Fenrir.Candlejack said:
»The problem with mentally defective gun nuts is they believe that, by doing absolutely nothing, the problems guns cause will all just vanish on their own.
Try to stick to a foundation of facts in a debate, in order to prevent it from escalating into an argument.
Calling the other party all sorts of names, based on how right you feel you are, as opposed to others, only weakens your position and your credibility.
Fenrir.Candlejack said:
»Know what they say, right? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.
That could be argued to be valid for both sides here.
I can't say I'm impressed by the results of gun control measures so far either.
For example gun-free zones don't seem to be very effective at deterring violent criminals from bringing firearms there and committing atrocities.
If anything, most gun control measures in some shape or form only hamper and endanger law-abiding citizen.
They have no real effect on hardened criminals as they simply have no regard for the laws to begin with.
These are often "feel good" laws, enacted so politicians can farm votes from gullible voters who sadly fail to see past the facade for the true farce they really are...
Fenrir.Candlejack said:
»Most illegally obtained guns start off as legally obtained.
As do most components for a home-made bomb.
In fact you can find the recipes on the internet, uncensored and up for grabs by anyone, without any background check.
No inanimate object is inherently "evil".
No legal object is pre-destined to be made into something illegal or used for something illegal.
That train of thought would imply the absence of free will, morals and common sense in all of the potential owners, which would be both illogical and far too easy of an excuse.
Only when bad intentions are combined with such an inanimate object, do we see atrocities.
Why is it then that the main concern is not with
how someone came to be so violently insane without anyone noticing, but instead it's focused on how or where he got the gun, or what gun it was.
Fenrir.Candlejack said:
»Strangle the ability to legally obtain, then what happens? That's right! The criminals can't illegally purchase a Bushmaster, because there'd be no Bushmasters around to break in and steal!
Have you ever even held a modern firearm? Do you know how they're built, what they're constructed from and how durable they are?
Pistols like glocks or rifles like AK's will outlast you, your son and your grandson easily.
The idea that shutting down the supply of firearms would have an immediate effect is utopian to say the least.
All that would do is increase the price of available firearms.
The result would eventually be 2 isolated groups with firearms: the rich who can afford them and the criminals who simply obtain them illegally by any means.
Regular hardworking, law abiding middle class citizens would be easy prey for both, not to mention the government (should the need ever arise).
Fenrir.Candlejack said:
»That's what the Brady bill would've accomplished had it been given another ten years on the books.
The Brady Act put forth the requirement of performing background checks, to be conducted by NICS, on people attempting to purchase a firearm from an FFL, manufacturer or importer.
This is still true to this day, as such background checks are still being performed.
In fact, the FBI reports that more than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.
Yet during the first 17 months of the Act, only 7 people were convicted for violating it.
In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.
These low prosecution results, demonstrate the inability to efficiently enforce said act.
So what did you mean with your "keeping it on the books 10 more years" statement?