So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Delta4Embassy]

"'Prevent them?'"

 

[2aguy]

My point wasn't that the American Indians were wronged, my point is that we took this wilderness and turned it into the greatest nation on earth. Lots of money, lots of work, lots of wars. Israel no different.

We created a racist state based on slavery and genocide, which just got lucky enough to be the only country standing when the rest of the world devastated itself in two world wars. Please stop patting yourself on the back for that.

Not to worry, what little "Great" that was accomplished by progressives are quickly being undone by the Koch Brothers. You should be proud. Look at Cleveland, that's the future the Koch Brothers have planned for the rest of the country.

Israel, on the other hand, is an apatheid state that simply won't last, mostly because the people who live there know they are in the wrong.

Israel has tried nearly everything to get along with the Palestinians, but you can't negotiate with people who's only desire is to see you and all your people dead. How do you meet half way with that?

You don't. YOu get the hell away from them and undo what you did to offend them to start with.

The way the Jews can get along with the Palestinians, is to get the fuck off their land and go back to Europe where they came form.

The Koch brothers are harmless... Not an issue.

The Germans made it clear during the Second World War Jews were not welcome in Europe, dumb a$$.

You have to do something about that pussy of yours...

Hitler only had jurisdiction over Germany not Europe.

The Jews were German citizens.

The nazis were looking for scapegoats , someone to blame for the misery brought about the Treaty of Versailles.

The Jews were substantially disarmed.

.

Wrong....the countries the Germans occupied were forced to hand over their Jews for murder.......look up the Holocaust........

 

[2aguy]

Hitler only had jurisdiction over Germany not Europe.

The Jews were German citizens.

The nazis were looking for scapegoats , someone to blame for the misery brought about the Treaty of Versailles.

The Jews were substantially disarmed.

.

Uh, guy, German Jews mostly fled the country before the war started. Most of the victims of the holocaust were Polish Jews and Russian Jews.

So this crazy talk about "if only the Jews had guns" is just that- crazy talk.

Yes...and the Polish Jews and the Russian Jews were unarmed as well....as were the rest of the people of Europe, so when the Germans rolled over their militaries the civilians were unarmed and helpless......

It would be nice to try it the other way next time...several milliona well armed civilians in the face of an attacker....

 

[2aguy]

My point wasn't that the American Indians were wronged, my point is that we took this wilderness and turned it into the greatest nation on earth. Lots of money, lots of work, lots of wars. Israel no different.

We created a racist state based on slavery and genocide, which just got lucky enough to be the only country standing when the rest of the world devastated itself in two world wars. Please stop patting yourself on the back for that.

Not to worry, what little "Great" that was accomplished by progressives are quickly being undone by the Koch Brothers. You should be proud. Look at Cleveland, that's the future the Koch Brothers have planned for the rest of the country.

Israel, on the other hand, is an apatheid state that simply won't last, mostly because the people who live there know they are in the wrong.

Israel has tried nearly everything to get along with the Palestinians, but you can't negotiate with people who's only desire is to see you and all your people dead. How do you meet half way with that?

You don't. YOu get the hell away from them and undo what you did to offend them to start with.

The way the Jews can get along with the Palestinians, is to get the fuck off their land and go back to Europe where they came form.

Racism is a human thing and existed long before we got here...we created the first country based on the principal that all men are created equal...and now that we have gotten rid of the slavery brought here by the europeans and Africans, and was already here with the indians.....we are moving forward on that belief....

 

[2aguy]

The muslims are the aggressors here not the Israelis..as has been pointed out, muslims stop fighting and there is instant peace, Israel stops fighting and they are massacred……big difference. Wrong…..civilians get guns in Israel and gun stores have long lines in front of them in Israel since the attacks began…

AGain, it is funny that a nation that experienced genocide after they were disarmed would allow their civilians to be disarmed….they still haven't learned all the lessons from the holocaust.

Uh, no, guy. The Zionist shitstains came from Europe and stole Arab land. They aredoing the same thing you would do if space aliens came from Mars and took your land.

Nope...the first invasions were the muslims invading Spain and France....50 years later you had the first crusade.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

 

[Rustic]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

If the federal government tried to do that list, millions would on both sides of the issue.

Gun control laws working is a myth...

 

[candycorn]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

I see your pussy hurts too, huh?

