Just curious, do the Antis have any solution for preventing criminals from obtaining handguns??

Because if you have a 100% solution to preventing any criminal from being armed (gun, knife, etc) and can guarantee a criminal will never use a gun/knife in a crime, then none of us might need to carry a weapon any longer.

Let me know your solution. I would love to hear it.

Serious answers only. Thanks!

cancer by banishing all disease. That's not pie in the sky, it's souffle in the stratosphere.

The same laws which allow you to get guns easily allow people like Jared Loughner and Ralph Lang to get guns easily. But, a minor inconvenience for lawful gun owners - like mandatory licensing with comprehensive background checks - would be totally devastating to people with unlawful or violent intentions.

you just think you do.

Meaning those that have rational, realistic gun laws - and don't have a huge death rate from guns.

derp.

but they did before they passed the gun laws. Fear of crime had nothing to do with it nor did it have anything to do with making a more civilized society.
How do you define civilized? All of the countries that have higher murder rates also have stricter laws than any of these civilized countries.

You were asked to provide a solution, and yet while lambasting another for not having a solution, YOU have no solution.

Using that logic, we should get rid of all traffic laws because a small minority speed. Laws against theft should be done away with. And laws to control pollution are a waste of time.

Of course, most rational people understand that doing any of these would be childishly dangerous & incredibly stupid. But for some reason, guns are thought of differently. (Mainly because, much like the gungeon, the entire discussion has been poisoned by the lies of the RW propaganda machine.)

What is your solution that protects our rights while reducing crime?

We've proposed solutions which actually work in other countries. Of course the trick is to institute these solutions nationally; a miscreant in Chicago wouldn't be able to cross the street to a "lawful" weapons dealer barely outside the city's jurisdiction, most of who's business is with city residents. A criminal from New York wouldn't be able to go to a gun show to find a "private seller" because he knows no background check will be made. Gun runners in Texas wouldn't be able to export assault rifles to Mexico to fuel the drug wars.

What do we get in return? In return for telling the truth and offering real solutions? Denial. RW talking points. Conservative propaganda.

The basic problem here isn't really with these criminals, it's with the "gun enthusiasts" who deal with them. The "gun enthusiasts" who have no respect for the law - either in Mexico, or New York, or Chicago.

The basic problem here isn't really with these criminals, it's with the "gun enthusiasts" who deal with them. The "gun enthusiasts" who have no respect for the law - either in Mexico, or New York, or Chicago.


No proof of ANY of that. None. Zip. Nada.


In fact, the FACTS say otherwise. But thanks for playing.

How do you think legal weapons get into the hands of criminals? Do you think they make them themselves? Obviously not. They are either A) stolen from a legal gun owner or B) purchased from a legal gun owner. And as studies show, most are actually purchased.

Again the problem is with the "gun enthusiasts" who deal with criminals and have not respect for the laws of this country or any other.

You imply that gun enthusiasts knowingly sell guns to criminals. Knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person violates the Gun Control Act of 1968. Do you have any evidence of this? If so, why have you not informed the ATF? If not, you are either an accessory to federal crimes or blowing smoke. There is no third option.

imported with the drugs, which is how it is done in Europe. There was a time when street gangs made their own. Google "zip gun." That was before drugs became profitable.

The latest in criminal science research shows that no such thing will happen. The opposite will not happen either.
Mexico gets their weapons from the southern border and abroad. That has been well established if you read BBC or Wikileaks. Most of the gunrunning was done by Holder's ATF. Your tax dollars at work.
New York and Illinois requires background checks at gun shows etc.
Name one country that strict gun control laws lowered murder rates? None. All had same murder rates before. They had same after. UK an Jamaica with their complete bans got worse. In fact, all of the countries with higher murder rates than we do all have very strict gun control laws including bans.
a miscreant in Chicago wouldn't be able to cross the street to a "lawful" weapons dealer barely outside the city's jurisdiction, most of who's business is with city residents. A criminal from New York wouldn't be able to go to a gun show to find a "private seller" because he knows no background check will be made.
So you know of dealers who are violating state and possible federal laws? Private sellers violating state law by selling to someone with out the state required licence? Have you turned them in to the authorities? If you don't, that makes you an accessory of the crime. I would turn them in. All of the gun enthusiasts here would turn them in too.

LOL!

So, you'd like to dissolve the BATF too?

It is called a Texas issued CHL. In fact it is so comprehensive that a NICS check is not required.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

atttsright!!

