slow innocent deaths while protecting responsible gun owners

Yes it is.

 

I agree with everything but 4. What loopholes, the private sale of firearms? Do people run a DMV report on people when they privately sell their car? I don't think dealerships do.

Maybe substitute harsher penalties as you suggest in #5, to apply to both buyer AND seller.

 

That's not much of an argument. Do you have any evidence, quote, or can you name anyone that has made that statement? Just because you don't like someone else's ideas doesn't mean that they don't have ideas.

 

Like he said, that's the end result.

 

Then #6 should be rephrased to say: Do away with the all or nothing arguments from both sides that result in no action being taken.

I'll agree with that

 

I disagree with these comments. Stand your ground laws are great laws and have served as far more protections for law abiding citizens than mistakes by citizens. As far as not allowing it to be the first resort, how will that effect those who runs into someone who’s first resort is to kill them? Sometimes life does not grant the option of trying different things.


Closing background check loopholes will allow for easier access to a national registry. FFL’s are required to keep records of gun purchases for 15 years. That means any gun that is sold after the loop hole closes all congress has to do is wait for the right majority and sign it into law that requires all records of the previous years to be sent to a registry and that registry would grow to control and know all guns locations that were sold for quite sometime. I’m very much so opposed to a national registry. Every sovereign state in modern history that took gun started a registry first. That’s not a path I’m willing to go down.


As for point 6… why in the hell…. Should we stop that argument? Because it’s the truth? No gun legislation will solve cultural issues, period!

 

Why do you limit your thought process to only gun legislation? There are a many things that we can do in order to lower the murder rate that doesn't involve gun legislation. Why wouldn't you want to discuss those things?

 

Let’s hear it.

 

it's all been posted before, even in this thread.
Better school security, harsh punishments for violent criminals, better border security, better mental health initiatives, condemnation of certain cultural aspects that encourage violence, etc.

 

Although in the OP his number 6 point came up after he said the things you said which leads me to believe he was definitely associating his number 6 point with anti gun legislation

 

So forget about what you think he meant, do you agree or not with this statement:

6. Do away with the argument that there will still be killings so we shouldn’t do anything about it.

 

Do I agree with statement 6? No because of where it landed on the OP’s argument I still stand against what I believe he meant.

do I agree with the points you mentioned sure

 

Just so I understand, you believe that because there will still be killings and we should do nothing about it but we should also do some stuff about it. Is that correct?

 

Good idea. Not sure how we'd implement it.

Absolutely!!

Disagree. [/quote]This could get way too complicated with arguments that the shooter could have done "something else".

Disagree. This is a fairy tale. If you look at most mass shootings you'll see that most weapons WERE checked. OR they were criminals who got their guns from underground sources. My state (California) also requires background checks at gun shows, which may be a good idea.

Good Idea. I'd also makenpunishment for being a straw buyer more severe.

. The problem is not doing "anything" about it, it about doing effect things that address the real problems, not the politically convenient mantras. IMO working on the people prone to violence would be more effective than more restrictions on guns.

 

Like I said, you guys value not having the slightest inconvenience in getting guns more than saving lives.

 

I believe that not only will there be killing I think there will be mass killings. They will exploit these until gun rights are gone.

 

None of them will save lives. Never in my life have ever heard a killer say “man I would have killed more but this darn new law”….

 

You misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that using the argument that because some action doesn't cure the entire problem you shouldn't dismiss it entirely. I was not suggesting a law as some of these steps are things individuals can do by themselves or in groups, look at number one.

The same type of false logic applied to other problems might lead to:
there should be no restrictions on abortion so why pass regulations on it or we don't need to secure the border because people will get in somehow anyway...
these are a bit exaggerated but you see how they don't deal with the issue. Improvements no matter how small are improvements.

 

Point proven.