See, Canada is not exempt.

[Ralphie]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1


I love our Northern brethern and I do not take this lightly, and my heart goes out to those affected.

A dear friend of mine from Fla, is Canadian.


But in the gun control thread, you guys act like it is just a U.S. issue.

It happens everywhere, and it is a shame.

I think it was said that Canada had strong gun control, but it didn't make sense to me because my buddies father lives there and they have plenty of rifles....probably all for hunting though.

Anyway not trying to start shit, just wanted to say that I think the issue is all mental health. More restrictions or less restrictions do not seem to change anything.

[bobbycos]

ralphie, you are absolutely positive indubitably 100 % nail on the head correct

the Rodger guy in Santa Barbara was seeing a shrink for "issues"

look at some of the photos of Adam Lanza and you can see "million mile stare" in his eyes

mental health has alot to do with crime, see what happened here in Brooklyn last Sunday with Daniel St. Hubert who murdered a 6 year old boy and nearly murdered a 7 year old girl in an elevator. the man was just paroled 2 weeks ago and had a history including mental health issues

i said this before and i will say it again

a gun is a tool like anything else, if a person wants to commit bodily harm to somebody else they will use whatever tool possible be it a gun or a My Little Pony toy ...period

[High5er]

ralphie, you are absolutely positive indubitably 100 % nail on the head correct

the Rodger guy in Santa Barbara was seeing a shrink for "issues"

look at some of the photos of Adam Lanza and you can see "million mile stare" in his eyes

mental health has alot to do with crime, see what happened here in Brooklyn last Sunday with Daniel St. Hubert who murdered a 6 year old boy and nearly murdered a 7 year old girl in an elevator. the man was just paroled 2 weeks ago and had a history including mental health issues

i said this before and i will say it again

a gun is a tool like anything else, if a person wants to commit bodily harm to somebody else they will use whatever tool possible be it a gun or a My Little Pony toy ...period

couldnt agree more.

[Corweena]

I also agree.




And another thing to consider. The Rodger guy stabbed the first three people he killed in his apartment. You don't see people clamoring for knife control.....


Its just like Bobby said, if they want to kill someone bad enough, they will find a way to do it, guns or no. And criminals will always find a way to get guns if they want it. You can control legal firearms all you want, but that won't stop 99% of the people who plan on using guns with criminal intentions.

[deevergote]

People act as though it's a US-only issue because the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution declares a US citizen's right to bear arms. Other countries have different laws; some being more lenient, some more strict.

I've seen this popping up everywhere... as well as the recent issues in WA and PA (WA's shooter injured 3, killed 1... PA's shooter had a BB gun, and nobody was injured.) LOTS of people are calling for "more gun legislation", which I can understand... but it won't help. It's already illegal to have a firearm on a college campus (PSU and SPU were the two locations), so stricter laws aren't going to prevent this!

I support legislation (in all countries) regarding the licensing and registration of firearms, just as we do with our motor vehicles. I think it's a good idea to ensure that a person is properly trained and educated in the legal use and storage of their weapon. Just as we wouldn't want anyone behind the wheel of a car that doesn't know how to drive it, doesn't understand the laws, or is mentally or physically unable to safely operate it, I feel the same should apply to firearms.

Granted, as said, NO amount of legislation is going to stop someone from senseless violence if that's what they're determined to do. Legally obtained firearms are just as deadly as illegally obtained firearms. Reducing the amount of firearms that are legal will only spur the crazies on to locating illegal firearms... or they'll just do something different, like building a bomb (so now we have to ban fertilizer!)

[verothacamaro]

People act as though it's a US-only issue because the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution declares a US citizen's right to bear arms. Other countries have different laws; some being more lenient, some more strict.

I've seen this popping up everywhere... as well as the recent issues in WA and PA (WA's shooter injured 3, killed 1... PA's shooter had a BB gun, and nobody was injured.) LOTS of people are calling for "more gun legislation", which I can understand... but it won't help. It's already illegal to have a firearm on a college campus (PSU and SPU were the two locations), so stricter laws aren't going to prevent this!

