(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Choosing a big solution that cannot happen gives you a permanent unending emotional issue to exploit and exempts you from having to waste time on other boring mundane aspects of solving your problem.

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:26 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So what do these criminals do once the money dries up? Did they go straight or move to other areas of criminal activities? Do you have any statistics to prove gun crimes went down after legalizing drugs?

I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

And nowhere did you come close to answering my question. By what logic do you deduce that a reduction in drug related gun crimes will not lead to an increase in other non-drug related gun crimes by the same individuals now that their revenue from drugs has dried up?

This is a basic non-linear programming problem. Elimination of A (illegal drugs) does not automatically lead to a reduction of A1 (drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not explicitly eliminate the market for A. Likewise, reduction of A1 does not mean that there won't be an increase of B1 (non-drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not account for the quantity of individuals that must now look for alternatives to actionA and will likely turn to actionB (other illegal activities).


Simply put, making drugs legal does not solve the problem of drug related gun violence because those individuals will simple use their tool (gun) in other areas of crime.

I also think you might want to reread my post, because I pretty directly address your concerns regarding the reasons the drug trade are ideal for violent crime, and why those don't translate to legal businesses as well (mainly an inability to report the crime and to effectively protect the cash you gain).

I understand your stance to be "it won't stop all criminals because some will transition from drug related crime to non-drug related crime" which I'm assuming is probably true to an extent, but that discounts the long term effects it has on not enticing those to go into crime by seeing easy targets with lots of cash who cannot report your crimes to the police.

It doesn't matter that the drug trade is ideal for violent crimes. You completely miss the point that if it isn't the drug trade, it will be something else that is the ideal. All you are doing in reducing once source and assuming another source won't take it's place.

You're looking at crime, and the number of criminals, as constants when they are decidedly not and are affected by any number of reasons. Unemployment. Hotter temperatures. Environmental levels of lead. Abortion legality. All of these, among thousands of others, alter the level of violent crime. We literally cannot have a conversation about this subject matter if you're entering it under the mistaken belief that the level of crime or the number of peoples who choose to be criminals is a constant.

(08-27-2015 10:59 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Choosing a big solution that cannot happen gives you a permanent unending emotional issue to exploit and exempts you from having to waste time on other boring mundane aspects of solving your problem.

This isn't untrue, and it's definitely used by both sides.

(08-27-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:26 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I have evidence to show that violent crimes went up during prohibition and down in the US after the repeal of prohibition, but it's hard to find good data on the violent crime rates of Portugal before and after their decriminalization push a decade or so back. Though I do have information showing that their violent crime rate is still significantly lower than the US's despite having through the roof unemployment, though no good info on a trend. And it's important to note I'm not advocating for a free-market type legalization of all drugs, I'm advocating for a decriminalization of all user-based drug charges and a focus on treatment and protecting users from contracting HIV/Hep C/etc. As it stands right now, the reason there is so much crime associated with the drug trade is the same as any other illegal market; you cannot go to the police if you're a drug dealer and robbed, and similarly, you cannot simply just deposit your money in a bank. Thieves know drug dealers have cash, and can't call the police, so they're easy targets. Legalizing marijuana along the lines of alcohol will take a significant portion of that money and incentive for robbery out of the equation, as that is by a wide, wide margin the most used illegal drug and scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of significant enough negative health effects to keep it illegal while any number of other, far more dangerous legal substances exist.

Provide safe areas for those using drugs, bombard them with information on getting treatment and the benefits of getting clean while doing it, and stop forcing them into the dregs of society so that they are marginalized and afraid to get help.

And nowhere did you come close to answering my question. By what logic do you deduce that a reduction in drug related gun crimes will not lead to an increase in other non-drug related gun crimes by the same individuals now that their revenue from drugs has dried up?