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

 

[Rustic]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

I see your pussy hurts too, huh?

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

No proof gun control works in this country... Anyway gun violence is an nonissue.

Hashtag bigger fish to fry

 

[candycorn]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

 

[candycorn]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

I see your pussy hurts too, huh?

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

No proof gun control works in this country... Anyway gun violence is an nonissue.

Hashtag biggest fish to fry

Politically, it is a perfect topic for Hillary to bring up. The voting blocks she needs to energize are women and blacks. It speaks to both groups. Conversely, whomever her opponent is will be saddled with morons on the right who swear that there is no problem, we cannot do anything, or that common-sense legislation is a "slippery slope".

I swear, it's almost as if the Gods themselves are conspiring to put Hillary in the White House.

 

[Rustic]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

You apparently don't understand, it's a control thing.
I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't want to... its not place for the government to say.

The federal government has no credibility...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

Correct, gun laws will work on the majority of people, but only people that are law biding citizens. Much like drugs, they do not work for the criminal element. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

The idea that making it harder on everybody to purchase firearms will reduce or eliminate gun purchases by those who are not legally allowed to own firearms is ridiculous. It's like saying if we outlawed hamburgers because we have too many fat people, fat people will quit eating hamburgers.

 

[Rustic]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

I see your pussy hurts too, huh?

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

No proof gun control works in this country... Anyway gun violence is an nonissue.

Hashtag biggest fish to fry

Politically, it is a perfect topic for Hillary to bring up. The voting blocks she needs to energize are women and blacks. It speaks to both groups. Conversely, whomever her opponent is will be saddled with morons on the right who swear that there is no problem, we cannot do anything, or that common-sense legislation is a "slippery slope".

I swear, it's almost as if the Gods themselves are conspiring to put Hillary in the White House.

There are much bigger issues to worry about... Like our debt and unfunded liabilities.

 

[candycorn]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

You apparently don't understand, it's a control thing.
I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't want to... its not place for the government to say.

The federal government has no credibility...

It takes a special type of idiot not to wear his/her seatbelt. As for the government, Well, it's the only government we got... Its credible enough. If you don't think so, violate federal law and see what happens.

 

[Rustic]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

You apparently don't understand, it's a control thing.
I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't want to... its not place for the government to say.

The federal government has no credibility...

It takes a special type of idiot not to wear his/her seatbelt. As for the government, Well, it's the only government we got... Its credible enough. If you don't think so, violate federal law and see what happens.

46+ years and no seatbelt, no big deal.
I live in South Dakota no traffic.

It's 25$ fine here in SD if enforced, mostly not. What's $25?

I have been fined a handful of times, most times I get no fine I am pretty sure it is because I am a minority....

 

[candycorn]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

Correct, gun laws will work on the majority of people, but only people that are law biding citizens. Much like drugs, they do not work for the criminal element. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Sure they work; otherwise you'd have larger % on drugs. Do they eliminate 100% of users? No. Why? Because the demand is there to feel good, enhance your performance, or you're addicted.

The idea that making it harder on everybody to purchase firearms will reduce or eliminate gun purchases by those who are not legally allowed to own firearms is ridiculous. It's like saying if we outlawed hamburgers because we have too many fat people, fat people will quit eating hamburgers.

Nice point; now only if it were true.

You can buy beef (ground or otherwise), buns, etc... and make burgers.

To make a firearm, you need considerably more access to metals, equipment, some knowledge, etc...

There is no comparison.

Aside from that, you're missing the point.

Higher price means producers make less. That dries up the pool.
Higher price means fewer aftermkt. sales. That dries up the pool.
Putting thugs w/guns in jail prevents re-use. That dries up the pool.

Supply and demand kicks in. You dry up the supply, the costs skyrocket. So when someone gets pissed; a shooting spree is out of their price range. If they do purchase a gun, they will have to purchase the associated "insurance" policy meaning victims get compensated.

 

[candycorn]

Simple:

Raise the price of guns. Many ways to do this; most effective is an "insurance policy" of sorts on each gun that gun violence victims will be compensated through. Nothing in the Constitution says guns have to be cheap or readily available to every psychopath out there. Once you raise the price; the manufacturers stop producing so many and the price climbs still higher. Sort of like the luxury tax did on high end automobiles. Once the pool begins to dry up, the street price increases and you have fewer shootings.

