Today was the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook.

[Spider-Dan]

You'd think that, once gun control laws went into place, the number would decline sharply.  But, has it?

It doesn't work as well piecemeal, for the same reasons a dry county can't keep all alcohol out.

Fact is: people who shoot other people with guns don't care about laws (clearly), so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

People who drive drunk clearly don't care about anti-drinking laws, so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

This logic can be used against any problem that you don't want to do anything about.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

.
People who drive drunk clearly don't care about anti-drinking laws, so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

This logic can be used against any problem that you don't want to do anything about.

To expend on what Spider said.

What has been more effective at curbing DUI than stricter punishments for DUI (although that does have an effect) is laws that increase the liability on people who serve people alcohol. 

For example if a city increases the penalty on teenagers who are caught in possession of a beer from a $25 fine to a $500 fine is unlikely to curb underage drinking.  On the other hand increasing the fine on bars or stores that sell to minor from $25 to $500 has a great effect.   

[Brian Fein]

People who drive drunk clearly don't care about anti-drinking laws, so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

This logic can be used against any problem that you don't want to do anything about.

I feel like this is a poor analogy.  If you want to use drunk driving as comparison, your argument should be in favor of outlawing cars.

Plenty of people have guns and don't murder children.  Its the irresponsible few that use them improperly that you're trying to control.  Outlawing the tool isn't the best way to go about controlling the result.

For example if a city increases the penalty on teenagers who are caught in possession of a beer from a $25 fine to a $500 fine is unlikely to curb underage drinking.  On the other hand increasing the fine on bars or stores that sell to minor from $25 to $500 has a great effect.  

I agree with this.  So, who should be responsible, the gun owner or the store that sold the gun?  Both?

[Phishfan]

It doesn't work as well piecemeal, for the same reasons a dry county can't keep all alcohol out.

Just to clarify since I have experience in traveling through dry counties. Most do not have laws to keep alcohol out. They just restrict the sale in the county but do nothing about consumption/possession.

[Spider-Dan]

I feel like this is a poor analogy.  If you want to use drunk driving as comparison, your argument should be in favor of outlawing cars.

Cars are an invaluable tool that have transformative value in non-destructive ways, and are critical to the modern economy.  Do you seriously believe that a ban on guns is more appropriately compared to a ban on cars than a ban on alcohol?

Plenty of people have guns and don't murder children.  Its the irresponsible few that use them improperly that you're trying to control.

Again, plenty of people can drive while intoxicated and not crash, yet we institute blanket BAC caps anyway because of the irresponsible few.

[Brian Fein]

^^ Fine, I agree.  So tell me what the gun-equivalent is of a BAC cap.  I'd be in favor of that.  Outlawing guns is not the equivalent.

Car + Alcohol + Irresponsibility = DUI

Gun + Instability + Irresponsibility = Murder

[Fau Teixeira]

Car + Alcohol + Irresponsibility = running over a crossing guard at an elementary school

would the bar that served that person get sued and lose ? .. yes

[Spider-Dan]

^^ Fine, I agree.  So tell me what the gun-equivalent is of a BAC cap.  I'd be in favor of that.  Outlawing guns is not the equivalent.

Nobody is talking about "outlawing guns."  I've already said multiple times that I favor a tobacco-style approach to the problem: onerous taxes and heavy regulation.

[Phishfan]

Car + Alcohol + Irresponsibility = running over a crossing guard at an elementary school

would the bar that served that person get sued and lose ? .. yes

Granted, I do not know anyone who has had a DUI that involved a death but no DUI I know of has ever led back to any ramifications for the bar(s) involved. I do have familiarity and know someone who had a DUI that involved two people being hospitalized with the name of the bar publicized with no legal ramifications.

[pondwater]

That is an incorrect assessment of the facts; 17 states do not ban open carry, but also do not prohibit local laws from restricting the practice.  Furthermore, in IL, you can only open carry on private property, which is exactly the kind of tobacco-style legislation that I'm talking about.

No, you have an incorrect assessment. Who said anything about open carry? Open carry or concealed carry it doesn't matter. The fact is that all 50 states allow carrying of a firearm one way or another.

Quote from: Wikipedia
A No-Issue jurisdiction is one that – with very limited exceptions – does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun in public. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized). Since July 2013, with the legalization of concealed carry in Illinois, there are no patently no-issue states.

So yes, it is legal to carry a firearm in all 50 states.

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of mandatory registration (i.e. a tax), so yes, they can be taxed again.

That depends on if you think that Rights should be taxed and registered.  And according to the 2nd amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Common sense dictates that taxing and registration could be considered an infringement on a right.
 
Needless to say, they already tried it in New York with an assault weapon registration(what the hell is an assault weapon anyhow?) and it's a total failure. 99% haven't registered and state law enforcement officers have publicly stated their opposition to the law and their refusal to enforce it. http://www.truthandaction.org/gun-control-fail-99-registered-new-yorks-assault-weapon-registration-deadline-nears/

As for whether or not it will happen, that depends on several other factors.  If I were you, I would be concerned that the party that most stalwartly defends gun rights is currently on a demographic path to be mathematically irrelevant in 20 years.  The real question, in my mind, is whether it can be done, and even I can think of several ways to severely curtail firearms in a manner consistent with established constitutional law.