This is a basic non-linear programming problem. Elimination of A (illegal drugs) does not automatically lead to a reduction of A1 (drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not explicitly eliminate the market for A. Likewise, reduction of A1 does not mean that there won't be an increase of B1 (non-drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not account for the quantity of individuals that must now look for alternatives to actionA and will likely turn to actionB (other illegal activities).


Simply put, making drugs legal does not solve the problem of drug related gun violence because those individuals will simple use their tool (gun) in other areas of crime.

I also think you might want to reread my post, because I pretty directly address your concerns regarding the reasons the drug trade are ideal for violent crime, and why those don't translate to legal businesses as well (mainly an inability to report the crime and to effectively protect the cash you gain).

I understand your stance to be "it won't stop all criminals because some will transition from drug related crime to non-drug related crime" which I'm assuming is probably true to an extent, but that discounts the long term effects it has on not enticing those to go into crime by seeing easy targets with lots of cash who cannot report your crimes to the police.

It doesn't matter that the drug trade is ideal for violent crimes. You completely miss the point that if it isn't the drug trade, it will be something else that is the ideal. All you are doing in reducing once source and assuming another source won't take it's place.

You're looking at crime, and the number of criminals, as constants when they are decidedly not and are affected by any number of reasons. Unemployment. Hotter temperatures. Environmental levels of lead. Abortion legality. All of these, among thousands of others, alter the level of violent crime. We literally cannot have a conversation about this subject matter if you're entering it under the mistaken belief that the level of crime or the number of peoples who choose to be criminals is a constant.

We can't have the conversation if you insist that the number of criminals will significantly decrease without any empirical evidence to support that. Every one of your factors you listed that contribute to levels of violent crimes are 100% independent from drugs being legal or illegal. Eliminating one source of criminal activity does not mean that the overall number of criminals will significantly decrease. If anything statistics show that criminals tend to turn more towards other criminal acts rather than completely reform so why should we expect any difference here? Will overall violent gun crimes decrease if drugs are no longer illegal? There's no way to know that based on the parameters given. Violent gun crimes related to drug activity will likely decrease, but the result is much more likely to be an increase in other violent gun crimes rather that will offset much of drug related activity.

Until you can show that factual numbers of how many gun crimes are directly related to drug activity, the discussion is pointless.

(08-27-2015 11:33 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:26 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  And nowhere did you come close to answering my question. By what logic do you deduce that a reduction in drug related gun crimes will not lead to an increase in other non-drug related gun crimes by the same individuals now that their revenue from drugs has dried up?

This is a basic non-linear programming problem. Elimination of A (illegal drugs) does not automatically lead to a reduction of A1 (drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not explicitly eliminate the market for A. Likewise, reduction of A1 does not mean that there won't be an increase of B1 (non-drug related gun crimes) as the elimination of A does not account for the quantity of individuals that must now look for alternatives to actionA and will likely turn to actionB (other illegal activities).


Simply put, making drugs legal does not solve the problem of drug related gun violence because those individuals will simple use their tool (gun) in other areas of crime.

I also think you might want to reread my post, because I pretty directly address your concerns regarding the reasons the drug trade are ideal for violent crime, and why those don't translate to legal businesses as well (mainly an inability to report the crime and to effectively protect the cash you gain).

I understand your stance to be "it won't stop all criminals because some will transition from drug related crime to non-drug related crime" which I'm assuming is probably true to an extent, but that discounts the long term effects it has on not enticing those to go into crime by seeing easy targets with lots of cash who cannot report your crimes to the police.

It doesn't matter that the drug trade is ideal for violent crimes. You completely miss the point that if it isn't the drug trade, it will be something else that is the ideal. All you are doing in reducing once source and assuming another source won't take it's place.

You're looking at crime, and the number of criminals, as constants when they are decidedly not and are affected by any number of reasons. Unemployment. Hotter temperatures. Environmental levels of lead. Abortion legality. All of these, among thousands of others, alter the level of violent crime. We literally cannot have a conversation about this subject matter if you're entering it under the mistaken belief that the level of crime or the number of peoples who choose to be criminals is a constant.

