on solutions and not just fears of guns.

(12-22-2015 09:59 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:21 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So you think a federal law would change anything? Murder is illegal everywhere, no?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

I grew up in one of those neighborhoods. Drugs kill innocent people. Why do you think there is a driveby? Some thug was selling on some other thugs turf, so they had to hit him. The fools hit everyone but the intended thug. Have you seen a crack addict. Or, even worse, a heroin addict. Those people will do anything for a fix, including hitting pregnant women and old people over the head just to get the money for a fix. All of these nice drug addicts usually have kids that are left to fend for themselves and they eventually end up in a gang and/or become addicted and become part of the problem in a cycle.

Guns are a tool...no different than knives or cars. Some people use them responsibly and some people don't....and, some people use them to kill others. Yet, no one is talking about knife control or car control. The gun argument has always been about disarming the populace and not about whether this is a problem that should be prioritized over those caused by knives or cars. If we really want to "save lives", we should focus on solutions and not just fears of guns.

Okay, what is a good solution? And drug attics wouldn't be able to use these "tools" if it were harder for a drug addict to buy this tool. Sure they can go around knifing people, but that wouldn't last long. What "tool" is used in the drive by? How can we make it harder for these irresponsible people to get these tools? If you mess up driving you lose your license, if you're too dumb to drive you don't get a license, if you have a license and car you have to insure your car.

(12-22-2015 09:59 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:42 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  When in reality there could be some rather simple modifications to try and slow down the problem of gang members, mental patients, and minors purchasing weapons.

Gang members with criminal convictions and minors aren't purchasing guns legally now, so I have no clue how you are going to stop it with another law. Please explain the logic behind the train of thought that you are going to stop an already illegal action by adding another law. "Well homie I really want a gun to use while I commit crimes but I don't want to break the new law."

As for mental patients while I tend to agree I want to see some specific concrete criteria and a methodology of recourse to remove the prohibition before I agree. Far too easy for the gun grabbing leftists both in the government and academia to abuse a law like that.

You can be in a gang and not have broken a law yet, and then provide the guns to the gang. It's called a straw purchase. And all i'm doing is starting the conversation. You guys all know gun deaths are a problem but you don't want to act on them. It's like liberals and global warming. I'm simply trying to come to a consensus to a large problem that America has when it comes to gun deaths. Work with me here.

But, here is the problem...do we have a "gun problem"? And secondly, can the answer simply be that we do not need any more gun regulation? Those of us defending our second Amendment rights are just tired of "we have to do something" even when the other side can not show any correlation between their regulations and a reduction of gun violence.

(12-22-2015 09:59 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:42 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  When in reality there could be some rather simple modifications to try and slow down the problem of gang members, mental patients, and minors purchasing weapons.

Gang members with criminal convictions and minors aren't purchasing guns legally now, so I have no clue how you are going to stop it with another law. Please explain the logic behind the train of thought that you are going to stop an already illegal action by adding another law. "Well homie I really want a gun to use while I commit crimes but I don't want to break the new law."

As for mental patients while I tend to agree I want to see some specific concrete criteria and a methodology of recourse to remove the prohibition before I agree. Far too easy for the gun grabbing leftists both in the government and academia to abuse a law like that.

You can be in a gang and not have broken a law yet, and then provide the guns to the gang. It's called a straw purchase. And all i'm doing is starting the conversation. You guys all know gun deaths are a problem but you don't want to act on them. It's like liberals and global warming. I'm simply trying to come to a consensus to a large problem that America has when it comes to gun deaths. Work with me here.

Straw purchases are already illegal. So once again please explain how a new law is going to stop an already illegal act.

I'm all for doing something about gun deaths. The first step would be enforcing the laws that are already on the books, something our broken legal system has been hesitant to do.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/...enator-ke/

Quote:That ratio is not nearly as dramatic as Ayotte suggested, but her larger point remains valid: the majority of failed background checks do not lead to criminal charges or prosecutions. With this in mind, we rate her claim Mostly True.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ge-w-bush/

Quote:Syracuse University’s TRAC Reports recently revealed that Obama’s tough talk about increasing prosecution of federal gun laws was just that—talk. In fact, Obama’s annual prosecution of gun crimes has never reached the levels of prosecutions seen during George W. Bush’s last five years in office.

According to Yahoo News, one of Obama’s 23 executive directives in January 2013 was to “amp up prosecutions of federal gun laws.”