I support legislation (in all countries) regarding the licensing and registration of firearms, just as we do with our motor vehicles. I think it's a good idea to ensure that a person is properly trained and educated in the legal use and storage of their weapon. Just as we wouldn't want anyone behind the wheel of a car that doesn't know how to drive it, doesn't understand the laws, or is mentally or physically unable to safely operate it, I feel the same should apply to firearms.

Granted, as said, NO amount of legislation is going to stop someone from senseless violence if that's what they're determined to do. Legally obtained firearms are just as deadly as illegally obtained firearms. Reducing the amount of firearms that are legal will only spur the crazies on to locating illegal firearms... or they'll just do something different, like building a bomb (so now we have to ban fertilizer!)

If we register our guns, we should be able to carry them anywhere we take a car - right?

[deevergote]

That's an interesting point.

The knee-jerk reaction to that idea is that "a crazy person can just open fire at any time and kill people"... however, it's just as easy to mow down a half dozen people with a fully legal car.

States that allow open carry don't seem to have any higher gun violence than states that don't allow it. The rates don't seem to be considerably lower, either... so basically, if you're crazy and want to shoot a bunch of people, you'll find a way whether or not it's permitted

Open carry restrictions would make sense, though. It makes little sense to open carry a high powered rifle (unless you're hunting), just as it would make little sense (and be illegal in most areas) to attempt to daily-drive a large farm tractor on residential suburban streets.

[owequitit]

A couple of things to consider Deev:

1) Do we make every person in the US register their religious affiliation? So we know and can track who believes what?

Don't forget that the primary difference between gun ownership and a driver's license is that I am Constitutionally protected to own firearms (and bare them), just as I am protected in free speech, the right to vote! the right to religious liberty, etc. the problem with gun control nut jobs is that they want to pretend that certain parts of our Bill of Rights are more important than others (of course holding up the parts they cherish personally as more important, while wanting to diminish the rights that they don't agree with; such as the 2nd amendment). Oh yeah,that is why the Bill of Rights exists in the first place, so people can't arbitrarily decide what freedoms are legitimate and agree with their values and which ones aren't.

So let's play devil's advocate here. If I were to start a crusade to remove women's suffrage because I hold it to be less important than the 2nd Amendment, what do you think the response would be?

2) The historical reason a gun registry has been fought tooth and nail is NOT because crazy people don't want others to know they have guns. That is perpetuated liberal myth.

The real reason that people don't want a gun control registry is because we have learned from history. Any time the government wants to exert itself on the people, the first ones removed from the equation are the registered gun owners because the government knows they are the only ones that can resist.

If you want a real reason to see why it is resisted so hard, go back and read about the communist revolution in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, The Japanese empire, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Myanmar, Etc. Where you can find a totalitarian and oppressive regime anywhere in history, you WILL find gun control. In the most insidious cases (like the Nazis), you will find exactly what is being pushed for in this country. First it was a registry for "the safety of the citizens". Then they systematically sent the SS to collect the most powerful weapons because the job of the government was to protect the people, and citizens didn't need those kinds of weapons. Then the SS showed up and took the hunting rifles, then they showed up and took the hand guns.

Guess what happened next? They started rounding up anyone who opposed the Nazi ideology. Once these people disappeared (and they did go away forever), the Nazi's were able to force those remaining to be indoctrinated into the Nazi view of life against their will. Pretty soon, Hitler's youth was brainwashed enough to not even realize it was against their will. This time also allowed Hitler to enslave or kill any scientific mind in the country (which was why so many German/Austrian scientists fled in the 30's, because they were smart enough to see it coming).

Once Hitler had control of the guns, the scientists, and the youth, and there was no political opposition, he went to war and sent many more to die than would have ever died without gun control.