We can't have the conversation if you insist that the number of criminals will significantly decrease without any empirical evidence to support that. Every one of your factors you listed that contribute to levels of violent crimes are 100% independent from drugs being legal or illegal. Eliminating one source of criminal activity does not mean that the overall number of criminals will significantly decrease. If anything statistics show that criminals tend to turn more towards other criminal acts rather than completely reform so why should we expect any difference here? Will overall violent gun crimes decrease if drugs are no longer illegal? There's no way to know that based on the parameters given. Violent gun crimes related to drug activity will likely decrease, but the result is much more likely to be an increase in other violent gun crimes rather that will offset much of drug related activity.

Until you can show that factual numbers of how many gun crimes are directly related to drug activity, the discussion is pointless.

You keep stating that I haven't shown any empirical evidence that the number of crimes will decrease, without even attempting to address the chart you're quoting each time. I'm using data, from the US, in a time where a drug was made illegal and then legal again, and you've yet to address it.

As for my examples, of course they had nothing to do the drug trade, they had to do with you admitting that the number of crimes and criminals is not a constant, something you have assumed throughout this thread. I needed to know that you were willing or capable of admitting that, because without doing so, this discussion is moot. You agreed that they were not constants, therefore we can move forward. I thought that I made that clear, but I am getting the impression you're not really interested in a discussion but instead just want me to prove to an unreasonable degree that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs will lead to a decrease in violent crime.

Where Chronic Criminals can't or wont find legitimate employment, They will always find or steal something to keep the Habits going. Tax free money is what it's all about for Them no matter what it is They are hustling. Numbers rackets, Prostitution, Auto Theft, Break ins, Stolen merchandise, Armed Robbery,Gang Activities, Cockfighting, Gambling, Murder for Hire. Any and all could be used with Gunfire to protect the turf.

(08-27-2015 11:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Where Chronic Criminals can't or wont find legitimate employment, They will always find or steal something to keep the Habits going. Tax free money is what it's all about for Them no matter what it is They are hustling. Numbers rackets, Prostitution, Auto Theft, Break ins, Stolen merchandise, Armed Robbery,Gang Activities, Cockfighting, Gambling, Murder for Hire. Any and all could be used with Gunfire to protect the turf.

Illogical. Don't you know that the mob ceased to exist after the end of Prohibition?


Oh wait.....

(08-27-2015 12:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Where Chronic Criminals can't or wont find legitimate employment, They will always find or steal something to keep the Habits going. Tax free money is what it's all about for Them no matter what it is They are hustling. Numbers rackets, Prostitution, Auto Theft, Break ins, Stolen merchandise, Armed Robbery,Gang Activities, Cockfighting, Gambling, Murder for Hire. Any and all could be used with Gunfire to protect the turf.

Illogical. Don't you know that the mob ceased to exist after the end of Prohibition?


Oh wait.....

Because a decrease in crime doesn't mean anything if there still is crime? Oh wait...

(08-27-2015 12:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Where Chronic Criminals can't or wont find legitimate employment, They will always find or steal something to keep the Habits going. Tax free money is what it's all about for Them no matter what it is They are hustling. Numbers rackets, Prostitution, Auto Theft, Break ins, Stolen merchandise, Armed Robbery,Gang Activities, Cockfighting, Gambling, Murder for Hire. Any and all could be used with Gunfire to protect the turf.

Illogical. Don't you know that the mob ceased to exist after the end of Prohibition?


Oh wait.....

People quit drinking too

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

(08-27-2015 11:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:33 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:26 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

I also think you might want to reread my post, because I pretty directly address your concerns regarding the reasons the drug trade are ideal for violent crime, and why those don't translate to legal businesses as well (mainly an inability to report the crime and to effectively protect the cash you gain).

I understand your stance to be "it won't stop all criminals because some will transition from drug related crime to non-drug related crime" which I'm assuming is probably true to an extent, but that discounts the long term effects it has on not enticing those to go into crime by seeing easy targets with lots of cash who cannot report your crimes to the police.

