I replied already see above And question the effectiveness of the steps taken in Australia? Right, it only cut gun related violence to a tiny minimum so small its almost negligible. Numbers and facts speak louder than some NRA sponsored "studies" Sorry I meant "serious research". Any link by any chance to that serious research?
Gotcha, Spock. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. While I agree that more guns are not the answer; prosecuting me (confiscation) for the crimes of a third party is going to be met with... resistance. #resist
I think you meant to say that the need of the few in your opinion outweighs the needs of the masses. Most in America are strongly favoring stricter gun laws. It is minorities that are blocking even the slightest progress. For the 10th time I do not think a total ban on guns can be realized or achieved. I have been talking about what I see as ideal (but not realizable) and I also spoke about some necessary steps towards a tightening of gun laws and regulation something that can very much be realized.
Dear Noodle, I don’t begrudge your Mandingo BBC dildo fascination, and don’t tell me that BAMF can’t be used as a weapon. 1) Nearly all firearms used in the commission of crime in cities were obtained illegally from primarily non-domestic sources. 2) Handgun possession within Chicago city limits is a FELONY. 3) Chicago’s failure to control violent crime is not +correlated to legal firearm ownership. The only caveat is firearms stolen from their legal-owners.
You repeat yourself. So then tighten the God damn import procedure and screenings.employ 10 or 100 xray scanners at each crossing/port, whatever it costs. If the Southern border is the issue then shut that down and monitor more closely Yes it costs money. But it costs a lot less than pretending we can't do anything about this. And most mass shootings have been committed by legally acquired guns. Stricter gun laws will take care of that. Why not solving the entire problem? So that you can go on about your fetish while more people have to die? Can't agree with your valuation of human life.
And domestic gun laws to prevent mass shootings that we all had to witness over the past many years. I think you provided some very good suggestions, such as the minimum age of 21. Additionally, more comprehensive background checks. Mandatory training and testing just as a driver's licenses. No guns for anyone with legal violations whatsoever (other than parking or speeding tickets or similarly light offenses). We can't afford to have more lunatics in the possession of guns. And there are a number other options for improvement.
650 homicides in Chicago last year. 11,000 gun-related deaths each year, nationwide, excluding suicides (22K). 1.3% of all deaths attributable to guns, including suicides. By contrast; more people in the US die from AIDS every year. Less than 5/1000 deaths can be attributed to gun crime.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/ "In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent." The FBI and the CDC tells us that the gun violence rate has been trending steadily down in the United States - in fact, the rate is half of that in 1993. From a statistical standpoint alone does the United States need to change gun laws ? No, the stats alone don't warrant it. And the political Kabuki theater will continue because quite frankly it is much more useful for the Democrats to use hyperbole to garner political contributions and direct public anxiety towards their own ulterior designs than it would be to undertake the legislative solution afforded in the Constitution: repeal the second amendment. The Democrats had all three branches of the government not so long ago - a super majority in fact. Why didn't they take up a vote on the second amendment ? The NRA ? Ha !