Of course, I am sure I don't have to mention that gun control ultimately allowed him to round up over six million Jews and exterminate them do I?

Stalin (and the communists in general) used the same tactics to silence opposition. Although by most accounts, he killed over 20 million people that didn't agree with him.

N. Korea does the same, as did Cuba, Myanmar and any other regime in history. Venezuela did the same under Chavez.

As much as liberals want to pretend they live in a world of clouds and rainbows and hugs, the hard reality is that the ONLY thing that has ever stood between tyranny and freedom is a well armed citizenry and that is PRECISELY why the 2nd amendment exists. It is also why the first thing to come under attack by any political affiliation wanting a big government is guns. The fact that the majority of people clamoring for and supporting gun control don't see that they are being brainwashed into thinking the guns are the problem is alarming enough for me to refuse because that is EXACTLY how it has happened in the past.

As much as I would be called a callous bastard, I would rather have a few unwanted gun deaths every year than any chance for millions of exterminations.

No gun ownership is not perfect because humans are involved. Training I could get behind. A registry? Not so much. It has no bearing on big picture safety.

As for cars as an example to jump off of again, let's talk about some car facts since that is always brought up as an example of how guns should be controlled:

1) We have about 300 million cars registered in this country. We have somewhere between 2-3x that many guns in this country. So figure 600 million to 900 million guns.

2) With all of the required training to drive a car (still woefully inadequate IMO) we kill about 40,000 people very year.

Now with all of the requirements of driving a car, think to how many times you have personally heard of someone driving without a license, driving while intoxicated (even just a little), driving without registration, proof of insurance, no insurance or breaking a motor vehicle law by doing something minor like speeding.

How often have you exceeded the speed limit?

What if I told you that excessive speed was a factor in nearly 100% of fatal accidents? Does that change your outlook on that minor speeding infraction now? It should, because excessive speed is considered anything above the limit:



3) Despite having 3 times as many guns as cars in the US(which require 100% training and testing BTW), we average about 16,000 gun related deaths per year (based on the last reported data I saw), and the trend is downward, despite no decrease in gun ownership. I will explain what that last point is particularly significant shortly. That is well less than 50% of the number of car related deaths. That already gives us a death rate that is less than 1/4 of all automobile related accidents on a per weapon basis.

Of course, this maximum fatality number is the one that press reports because they get more support for gun control by reporting maximum lethality.

However, if you remove suicides, that number drops by over half (number one use of a gun in the US to take life is a suicide). If you remove illegal gun crimes (since law abiding gun owners aren't committing crimes, or they wouldn't be law abiding) that number drops by almost 2/3. By the time you remove criminal activity and suicide, you are literally left with a tiny % of car related deaths. Why no push for more stringent driving standards, or harsher punishments for drivers? Driving isn't even Constitutionally protected, and we kill more people with fewer weapons! And we require training and registration, but the deaths aren't less! How can that be, if training and registration will solve the problem of gun violence?

Two more interesting facts about illegal gun usage in the US:

A) the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest rates of gun related violence. How can that be if gun control is effective?

B) statistics show that in cities where it is tracked, roughly 70% of gun crimes are committed by convicted felons, and the majority of those are against other convicted felons. Now, this is a key point because convicted felons are not legally allowed to own, or be in possession of a firearm. So if they are in possession of a firearm (which 100% of felons committing gun crimes are), they are already NOT following gun control laws. What are the odds they are going to suddenly start?

Once you actually break the data down, you are left with less than a couple thousand deaths that aren't suicides or crimes.

Also, as a psychology major, you know as well as I do that the common causal link in all if these mass shooting issues is not the guns, it is the psychopaths carrying them. Until we deal with the real problem (our societal mistreatment of preparing youth for the real world), it isn't going to get better. No amount of gun control will fix it, and sorry to say, but anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid.