It doesn't matter that the drug trade is ideal for violent crimes. You completely miss the point that if it isn't the drug trade, it will be something else that is the ideal. All you are doing in reducing once source and assuming another source won't take it's place.

You're looking at crime, and the number of criminals, as constants when they are decidedly not and are affected by any number of reasons. Unemployment. Hotter temperatures. Environmental levels of lead. Abortion legality. All of these, among thousands of others, alter the level of violent crime. We literally cannot have a conversation about this subject matter if you're entering it under the mistaken belief that the level of crime or the number of peoples who choose to be criminals is a constant.

We can't have the conversation if you insist that the number of criminals will significantly decrease without any empirical evidence to support that. Every one of your factors you listed that contribute to levels of violent crimes are 100% independent from drugs being legal or illegal. Eliminating one source of criminal activity does not mean that the overall number of criminals will significantly decrease. If anything statistics show that criminals tend to turn more towards other criminal acts rather than completely reform so why should we expect any difference here? Will overall violent gun crimes decrease if drugs are no longer illegal? There's no way to know that based on the parameters given. Violent gun crimes related to drug activity will likely decrease, but the result is much more likely to be an increase in other violent gun crimes rather that will offset much of drug related activity.

Until you can show that factual numbers of how many gun crimes are directly related to drug activity, the discussion is pointless.

You keep stating that I haven't shown any empirical evidence that the number of crimes will decrease, without even attempting to address the chart you're quoting each time. I'm using data, from the US, in a time where a drug was made illegal and then legal again, and you've yet to address it.

As for my examples, of course they had nothing to do the drug trade, they had to do with you admitting that the number of crimes and criminals is not a constant, something you have assumed throughout this thread. I needed to know that you were willing or capable of admitting that, because without doing so, this discussion is moot. You agreed that they were not constants, therefore we can move forward. I thought that I made that clear, but I am getting the impression you're not really interested in a discussion but instead just want me to prove to an unreasonable degree that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs will lead to a decrease in violent crime.

Your chart has nothing to do with drug use, and you cannot easily tie prohibition in the 1930's to legalizing drugs in the 2010's. For a moment though, lets just look at the graph itself. The per capita murder and assault rate was increasing prior to prohibition, and in fact the increase was reduced to 80% of the pre-prohibition rate during prohibition. Did prohibition increase the murder and assault rate by firearms? No it did not.

You are assuming that prohibition was the sole reason for the sudden drop in murder and assault by firearm rates and completely ignoring other reasons for the drop.

(08-27-2015 12:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

How would any of the proposed laws by you gun control freaks kept a gun out of Flanagan's hands? Please provide the specific proposed law. Thanks!

(08-27-2015 12:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Where Chronic Criminals can't or wont find legitimate employment, They will always find or steal something to keep the Habits going. Tax free money is what it's all about for Them no matter what it is They are hustling. Numbers rackets, Prostitution, Auto Theft, Break ins, Stolen merchandise, Armed Robbery,Gang Activities, Cockfighting, Gambling, Murder for Hire. Any and all could be used with Gunfire to protect the turf.

Illogical. Don't you know that the mob ceased to exist after the end of Prohibition?


Oh wait.....

People quit drinking too

(08-27-2015 08:57 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:00 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Everyone is doing a disservice to those who have real mental issues by labeling folks like Roof and this shooter as 'crazy' and 'madmen'. Most of these instances were planned, premeditated acts carried out by individuals who for whom in their minds, violence was the only remaining outlet to validate their frustrations.

The Left is responsible for policies making it virtually impossible to involuntarily commit mentally ill people. Instead, the mentally ill are left to drift until they commit serious enough crimes to become newsworthy.

Thanks, liberals.

I was under the impression this was a two-party solution; meaning liberals pushed for not forcing treatment on the mentally ill and conservatives were only too eager to stop spending money on that treatment anyways.