Couple this with making gun crimes federal crimes. You use a gun to commit a crime; federal crime. You sell a gun without the mandatory insurance policy; federal crime. First offense, 10 years. Your gun(s), melted down into medals for the cop that caught you. Second offense, 30 years.

With prices of new guns high, surplus guns having their prices raised big time, and stiffer penalties for gun offenses, you'll see gun crimes dip.

What you won't see dip is people who are determined to die in the commission of a crime. Only multiple, stringent, background checks will do that; followed up by interviews from trained police officials.

I see your pussy hurts too, huh?

I love it when the gun crazies are reduced to being themselves--hateful little boys who know they are on the wrong side of the argument and are reduced to making profane statements about their betters.

No proof gun control works in this country... Anyway gun violence is an nonissue.

Hashtag biggest fish to fry

Politically, it is a perfect topic for Hillary to bring up. The voting blocks she needs to energize are women and blacks. It speaks to both groups. Conversely, whomever her opponent is will be saddled with morons on the right who swear that there is no problem, we cannot do anything, or that common-sense legislation is a "slippery slope".

I swear, it's almost as if the Gods themselves are conspiring to put Hillary in the White House.

There are much bigger issues to worry about... Like our debt and unfunded liabilities.

Politics is local.

 

[Rustic]

1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic long rifles and pistols.
2. Limit the number of rounds to six.
3. Make gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their products.
4. Tag and track all guns and bullets sold.
5. Perform extensive background checks on buyers. No felons, people with histories of abusing drugs and alcohol, people with mental problems can own guns.
6. Mandatory licensing after passing a test demonstrating that the potential buyer knows best practices.
7. Gun sales restricted to licensed dealers.
8. Restrict Concealed Carry permits to folks that can prove a need (Carrying lots of valuable items).
9. Complete ban on guns where large groups of people congregate.

So we are to follow the same "illegal" ban success story that we found when government tried to protect kids from possessing and using drugs? What did we see begin to happen to those drug laws, when we started accumulating in prison all those who broke the law? Using the power of government to enforce a change in behavior didn't exactly work there now did it? In fact using government to change behavior hasn't been successful through the prohibition period either. Actually, you could say there has been no use of government enforcement to promote "a change in behavior" that HAS worked in this country.

Nearly everyone wears a seatbelt when they get into a car now. The reason is enforcement. And that there is no incentive to not wear the seat belt--i.e. you get more seriously injured if you are in a wreck and not wearing one than are wearing one.

The reason drug enforcement hasn't worked is because the incentive to use drugs--feel better or fit in or in the case of PEDs, enhance performance--is strong.

The effect of gun laws will work on the greater number of people because there is no huge demand there. Like if guns were 50% off at the store, I wouldn't be inclined to buy one; not at 75% off or 90% off. Most people I know would not. And if you criminalize X gun, few are going to break the law to acquire it anyway. There is no incentive on the otherside driving the demand.

Correct, gun laws will work on the majority of people, but only people that are law biding citizens. Much like drugs, they do not work for the criminal element. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Sure they work; otherwise you'd have larger % on drugs. Do they eliminate 100% of users? No. Why? Because the demand is there to feel good, enhance your performance, or you're addicted.

The idea that making it harder on everybody to purchase firearms will reduce or eliminate gun purchases by those who are not legally allowed to own firearms is ridiculous. It's like saying if we outlawed hamburgers because we have too many fat people, fat people will quit eating hamburgers.

Nice point; now only if it were true.

You can buy beef (ground or otherwise), buns, etc... and make burgers.

To make a firearm, you need considerably more access to metals, equipment, some knowledge, etc...

There is no comparison.

Aside from that, you're missing the point.

Higher price means producers make less. That dries up the pool.
Higher price means fewer aftermkt. sales. That dries up the pool.
Putting thugs w/guns in jail prevents re-use. That dries up the pool.

Supply and demand kicks in. You dry up the supply, the costs skyrocket. So when someone gets pissed; a shooting spree is out of their price range. If they do purchase a gun, they will have to purchase the associated "insurance" policy meaning victims get compensated.

Thankfully guns in general are getting cheaper... As a firearms dealer I see better prices as more and more guns are being produced.

Buy more guns and ammo

 

[Rustic]

The federal government does not live within its means, that is why its a failure...