Yet TRAC Reports shows that prosecutions for gun violations actually began a decline in 2013. In fact, prosecutions in 2013 were lower than 2012. Gun crime prosecutions were even lower in 2014 and actually hit an all-time low for the Obama administration in 2015. For example, “during fiscal year (FY) 2014 the Justice Department said the government obtained 20.3 weapons convictions for every one million people in the United States… [and that dropped to] 19.1 weapons convictions for one million people in the United States during FY 2015.”

To put it another way, FY 2015 represents a 15.5 percent drop in prosecutions from 5 years ago and a 34.8 percent drop from the midway point of Bush’s eight years in office.

(12-22-2015 10:02 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  if you mess up driving you lose your license, if you're too dumb to drive you don't get a license, if you have a license and car you have to insure your car.

And many of those folks still drive. I've known more than one person who continues to drive on a revoked license.

The problem isn't the gun. The problems are much deeper than that.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-22-2015 10:04 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:59 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:42 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  When in reality there could be some rather simple modifications to try and slow down the problem of gang members, mental patients, and minors purchasing weapons.

Gang members with criminal convictions and minors aren't purchasing guns legally now, so I have no clue how you are going to stop it with another law. Please explain the logic behind the train of thought that you are going to stop an already illegal action by adding another law. "Well homie I really want a gun to use while I commit crimes but I don't want to break the new law."

As for mental patients while I tend to agree I want to see some specific concrete criteria and a methodology of recourse to remove the prohibition before I agree. Far too easy for the gun grabbing leftists both in the government and academia to abuse a law like that.

You can be in a gang and not have broken a law yet, and then provide the guns to the gang. It's called a straw purchase. And all i'm doing is starting the conversation. You guys all know gun deaths are a problem but you don't want to act on them. It's like liberals and global warming. I'm simply trying to come to a consensus to a large problem that America has when it comes to gun deaths. Work with me here.

But, here is the problem...do we have a "gun problem"? And secondly, can the answer simply be that we do not need any more gun regulation? Those of us defending our second Amendment rights are just tired of "we have to do something" even when the other side can not show any correlation between their regulations and a reduction of gun violence.

Well, there have been no significant regulations. You can talk about smart gun states all you want, but just like Chicago, they buy guns from other states with Lax laws. There is no way to quantify it because it's never been tried. And to say "we don't have a problem" is also simply not true, and you have to know that lol. Tell that to the thousand and thousands of people who have lost family and friends due to some idiot having a gun who shouldn't have had one. I'm passionate about it, because I have.

I'm a gun owner, my dad owns guns, my father in law owns guns, hell most of my family owns guns. But that doesn't mean I don't want people who aren't responsible or aren't capable of having such a deadly weapon simply because it's their "right" to have them. That doesn't make sense to me.

(12-22-2015 10:02 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:59 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:21 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  I'm not saying it will, i'm just saying that using Chicago as this great example of showing how strict gun laws don't work isn't really a good example whatsoever and if anything would help the other side of the argument. Somehow a bunch of gang members are easily able to get guns, a lot of them are violent offenders...why is that?

Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

I grew up in one of those neighborhoods. Drugs kill innocent people. Why do you think there is a driveby? Some thug was selling on some other thugs turf, so they had to hit him. The fools hit everyone but the intended thug. Have you seen a crack addict. Or, even worse, a heroin addict. Those people will do anything for a fix, including hitting pregnant women and old people over the head just to get the money for a fix. All of these nice drug addicts usually have kids that are left to fend for themselves and they eventually end up in a gang and/or become addicted and become part of the problem in a cycle.

Guns are a tool...no different than knives or cars. Some people use them responsibly and some people don't....and, some people use them to kill others. Yet, no one is talking about knife control or car control. The gun argument has always been about disarming the populace and not about whether this is a problem that should be prioritized over those caused by knives or cars. If we really want to "save lives", we should focus on solutions and not just fears of guns.

Okay, what is a good solution? And drug attics wouldn't be able to use these "tools" if it were harder for a drug addict to buy this tool. Sure they can go around knifing people, but that wouldn't last long. What "tool" is used in the drive by? How can we make it harder for these irresponsible people to get these tools? If you mess up driving you lose your license, if you're too dumb to drive you don't get a license, if you have a license and car you have to insure your car.

Why wouldn't it last too long? I knew people in gangs that knifed people...it worked for them. It lasts as long as it does for people shooting other people. You cannot encroach upon the rights of 100+ million people because of the irresponsible acts of a few thousands. You cannot take away the ability of people to hunt, defend themselves, or simply enjoy as sportsmen or collectors a gun just because of a few. If we wanted to nearly eliminate drunk driving, we would install breathalizers on EVERY car in America. But people would be up in arms about that....and that's not even a Constitutionally protected right.