No, I'm not concerned at all. I'm smart enough to realize that there is an ebb and flow to the parties that are elected to run the country. Republicans and Democrats each get their turn to ruin this country every few years because the majority of the voting public is too stupid to figure out what they want. Right now, since your precious democrats have control, you can say that the republicans will cease to exist and be irrelevant in 20 years. However, realistically I know that is the farthest thing from the truth. Both parties have to exist with somewhat equal power in order for this whole ponzi scheme to keep on working. If one of the two parties ever becomes "mathematically irrelevant" as you say, we all better be concerned because the end is near, it's crash and burn time.

[mod edit: accidentally modified pondwater's post when trying to quote; restored]

[Spider-Dan]

No, you have an incorrect assessment. Who said anything about open carry? Open carry or concealed carry it doesn't matter. The fact is that all 50 states allow carrying of a firearm one way or another.

No state has a complete ban on carrying, if that's what you're trying to say.  But in several states where carrying is allowed, local jurisdictions are still permitted to enact and enforce open carry bans.

Concealed carry almost always requires a permit, which is something that is generally applied to privileges, is it not?

That depends on if you think that Rights should be taxed and registered.

So have you decided whether bearing arms is a right or a privilege?  You previously said that rights are irrevocable, but anyone who has committed a federal felony (or has renounced their citizenship, or has a restraining order on them, or has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, among other things) is prohibited from owning a firearm by federal law.

And according to the 2nd amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Common sense dictates that taxing and registration could be considered an infringement on a right.

Is voting a right?  Because every state requires voters to register.

No, I'm not concerned at all. I'm smart enough to realize that there is an ebb and flow to the parties that are elected to run the country. Republicans and Democrats each get their turn to ruin this country every few years because the majority of the voting public is too stupid to figure out what they want. Right now, since your precious democrats have control, you can say that the republicans will cease to exist and be irrelevant in 20 years. However, realistically I know that is the farthest thing from the truth. Both parties have to exist with somewhat equal power in order for this whole ponzi scheme to keep on working. If one of the two parties ever becomes "mathematically irrelevant" as you say, we all better be concerned because the end is near, it's crash and burn time.

I think the Whig party disagrees.

In any case, I expect the GOP to course correct by 2020 at the latest.  You can only lose so many Presidential elections in a row before you figure out that the problem is you (see: Eisenhower, Clinton).

[bsmooth]

...as long as it doesn't cost any money, right?  Because it seems like the pro-gun crowd overlaps almost entirely with the cut-government-spending crowd.

That is a gross misstatement and patently wrong. I know many gun owners, including myself, who would like to see the mental heath system in this country fixed, to prevent those who pose a danger to themselves and others, from legally obtaining a firearm. As it sits now, there is no way for approving authorities to find out that someone is in treatment and a possible danger, so they can deny a purchase of a firearm.
Adding even more gun laws will not prevent a mentally ill person from purchasing a firearm, especially if no one is told they are a danger. We need to close the loophole that prevents the information from getting to those who need to know.

[pondwater]

I read the alleged "list" of "school shootings."

The first one on the list from MAIG is:

1/08/2013 Fort Myers FL Apostolic Revival Center Christian School

Fort Myers’ first homicide of 2013 was being committed on Barden Street in the Dunbar neighborhood, and just yards away from the Apostolic Revival Center and Christian School.

Police responded just before 11 a.m. No students were injured and it does not appear any children were in the parking lot to witness the shooting, Baker said.

Baker said it appeared the victim, whom police had not identified Monday night , was targeted by the shooter. The suspect was at large Monday night. The police have not released a suspect description or details about the crime.

So, the Bloomberg Cabal is considering any shooting near a school as a "school shooting."

This is pure leftist propaganda meant to instill fear in everyone.

Never mind that many of the "near schools" shootings are caused by gang bangers, robbers or disgruntled employees or a spouse. The goal is to make you think they ALL are happening INSIDE SCHOOLS. Other shootings on the list occurred after school hours.

I am not trying to minimize the horror of innocent children being shot by other children, but the leftists in concert with the MSM are brainwashing the public.

“Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence,”...
funded the Everytown organization.

[Spider-Dan]

...so you are objecting to the classification of a shooting in a school's parking lot, during school hours, as a "school shooting"?  Next, will you insist that a shooting on a school playground is really just kind of near a school, and should really be considered more of a park shooting?

Whatever it takes to deflect and distract, I suppose.  Drug dealers!  Gangs!  Maybe we should just outlaw being a disgruntled loner.

[pondwater]

...so you are objecting to the classification of a shooting in a school's parking lot, during school hours, as a "school shooting"?  Next, will you insist that a shooting on a school playground is really just kind of near a school, and should really be considered more of a park shooting?

Whatever it takes to deflect and distract, I suppose.  Drug dealers!  Gangs!  Maybe we should just outlaw being a disgruntled loner.

Likewise, are  you going to tell me that a crackhead that robs and shoots a pedestrian on a sidewalk next to a school is the same as a mentaly ill person getting 12 guns and blasting 10 people inside the confines of  a school. Talk about cherry picking and distracting, haha