[deevergote]

I agree with just about everything you said, Scott... and I do recognize that historically, those regimes that have required the registration of weapons have used that knowledge to disarm their citizens. However, that's an extreme example. While registration COULD be used against the population, it's not likely to be. Not in the vein of Nazi Germany, anyway.

Licensing is more important than registration, I feel. A gun owner should have to prove that they are competent in the use, care, and storage of their weapon, as well as being versed in the applicable laws. Someone who cannot prove that they are able to safely own a firearm should not be allowed to do so... just as someone who is unable to prove that they are capable of operating a motor vehicle is not permitted to do so (and I agree... it should be far more difficult to obtain and maintain a motor vehicle license...)

Registration is less important. The only thing I can say in favor of registration is that it creates a legal bond between the gun and the owner. Especially if ballistics information were to be required for each weapon sold. If a bullet fired from a weapon registered to you could be traced back to that weapon, you'd think twice about doing something illegal with it. That won't stop people from doing such things, of course... but it would be a deterrent. Just as breaking the law in your vehicle, where your license plate can be seen, will lead the authorities right back to you.



While I do believe in our Constitution, I do also recognize that it was written very long ago. At that time, this country was far less populated, government was far less complicated, firearms were far more primitive (how many kids would the Sandy Hook shooter have taken out with a musket?), and the study of psychology was an academic fancy at best. I do believe that we have the right to arm ourselves, and we have the right to overthrow a government that we fell is tyrannical... but I don't feel that our rights need to go so far as to be extended to the unregulated ownership and use of all firearms.


Perhaps I'm biased, though. I have no desire to own a gun myself (though my girlfriend and I are planning on going to a local range one of these days to learn how to use one... it could be useful knowledge.) I also live in a state where it is pretty much impossible for a civilian to obtain a concealed carry license... and open carry is forbidden. Anyone in this state that owns a gun can really just keep it hidden in their bedroom until they want to go out to a range, or hunting in a designated hunting area (I also have no desire to hunt.)

[XCRN]

I would take background check over registration, I have nothing to hide. One way I see that backfireing is that the requirements are made to be much stricter like a speeding ticket will prevent you from owning a firearm.

And regulation has never really done anything good here. The school in WA where this shooting took place is very strict on gun control and South Seattle and Tacoma have incredibly high crime rates. It goes as far as the Seattle mayor inhibiting the police from doing their job. The annual May Day riots turn violent and the mayor sypithisizes for the people who create violence for no reason and we are not allowed to protect ourselves nor anyone to protect us. They are on a tight leash and nothing good has come from that city for the last year. I try to stay away from that area as much as possible.

Though open carry is legal here, I don't see any point in it. It creates uneccessary disturbance and even the most hardcor pro 2nd ammendment people choose not to excercise this right around here.

[phatdoughnut]

I agree with just about everything you said, Scott... and I do recognize that historically, those regimes that have required the registration of weapons have used that knowledge to disarm their citizens. However, that's an extreme example. While registration COULD be used against the population, it's not likely to be. Not in the vein of Nazi Germany, anyway.

Licensing is more important than registration, I feel. A gun owner should have to prove that they are competent in the use, care, and storage of their weapon, as well as being versed in the applicable laws. Someone who cannot prove that they are able to safely own a firearm should not be allowed to do so... just as someone who is unable to prove that they are capable of operating a motor vehicle is not permitted to do so (and I agree... it should be far more difficult to obtain and maintain a motor vehicle license...)

Registration is less important. The only thing I can say in favor of registration is that it creates a legal bond between the gun and the owner. Especially if ballistics information were to be required for each weapon sold. If a bullet fired from a weapon registered to you could be traced back to that weapon, you'd think twice about doing something illegal with it. That won't stop people from doing such things, of course... but it would be a deterrent. Just as breaking the law in your vehicle, where your license plate can be seen, will lead the authorities right back to you.