If you mess up driving, you lose your license. But some people could give a crap about that...they drive anyway. Just like some people don't care about gun laws. Sometimes, the solution is not more regulation of the tool...but, identifying the people and their reasons for doing what they do.

(12-22-2015 10:13 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 10:02 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:59 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:21 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 09:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Drugs are prohibited nationwide and they don't seem to have any problem finding them in Chicago.

Yes....But innocent people don't get killed by ricochet heroin needles while walking to work. Drugs and Guns are two totally different issues.

I grew up in one of those neighborhoods. Drugs kill innocent people. Why do you think there is a driveby? Some thug was selling on some other thugs turf, so they had to hit him. The fools hit everyone but the intended thug. Have you seen a crack addict. Or, even worse, a heroin addict. Those people will do anything for a fix, including hitting pregnant women and old people over the head just to get the money for a fix. All of these nice drug addicts usually have kids that are left to fend for themselves and they eventually end up in a gang and/or become addicted and become part of the problem in a cycle.

Guns are a tool...no different than knives or cars. Some people use them responsibly and some people don't....and, some people use them to kill others. Yet, no one is talking about knife control or car control. The gun argument has always been about disarming the populace and not about whether this is a problem that should be prioritized over those caused by knives or cars. If we really want to "save lives", we should focus on solutions and not just fears of guns.

Okay, what is a good solution? And drug attics wouldn't be able to use these "tools" if it were harder for a drug addict to buy this tool. Sure they can go around knifing people, but that wouldn't last long. What "tool" is used in the drive by? How can we make it harder for these irresponsible people to get these tools? If you mess up driving you lose your license, if you're too dumb to drive you don't get a license, if you have a license and car you have to insure your car.

Why wouldn't it last too long? I knew people in gangs that knifed people...it worked for them. It lasts as long as it does for people shooting other people. You cannot encroach upon the rights of 100+ million people because of the irresponsible acts of a few thousands. You cannot take away the ability of people to hunt, defend themselves, or simply enjoy as sportsmen or collectors a gun just because of a few. If we wanted to nearly eliminate drunk driving, we would install breathalizers on EVERY car in America. But people would be up in arms about that....and that's not even a Constitutionally protected right.

If you mess up driving, you lose your license. But some people could give a crap about that...they drive anyway. Just like some people don't care about gun laws. Sometimes, the solution is not more regulation of the tool...but, identifying the people and their reasons for doing what they do.

Fine, if you want to think that way, you can. I guess we just need to hope the next time we are in class, work, a theater, mall, bar, church, etc...we don't get shot. For me, that is a sad way to live life simply because people are clinging to a law that was enacted when guns took 3 minutes to load and fire. Times have changed, there are more guns than people in this country. It is a problem, and a severe one that I have been effected by. So go ahead and call me what you will, but to me and millions of other people it's a very big problem and something, anything, needs to be done to help curb the problem. Maybe make people pass proper training course that last longer than 30 minutes. Maybe have people log their training hours like you do driving hours before you get a license. Then have people insure their weapons so if they are stolen and used to kill someone the family doesn't have to pay an obscene funeral cost because some nut job got his hands on a deadly weapon.

(12-22-2015 10:09 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Well, there have been no significant regulations. You can talk about smart gun states all you want, but just like Chicago, they buy guns from other states with Lax laws. There is no way to quantify it because it's never been tried. And to say "we don't have a problem" is also simply not true, and you have to know that lol. Tell that to the thousand and thousands of people who have lost family and friends due to some idiot having a gun who shouldn't have had one. I'm passionate about it, because I have.

I'm a gun owner, my dad owns guns, my father in law owns guns, hell most of my family owns guns. But that doesn't mean I don't want people who aren't responsible or aren't capable of having such a deadly weapon simply because it's their "right" to have them. That doesn't make sense to me.

But, that isn't true. We had the 86 Act. We have had the CA and NY style bans and restrictions. And, just how do you buy a gun from another state with lax laws?

Yes, thousands of people have lost their lives to people that choose to use a gun or the actual person using a gun against themselves. But, why is that in and of itself evidence that the gun is the problem. If I put a gun or a pipebomb in front of a criminal and they choose one or the other to commit crimes...doesn't mean that that instrumentality is the problem. The problem is the criminal.

And, yes, I don't want bad people to have guns. But who are you to say who is responsible and who isn't -- it's a constitutional right. Obviously felons and crazy people...but, who after that? At one point, Blacks were part of that group based on their skin color and being former slaves...not because of bad act they committed.