I am a card carrying member of the great state!! makes it a breeze when I go in and pick something up, which in the last year has been increasing, I also have a trust set up for my cans and if I can hit a lick next spring I will add a fa mac 10 or uzi just for shits n giggles!! I want to drop a 22 kit in either one so the ammo bills not so damn high!!

that coupled with a class and some time on a range, your mandatory license would allow the owner to carry concealed if he/she wanted to.

And what is the weapon of choice for criminals in those areas? Still handguns. Criminals don't obey laws. That's kinda the definition of 'criminal.' Far from being 'totally devastating' to criminals, it actually empowers them. They don't obey laws, and those illegal guns just became for more potent.

When you create such laws, the very FIRST people disarmed by it are the law abiding good guys. Bad guys are the last ones affected.

Somewhere a drug lord or mob boss read that and died from the ensuing laughter.

(That doesn't mean that unintended humor is a legitimate tactic to stop people with "unlawful or violent intentions", however.)

They would have just murdered people with registered guns.

"The same laws which allow you to get guns easily allow people like Jared Loughner and Ralph Lang to get guns easily"
You mean the laws that require FBI background checks to buy guns ALREADY. The laws that wouldn't exist without support from the gun owning community.

And how do you propose paying for all those banned weapons?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

otherwise if you are talking about guns, knives, baseball bats, lamps, golf clubs..etc. I see a few potential problems with your plan..

:eyes:

Until Skinner stepped in a while back and required everyone to treat each other with a degree of civility, DU Gun owners who are pro second amendment were regularly referred to as:

Gun lovers, Gun Nuts, Gun Strokers, Gun Freaks and a lot worse.

About two months ago someone had a thread asking those that oppose the use of guns by the law abiding and the accepted interpretation of the 2nd amendment what they called themselves. The only response we got was another string of insulting names that the Mods deleted almost as fast as they were posted.

In fact, after Skinners demand for civility about 75% or more of the posters that disagreed with the 2nd amendment or the current accepted interpretation of it just disappeared or were TS'd, because without the insults, they had nothing to say in a civil way.

They are either anti concealed carry, anti ownership of scary black rifles or handguns of any kind or color, or in some cases, completely anti 2nd amendment.

What would you prefer we call them?

could not present a coherent argument in support of their position and the best they could do was to hurl insults.

This is a very liberal and progressive forum and many very intelligent people post here. The fact that very few posters can present a good argument in favor of draconian gun control shows how weak the arguments are for their side. Even the better arguments tend to lie and distort the basic facts about firearms and usually appeal to an emotional response about tragedies committed by criminals or people who have serious health issues.

The Gungeon could be a sounding board for ideas to address the problem of gun violence in our nation. I believe there are effective approaches such as improving the NICS background check to get both criminal records and the records of those adjudged to have serious mental problems into the system on a timely basis. I would also like to see a system developed to allow the NICS background check system to be used for private sales of firearms. Of course I have often said that one of the most effective approaches to reduced firearm violence is simply to enforce existing laws and treat criminal drug gangs as terrorist organizations (which they are).

I think Skinner hoped to elevate the discussion on this board and to some extent was successful. I believe gun owners who post here would love to see the violent crime rate caused by firearms to decrease further and are willing to work together with those who want more gun control to accomplish this. The sad part is that the majority of those who favor extreme gun control and post here seem unwilling to compromise. They still hurl insults but their insults are more creative today.

And you think such advocates are those who drag the discussion in the gungeon down?

Reality check: gun advocates don't believe that gun violence is a problem in this country. If they address the issue at all, their answer is invariably to have more guns with fewer restrictions. Exactly the opposite of what has worked in other countries.

Sort of like Republicans talking about tax cuts.

"gun advocates don't believe that gun violence is a problem in this country."

Gun owners/advocates DO know that gun violence IS a problem in this country. We are all for the enforcement of the laws that are on the books already. All to often DAs around the country reduce the charges on criminals to ensure a conviction. This has to stop. Use a gun in a crime and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. No plea bargains.

Please, give a few suggestions.

yet I know enough to oppose them.

It would be great if more research, more study, and more thought were put into finding solutions to all these problems, but instead we liberals spend all of our time trying to convince right-wing windbags that they're problems at all.

But I think most right wingers know they are problems, they just don't care. Why? In order: misogyny, greed, been reading too much Ayn Rand.