While I do believe in our Constitution, I do also recognize that it was written very long ago. At that time, this country was far less populated, government was far less complicated, firearms were far more primitive (how many kids would the Sandy Hook shooter have taken out with a musket?), and the study of psychology was an academic fancy at best. I do believe that we have the right to arm ourselves, and we have the right to overthrow a government that we fell is tyrannical... but I don't feel that our rights need to go so far as to be extended to the unregulated ownership and use of all firearms.


Perhaps I'm biased, though. I have no desire to own a gun myself (though my girlfriend and I are planning on going to a local range one of these days to learn how to use one... it could be useful knowledge.) I also live in a state where it is pretty much impossible for a civilian to obtain a concealed carry license... and open carry is forbidden. Anyone in this state that owns a gun can really just keep it hidden in their bedroom until they want to go out to a range, or hunting in a designated hunting area (I also have no desire to hunt.)

We should burn the bible then, talk about primitive. I don't want to register my guns because I know that at the slight hint of mental issue the guv could come to my house because they know exactly what I got.


Your other comment about needing to open carry a "high power rifle", that is funny because many hunting rifles are way more powerful than any of the "assult" types we use. The thing that I keep going back to is that criminals don't care if those laws are in place, so why write them in and affect 99% of the people? Its crazy talk.

On a different note (for dev), I know you don't care about guns but does it really not bother you that if you did decide you wanted a gun that you have to jump through so many hoops? A criminal can go out and buy one anywhere and not be affected by those laws. Which in turn if he does use it to kill someone he will not even be charged for the lesser crimes of not registering a gun. They will go for the murder charges making those other laws even more worthless.

[owequitit]

I agree with just about everything you said, Scott... and I do recognize that historically, those regimes that have required the registration of weapons have used that knowledge to disarm their citizens. However, that's an extreme example. While registration COULD be used against the population, it's not likely to be. Not in the vein of Nazi Germany, anyway.

Licensing is more important than registration, I feel. A gun owner should have to prove that they are competent in the use, care, and storage of their weapon, as well as being versed in the applicable laws. Someone who cannot prove that they are able to safely own a firearm should not be allowed to do so... just as someone who is unable to prove that they are capable of operating a motor vehicle is not permitted to do so (and I agree... it should be far more difficult to obtain and maintain a motor vehicle license...)

Registration is less important. The only thing I can say in favor of registration is that it creates a legal bond between the gun and the owner. Especially if ballistics information were to be required for each weapon sold. If a bullet fired from a weapon registered to you could be traced back to that weapon, you'd think twice about doing something illegal with it. That won't stop people from doing such things, of course... but it would be a deterrent. Just as breaking the law in your vehicle, where your license plate can be seen, will lead the authorities right back to you.



While I do believe in our Constitution, I do also recognize that it was written very long ago. At that time, this country was far less populated, government was far less complicated, firearms were far more primitive (how many kids would the Sandy Hook shooter have taken out with a musket?), and the study of psychology was an academic fancy at best. I do believe that we have the right to arm ourselves, and we have the right to overthrow a government that we fell is tyrannical... but I don't feel that our rights need to go so far as to be extended to the unregulated ownership and use of all firearms.


Perhaps I'm biased, though. I have no desire to own a gun myself (though my girlfriend and I are planning on going to a local range one of these days to learn how to use one... it could be useful knowledge.) I also live in a state where it is pretty much impossible for a civilian to obtain a concealed carry license... and open carry is forbidden. Anyone in this state that owns a gun can really just keep it hidden in their bedroom until they want to go out to a range, or hunting in a designated hunting area (I also have no desire to hunt.)

Deev, you arenperpetuating the propaganda.

1) Nazi Germany happened less than 75 years ago. Communist Russia was committing genocide less than 30 years ago,right up to their collapse. How about China and North Korea, who are still persecuting dissension amongst their population and against the government?

How about Iraq right up till 2002?

Chavez died less than a year ago.

Myanmar was less than a year ago.

Apartheid was less than 30 years ago.

What about Bosnia, Croatia and all of the countries in Africa that have done the same by removing the ability of the populace to resist rule?