I felt it was one of those vicious loops that's hard to pin on one side because it happened before the current L/R divide. There was never enough money for mental institutions so they were indeed horrible, ill-managed places. Combined with forced institutionalization, it was a perfect target anti-government, activists types. Cost conscious politicians didn't complain about the elimination of such facilities because as you mentioned UCF08, it removed a budget line item. I don't think either group gave due consideration towards what would happen to such individuals.

(08-27-2015 01:15 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:53 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:43 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  Who does this surprise? There needs to be some form of gun control that atleast bars crazies from acquiring weapons. Heck, suspected terrorists can acquire weapons legally with ease, let alone crazies like this guy.

With right wing clowns such as these ECU morons (not surprising), this nation is scroomed

We're all ears.

With murder already illegal, I am anxious to hear the new law you would put in place that would have prevented this from happening.

LOL? Does justice to the murderer bring back the ones that were lost? Someone's family member was lost regardless of what happened to the killer. So murder being illegal is no solution. These acts need to be prevented.

I am not going to focus on one shooting, rather on the trend of mass shootings on a weekly basis. A start would be requiring all guns to be registered to the person and passing legislation that at least keeps mentally disturbed people and terrorists from acquiring them with ease. If you own a gun, and later on you are diagnosed with mental issues/ or are put on a terror watch list, then the police needs to confiscate the guns of the mentally disturbed and of the possible terrorist. Most Americans want common sense gun laws but the NRA crazies have too much political influence to let this happen.

Oh and Australia has already done it. Unlike us, they learn from mass shootings.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

Ah, yes. The BIG government statists and their never ceasing faith in relinquishing their Liberty over to the State. You honestly are willing to put your faith in gov't and believe that this "justice" over who can and can't own a gun wouldn't be rife with abuse?

I mean, who could possibly imagine a rogue administration targeting their political opponents and denying them their Constitutional rights?

Could never happen, eh?

Unbelievable.

(08-27-2015 12:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

How would any of the proposed laws by you gun control freaks kept a gun out of Flanagan's hands? Please provide the specific proposed law. Thanks!

The weapon a Glock 19 was purchased legally by a black racist in Roanoke , Va.

A white racists purchased a Glock 21 legally in Charleston , Sc.

However , these cases are being treated, discussed completely different aren't they?

The Glocks aren't the problem,... The mentally ill people are the PROBLEM.

(08-27-2015 12:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

How would any of the proposed laws by you gun control freaks kept a gun out of Flanagan's hands? Please provide the specific proposed law. Thanks!

Is there not a way to use a medical database to determine if someone with a mental issue should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

(08-27-2015 02:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

How would any of the proposed laws by you gun control freaks kept a gun out of Flanagan's hands? Please provide the specific proposed law. Thanks!

Is there not a way to use a medical database to determine if someone with a mental issue should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.”

States may have additional laws along these lines.

(08-27-2015 02:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

How would any of the proposed laws by you gun control freaks kept a gun out of Flanagan's hands? Please provide the specific proposed law. Thanks!

Is there not a way to use a medical database to determine if someone with a mental issue should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

Even if there was, where there is a will, there is a way. No law is going to change that.

I won't speak for anyone in particular, but most leftists don't care about saving lives, they just want more "feel good legislation" to score political points against us "right wing gun nuts". They just want something to say they "won".

(08-27-2015 02:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:51 AM)shere khan Wrote:  People are not going to give up their guns. Whine about it forever but it's not gonna happen

It's a waste of time

Gun control isn't about giving up your gun or your right to own one. It's about trying to keep guns out the hands of those people that don't deserve to have one.

How would any of the proposed laws by you gun control freaks kept a gun out of Flanagan's hands? Please provide the specific proposed law. Thanks!

Is there not a way to use a medical database to determine if someone with a mental issue should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

Was Flanagan under professional care for his mental issues?

And what medical database?