The challenge is how do you do that without trampling on the rights of the law abiding?

The only "solution" we seem to hear is something very repuke like, as in the voting ID demands. Gee, their only solution, if you think there might be vote fraud, is to demand an approved picture ID for eveyone in the state.

To get what you want infringe on everyone's rights? That ones not even close to a starter.

It's the same situation as with any tough issue.
Do I know exactly how to stop climate change? No.
Do I know that climate change is real, and we better do something about it? Yes.

Do I know exactly how to reduce homelessness? No.
Is the answer to just cut services and blame the homeless for being lazy bums? No.



The OP asks for a "100% solution" which is, of course, impossible. We need to reduce the general availability of handguns, that much is clear. Whether a flat-out ban is the way to go is less clear. It's true that what works in one state or country may not work in another. However, none of this changes the fact that the NRA/teabagger strategy of covering our ears, closing our eyes, and yelling "guns don't kill people, people kill people" at the top of our lungs is the worst thing we could possibly be doing. What really needs to happen is a group of open-minded, liberal policy experts need to study the issue intensely, without any pressure from the NRA or any other teabagger groups and issue policy recommendations.

Why do you think strict gun laws are real solutions instead of theater?
What empirical evidence do you have that it would bring out the improvement?
Can you show a country or state where strict gun control reduced violent crime?
How familiar are you with current federal gun control laws?
How familiar are you with gun control laws of the Western Europe countries?
How familiar are you with gun ownership in Europe and Canada?

Why are you asking this question when it has already been clearly explained and demonstrated? The UK

Before and after correlation? Then show causation after that? I don't think clearly is quite the word I would use.

It took 14 years for the violent crime rate to come down. That's an awfully long gap to then claim causation.

But the most important fact is that numbers have stayed very low since, in spite of social unrest over immigration and the continued glorification of guns and violence in the media and computer gaming industry, not to mention terrorism.
The Brits have never been toters, but did enjoy guns for sporting activities. Unfortunately, that got ruined by a few assholes going on shooting sprees.

Thought the gun control was supposed to stop that, eh?

Any law that takes 14 years to show a result- is not doing what it was intended.

There's always going to be a nutjob out there. The intended result is probably as close as it's ever going to get, especially with numbers so low that they are statistically irrelevant. Nobody claimed perfection, but next to 15,000 gun homicides in the US, I'd say it's working pretty damned well. I guess it all depends on what price we're prepared to pay for "freedom" to shoot each other.

would have been committed anyway with something other than a gun? If your preferences were enacted into law, how many more homicides would occur because people couldn't defend themselves?

and we'll never find out unless we try it. But I'm way beyond suggesting my preferences be enacted into law. It's obviously way to big a problem for any politicians to deal with. Meanwhile, we'll all keep on doing what we do and see how it shakes out.

There is the possibility of legislative overreach. Only time will tell.

You can't both claim that it was 'in response to' an incident by one guy and in the next breath say that another one guy incident is not a failure.

Cake. Eat it or keep it- not both.

Please show me how anyone else being armed could have prevented these loonies. Maybe they're going to have to totally eradicate all guns to achieve the goal. What would you do, have the UK adopt 2A?

What good does it do, again?

What's the justification? "They're trying"?

I seem to remember something about repeating the same action expecting different results..

When you try, there is some hope, not expectation. When you don't try you get the mess we have here.

What other Constitutional Rights do you oppose?

Do you oppose the registration of cars & licensing of drivers?

And this is where the attempt to draw and analogy between firearms ownership and vehicle ownership...

Yes, we register cars and license drivers IF they drive on public thoroughfares! If one does not, then there is no legal requirement to either register the vehicle nor license the driver.

But you're not advocating a registration and licensing for firearms owners under a similar manner are you?

Like Oneshooter, I also have a a license which includes a rigorous background check - and as part of that, I am now permitted to legally carry a firearm in my home state of Texas, as well as in the 32 additional states which honor that permit....if I wished, I could obtain a Utah non-resident permit which would increase that number to 35 additional states (Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia).

In that nobody's seriously attempting to impose a de facto ban on motor vehicle ownership and operation by imposing a licensing requirement and then making the licenses practically impossible to get (except for those with wealth, fame, and/or political connections). That has happened, and continues to happen, with firearms.