How about virtually every Middle Eastern country ruled by oppressive regimes where women's rights are denied, they are persecuted, and anyone who resists rule is eliminated?

Was the Taliban a long time ago? Tell me their willingness to protect Bin Laden didn't affect our safety.

The problem Mike is that it is happening all over the planet right under your nose, but it isn't sensationalized by the media because it doesn't push their political agenda, so you buy the hype that it isn't that bad.

Is Iran oppressing or executing those who try to stop the injustices of their government? You better believe it, and all of these incidents have PLENTY of non-mainstream media coverage, you just have to go look.

You are also making the bluff of telling me that it isn't likely to be used against the people. How do you know that? Do you think Germans thought that Nazi Germany would end up the way it did? How about the 20 million Russians? Do you think they had any idea they would be oppressively gunned down 20 years after the revolution? Do you think they believed the ruling class would still exist nearly 80 years later living in luxury while they lived in squalor?

You can't guarantee what will happen if control exists, and ultimately you know that. Nobody can predict the future. And yes, it might still happen, but the odds are a lot less.

The only that stops people like Hitler from claiming power is the citizens ability to stop them. Simple as that.

Ironically, the more the liberals try to take guns away, the more validity they lend to the 2nd amendment.

Obama has spent the last 6 years with a country divided in half, largely because he perpetuated a wedge in the populace started by Bush. With an ineffective Congress (decided by the people whom he works for), he has tried every avenue to usurp the Congress and work around the 50% of the voters who he doesn't agree with! trying to push as much of his agenda through using executive order as he possibly can. If he is willing to bypass half the voters (70% by some of the latest polls) how can you honestly expect me to believe he wouldn't vote for me if he had the chance?

Be very wary anytime a powerful person tries to tell you you are giving away your rights for your own safety. One of the biggest failings of supposedly brilliant human beings is the inability y to apply past lessons to current events because they fail to acknowledge that history repeats itself. Human nature hasn't changed, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only way to ensure it doesn't is to prevent someone from getting absolute power can't be achieved.

Also, no offense, but any sort of assertion that "the Constitution was written long ago" as if to justify downplaying the relevance of certain parts of it, or the Amendments is unsubstantive bullshit. Who is to say that free speech isn't also obsolete? Or the freedom from quartering troops? Or right to a fair trial by your peers (even though evidence technology has come so far it is much easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. Should we cancel due process since we now have DNA?

The problem with your argument is that it fundamentally circular in nature because that same argument can be applied to ANY other part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights with equal validity. However, as soon as I do that, the excuses begin. "The Constitution is outdated." "Freedom of ________(insert chosen freedom here) is more important." "That isn't what the forefathers intended" (even though it is as clear as their verbiage for right of free speech). "You don't need guns." "You shouldn't have guns without a registry or training."

You are arguing on a slippery slope Mike because where does it end?

Another reason the argument is flawed is because the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the other amendments. Simple as that.

Finally, contrary to your, and the liberal assertions to the contrary, the forefathers had the same clarity of mind and the future when they wrote the 2nd amendment as they did when they wrote the rest. Any assertions to the contrary have absolutely no basis in reality.

The reason history repeats itself is because every generation forgets the lessons of their ancestors because they don't think it applies to them. And then it does, so they have to learn the lesson all over again.

Also, contrary to your assertions, the reason there have been fewer oppressive regimes over the last 200 years is because more models adopted our way of governing where the power is held by and insured by the people.

