I believe you need to drill down a little deeper, and you will see that your solution, while no doubt well-meaning, does not address the actual problem. The vast majority of gun crime in the US is conducted by inner city gang members and drug cartels. A high percentage of the guns are obtained illegally, and they certainly are not going to submit to fingerprinting, registration or mandatory classes. All these types of proposals will do is annoy and burden legitimate, law-abiding gun owners, which, to be honest, is the real intent of many proposing them. If we want to cut downon gun violence, we need more vigorous policing and long mandatory sentences. Instead we get BLM and demands that the police pull back from enforcing the law. We would build a wall and crack down on illegal immigration, immigrants committing crimes, etc. Instead we get no enforcement, no deportations and an open door policy.
what does this mean? a. I thought we were talking about terrorists. b. If we are talking about crimes. How are you going to stop crimes with laws? We already have laws and gun controls. But how many crimes have been stopped with Guns? C. How many murders per day is chicago stopping with its very restrictive gun control.
Even the Washington Post claims bullshit on the idea that gun control states have reduced gun deaths. I hope Piezoe takes note here because this calls into question the point you lefties were making earlier in this thread. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ifles-and-guns/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na The Facts Murphy’s staff said he was referring to a chart that appeared in the National Journal in 2015. As it turns out, we had carefully checked this chart when President Obama made a similar but more carefully phrased claim about “gun deaths.” Note that Murphy referred to “homicides” and “gun crimes.” President Obama earned Two Pinocchios. Readers can check the full fact check, but in summary, we noted that most gun deaths — more than 60 percent in 2013 — are actually suicides. The data used in the National Journal chart calculates the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people by including all gun deaths, including homicides, suicides, accidental gun deaths and legal intervention involving firearms. We removed suicides from the totals and reran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference. Half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws. Moreover, the counting of gun laws is certainly open to interpretation, so that also affects the outcome. It’s not enough to count laws to figure out the reasons gun deaths are lower in one state than another. One would need to specifically determine whether certain laws had an effect, over time, on the gun-death rate in a state. So, in this instance, Murphy’s claim is worthy of Three Pinocchios because he specifically referred to homicides, rather gun deaths. “AR-15-style weapons weren’t legal in the United States until 2004 after being banned for 10 years. It is not coincidental that there was a massive increase in mass shootings in this country after 2004.” — Murphy, June 15 This is another problematic claim. Murphy’s staff could not point to specific data to back it up. There is significant contrary data that shows the 10-year assault weapons ban had little, if any, effect. A 2004 study for the Justice Department found that the ban’s impact on gun violence was mixed, at best; if the ban were renewed, the “likely effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” The report said that assault weapons were “rarely used” in gun crimes. James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor, collected data back to 1982 showing that assault weapons account for 24.6 percent of public mass shootings. “Assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advocates believe,” Fox wrote in a 2012 article in the journal Homicide Studies. Instead, “semiautomatic handguns [47.9 percent] are far more prevalent in random massacres than firearms that would typically be classified as assault weapons.” Did the assault weapons ban make a difference in mass shootings? Not significantly, according to Fox’s data. From 1976 to 1994, there were about 18 mass shootings per year. During the ban — 1995 to 2004 — there were about 19 incidents per year. After the ban, through 2011, the average went up to nearly 21. A 2016 study published in Applied Economics by Benjamin M. Blau of Utah State University and colleagues also looked at whether state and federal laws on assault rifles affected whether the weapon was used in public shootings between 1982 and 2014. “Our study seems to indicate that both the Federal assault rifle ban and individual State assault rifle bans do not affect the likelihood that an assault rifle was used in a mass shooting,” Blau said. “Said differently, these types of bans do not appear to deter the ‘use’ of an assault rifle during a mass shooting. In the data that we used, determining whether assault rifle bans (negatively) influenced the likelihood of the occurrence of a mass shooting was not conclusive.” Now, as our colleague Christopher Ingraham has pointed out, assault-style rifles have been used in seven of the eight high-profile public mass shootings since July of last year. That certainly raises the profile of the weapon, but the data so far does not show a link between the use of the weapons and the lifting of the ban, as Murphy asserts. “Here’s our bottom line: The statistics cited and stories told on Wednesday all show that it is undeniable that guns kill thousands of Americans every year,” said Murphy spokesman Chris Harris. “And that when you step back and look at the totality of the data, easier access to firearms by way of fewer regulations leads to an increase in gun deaths — both homicides and suicides. This is true in the U.S. when comparing state-to-state, and in comparing the U.S. to other nations.” The Pinocchio Test Murphy says it is “not coincidental” that mass shootings have increased since the ban was lifted. But the data shows that the ban was not particularly effective in the first place — and that mass shootings have not increased significantly since then. The data set is relatively small, and maybe something has changed in the past year. But for now this claim is worthy of Three Pinocchios. Three Pinocchios
would gun control have prevented these honor killings that drudge linked to today? http://www.khaleejtimes.com/interna...murdered-in-rare-male-pakistan-honour-killing It was swiftly followed by another killing, of a couple in Lahore who married without their family's consent. A man's throat was slit by relatives of his wife who disapproved of their marriage in the latest "honour killing" to hit Pakistan, police said Saturday. Hundreds of women are murdered by relatives in Pakistan each year on the pretext of defending what is seen as family honour, but it is rare for victim to be a man. The murder happened at a marketplace in the Punjab city of Burewala on Friday, when Muhammad Irshad, 43, was attacked by his father-in-law and two brothers in-law, police said. "The assailants were armed with knives and hatchets and after inflicting several wounds on Irshad's body they slit his throat," district police chief Ghazi Salahuddin told AFP. Irshad had married Mussarat Bibi, the daughter of a rich local agricultural family, about an year ago and fled as he feared his in-laws would kill him, but he had returned to see his parents, the police chief said. A manhunt had been launched to find Irshad's in-laws, who remained at large, he added. Last week 16 year-old Zeenat Bibi was killed in Lahore by her mother for marrying a man of her own choice in a case that sparked condemnation throughout the country. It was swiftly followed by another killing, of a couple in Lahore who married without their family's consent. On Thursday relatives slit the throat of a young mother who was pregnant with her second child after she married against their will in the village of Buttaranwali, some 75 kilometres (46 miles) north of Punjab provincial capital Lahore. On Sunday a young girl was killed by her brother for insisting on marrying the man of her choice in the city of Sialkot, also in Punjab. A film on honour killings in Pakistan won an Oscar for best documentary short in February. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif vowed to eradicate the "evil" amid publicity for the film, "A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness", but as yet no fresh legislation has been tabled.
May I suggest that you keep on merging unrelated problems, and according to you: gun violence = Muslim extremism = inner city gang banging. The problem of inner city violence can be very easily solved. Task police forces to again care about inner cities. If necessary involve armed forces. But regain control of those inner cities. Police has over years effectively ceased control to criminal organizations in inner cities. And it is funny how you wrap yourself in your own clouded argumemts: if the true problem lied only in inner cities then you and your family would not need to fear, you would need no assault rifles to defend your home, simply don't live in the inner cities. I assume you already moved out from the flat next door the local drug gangs. There are different problems and you seem to have issues to manage them all.
Gun laws are not supposed to stop terrorists. The FBI is. Which part of that do you still not understand?
"The Most Transparent Administration in History™ will only release partial transcripts of 911 Orlando shooting calls...with references to Islamic Terrorism redacted" Lynch: "Partial Transcript" Of Orlando 911 Calls Will Have References To Islamic Terrorism Removed http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...lls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html