Personally, I'm not opposed to the idea of licensing gun owners in the abstract, but when I see shenanigans like in DC and Chicago, where the local government requires to jump through a hoop while simultaneously doing their damnedest to prohibit that same hoop from even existing, I'm not inclined to accept licensing requirements as being merely a "minor inconvenience."

Would you propose to solve them by outlawing penises, carbon, and money? That makes as much sense as solving the problem of violent crime by outlawing guns.

We need to reduce the general availability of handguns, that much is clear. Whether a flat-out ban is the way to go is less clear.



How is it clear that we need to?
Are you views based on a sincere belief that crime will drop or is it due to unrelated philosophical or political reasons?
Why do you think strict gun laws are real solutions instead of theater?
What empirical evidence do you have that it would bring out the improvement?
Are you aware that peer reviewed research by liberal criminologists reject the more guns=more crime thesis?
Can you show a country or state where strict gun control reduced violent crime?
How familiar are you with current federal gun control laws?
How familiar are you with gun control laws of the Western Europe countries?
How familiar are you with gun ownership in Europe and Canada?

Hopefully you will be the first anti that can have an open discussion with out resorting to non sequitur, ad hominem attacks, and fact free talking points.

Do you really think that a laundry list of questions makes for effective communication?
Don't you think it would be better to organize your thoughts in sentences and paragraphs?
Do you remember your last long meandering list of questions?
How about the one before that?
Have you ever heard insanity defined to mean doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
Have you become more rational since our last argument?
Do you really think we should repeat the whole thing again?
How about if we just "agree to disagree"?
What can you tell me about the homicide rate in Liechtenstein?

Perhaps, I found that discussions with antis tend to be mostly talking points, general statements, and insults. So I thought I would try specific questions to see what would happen. As it turns out, still crickets and insults.
generally I do
Yes and they were ignored while too much time was spent on an intellectual exercise that an a tangent
see above
I am no less rational, are you?
actually, I was hoping to stick to the subject at hand. I see that is going nowhere.
It looks like the case does it not.
Don't give a rat's ass about their homicide rate. Pretty country though. I'm more partial to Norway, where I can legally buy a silencer for 30 bucks and save my hearing.

I do not need to know details of every gun control law in the world to have an opinion, and am not an advocate of 'strict gun control'. I am an advocate for regulation, and part of regulation is following the law. I certainly do not advocate a flat out ban.

In my experience people who advocate flat out bans are fairly rare. They can be well informed of the laws, very ignorant of the laws, or somewhere in between. In any case the flat out ban position would be unworkable and ineffective. I object to your characterizing anyone who advocates for reform and regulation as an anti or as a supporter of the 'all out ban'.

By regulation and reform I mean keeping guns out of the hands of nut bags and criminals.

One simple example.

***

I am not so sure what 'reduce the general availability of handguns' means. Where I live, the AG has a 'compliant' guns list. These are guns that are approved for sale in the state. I can cross over state lines and go to shops where these non-compliant guns are sold but I can't buy one and the dealers can't sell them to me. The dealers say 'go to gun shows'. I take that to mean that I could get one of these guns through a 'private sale' at a gun show.

Also, I know for a fact that non-compliant magazines and guns are sold at gun shows in my state, and I have no reason to believe that state laws are not being ignored in a similar manner across the country.

Anyway, this 'reduces the general availability' of certain guns, but it is not effective in keeping these guns out of the hands of criminals or nut bags. Why? Because otherwise law abiding citizens choose to ignore certain laws.

***

So don't demonize people who obey the laws, don't own guns or handle guns, or don't like guns. They are not the ones making guns available to criminals and nut bags.

The people who choose exercise their responsibility and rights for gun ownership are responsible for keeping guns out the hands of criminals and nut bags.