Also, consider how Putin, the leader of a "free" country marched right into another free country and tried to destabilize it (Ukraine) so that he could ultimately control it. That has happened in the last few weeks, so to pretend such things aren't still happening is silly. Right here at home, we still have Mexican Cartel people crossing the border into AZ and terrorizing our citizens. There is no military protection beyond the border at this point in time. Protection at the border is questionable because if it weren't, they wouldn't have made it in the first place. They have robbed,stolen, murdered, raped and enslaved our citizens near the border. They bring hundreds of thousands of tons of illegal narcotics (cocaine, marijuana, and Meth) straight through our fences. They push illegal Mexicans into slavery either by promising freedom in the US or threatening the safety of their families back home if they don't carry. We have has US citizens FORCED into being mules t of either save a loved one who got entangled with or to prevent the cartel from coming after them. But what did you hear on the media? That the crazy AZ governor and her crazy redneck voters just wanted to stop illegals and were just trying to prevent immigration reform. Funny how you didn't hear the rest of the story isn't it?

One last question: you still haven't elaborated on how licensing and training has made driving safer, and thus I don't believe you have illustrated how doing the same for guns will make a difference. You haven't acknowledged the validity of the raw facts in terms of death rates, and you haven't explained to me why we aren't putting equal effort into vehicle control when we kill 4x as many people (roughly 7x if we filter the gun data) with 1/3 the number of weapons?

As a final thought, if you are willing to register and get training to speak freely, require all people to prove legitimacy in voting (another liberal hot button topic), waive your unquestionable right to due process or a fair trial, then maybe gun owners would give some ground. Are you willing to get authorization from the federal government to go to the church of your choice, or speak out against that which you don't agree with? Neither am I. Which is precisely what the 2nd amendment represents. Ironically, liberals (not you specifically) are telling me I should have to prove that I can legitimately exercise my 2nd amendment rights as a US citizen, but I shouldn't be able to require a voter to prove they are legitimate?

[owequitit]

Also, for the record, virtually every firearm in the US already has a legal trail of ownership. If you haven't owned a gun, you might not know this, but every serial number is registered to its original owner (so there already is a database of sorts). What is unrestricted is private sale (what the original owner does after they buy it). However, you can rest assured that when a firearm is sold or traded, there will most likely be a Bill of Sale so the original owner can prove it wasn't their firearm if it ever gets used illegally. The Bill of Sale always has the new buyer on it.

When was the last time there was a mass shooting televised where they couldn't determine the chain of ownership of a gun?

Guns with serial numbers removed are illegal (agin the person is already in violation of the law), and the vast majority are obtained illegally (this is why there is a black market for arms). Also, FYI, the going rate on a firearm that is untraceable is about 2-3x the cost of a legitimate one and you have to intentionally seek it out (usually from an illegal arms dealer). People seeking to pay 2-3x the legal rate for a gun they KNOW can't be traced is again, already in violation of existing gun control laws. Having a registry database, licensing, etc doesn't stop this part of the market (most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained either by the above, or stolen).

If you don't believe me, go look at crime statistics during the handgun ban for DC. Make sure you look at statistics for during and after the ban.

Check out the numbers for New York, LA, Chicago and Boston. Compare them to cities of roughly equal size. See what you come up with.

Also, I know tons of firearm owners and enthusiasts. Not a single open that I know sells guns t o people who shouldn't have them, because they are ultimately liable for that.

The media pushes fear, propaganda and untruthful facts to make people scared of guns, and more realistically, of the people,who own them. Witness the absolutely bullshit belief that anyone who is anti-gun control is a high school drop out redneck with no teeth, education or awareness.

[owequitit]

Let's talk about Chu, who managed to purchase firearms LEGALLY because doctors aren't allowed to report his psychotic issues to bureaus like the FBI and ATF because liberal organizations like the ACLU have pushed to make that reality, even though he was CLEARLY a threat to others. Instead, it makes way more sense to infringe upon millions of other's rights because we don't want to admit the problem is crazy people... That makes ZERO sense.

[owequitit]

P.S.



I typically don't do this sort of thing since it feeds their notoriety, but watch that and tell me the guns are the problem...by the way, he stabbed 3 people to death before the rampage.

Back to the topic at hand, Canada has strong gun control policy and now it is escalating there now.

If we want a real solution, it is time to pull our heads out of our asses and deal with the behavioral problems.