the term is not meant as a pejorative. Although their terms for us are much worse. I found that rants from what one would call for strict gun control always point to Europe and Canada. Although when asked they don't have the slightest idea what the laws or gun ownership rates are there. That tells me that they are parroting a talking point and never really put much thought in the subject, which means that their view is not really based on anything logical. Most don't know current US federal gun control laws either. You learned one from experience.
Gun Control Act of 1968 makes it a felony for a FFL dealer to sell a handgun to anyone who is not a resident of that state. How that applies to private sales, I am not sure since there is no way for the ATF to police that. Private parties can be prosecuted for selling or giving to someone who they know to be a prohibited person. The problem is that private persons are prohibited from doing NICS background checks. That is the first reform I would make.
The second is the one place Brady and the NRA have common ground, although everyone else on both sides oppose if for various reasons. That is Project Exile. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 made it a federal crime for any felon to possess a firearm for any reason. GCA68 made it a mandatory min five year sentence. Problem is that for the past 73 years local DAs have not been sending to federal court. That should be mandatory. If you rob a gas station with a sawed off shotgun, answer to the locals for the robbery, then the feds get you for the shotgun.
As for gangs, other than reforming the ATF, is to end the drug war. I am old enough to remember when gangs were limited to switchblades and tire chains. If they had a gun, it was a homemade zip gun or a shoddy made revolver that was more dangerous to the shooter. What changed? Not gun laws. Gun prices did not drop. Nixon's war on drugs and the crack epidemic made the drug trade more profitable. Best way to curb urban violence is to take away their money.
Everyone is for regulation, the NRA helped draft some of them, the difference is to what degree.

Thats the spirit!

stop letting them buy guns without background checks at gun shows.

have a designated FFL holder? If I understand GCA68 correctly, the gun would have to be transfered to FFL holder before doing the transaction. I guess the law would amend GCA68 to streamline the process or not require 4473s at gun show private party to private party sales? How would you deal with other private sales?

In Colorado all guns sold at a gunshow are subject to background check, regardless of who sells them.

Either the private sales make a deal W/ an on site FFL to do the check for them or you go to a booth that does nothing but background checks. It really isn't an inconvenience.

That said, it also has zero impact on crime.

The biggest reason I object to NICS checks on private sales at gun shows is because if the antis get it passed and it has no effect what so ever on crime they'll push for NICS on all private sales then registration

http://www.rkba.org/research/bjs/fuo/fuo.pdf

That's a report put out by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showing the source of crime guns.

Gun shows? 0.7%

and ignoring the rest. That's because they aren't interested in reducing crime or helping society. They simply hate gun owners and wish to strike a blow against law abiding gun owners. The feel fuzzy inside when a law abiding gun owner has to go through more trouble to buy the gun he/she wants or if he/she can't buy the desired gun. They never speak out against swimming pool accidents, vehicle collision deaths or other more significant problems.

Guns caues about 1.3% of deaths per year. That's small given that 3% of our population is either in prison, on perole or on probation at any given time.
"assault rifles" are used in about 1% of violent crime.
1% of crime guns come from gun shows.

we should call them the 1 percenters.

Are you willing to allow that?

1. Smash the thug creed. The thug creed comes from the children of anti-gun parents who fail to expose their children to guns in a positive way but rather tell their children how evil guns are. When the grown up child is exposed to a firearm, if the person who exposes that person to the firearm is a member of the gun culture, he/she will probably be fine; however, if he/she is introduced to guns by a thug or just goes out and gets one on his/her own it is more likely he/she will use the gun in a criminal manner simply because that's all he/she has been taught about guns. The solution is to expose people to the proper use of firearms and firearm safety in school at some point and if more law abiding gun owners exposed and introduced guns to people who have never shot a gun and taught them the code of conduct and the laws of gun safety, the thug creed would have one less potential member. Strangle the thug creed by removing potential members.

All gun owners should offer open arms to all non-gun owners and offer to take them to the range. Talk to them about the proper use of guns (hunting, target shooting, personal defense and to never use a gun to attack someone, etc) and gun safety.

2. Declare all firearms legal and eliminate all permit systems wherein a citizen of the US has to have a permit just to own/buy a gun. In Vermont there are no illegal guns, there are only banned people in possession of guns, which would be legal in the hands of a law abiding citizen. In NY or Il, because of gun ownership permits, guns are made artificially illegal by being in the hands of a criminal and therefore there is no pathway for that gun back into the gun safe of a law abiding person. Allow law abiding citizens to buy guns off the black market and encourage it. Artificially creating "illegal" guns forces them to remain stuck in the black market permanently. This will put pressure on criminals to steal guns from gun owners, so gun owners can be the front lines of fighting crime by securing their guns and shooting anyone trying to steal them.

3. Combat the underlying cause of crime. Improve mental health services.

4. Eliminate all barriers around, oppression and suppression of the second amendment. Remove all taxes from firearms and ammo, remove registration systems and gun ownership permit systems and any fees associated with the purchase of a gun. Remove all bans of firearm types and models. The government has nothing to fear from the people as long as the government is respectful of freedom, they should not feel the need to ban high power weapons.


Face it antis, you lost. There are probably already more guns than people in the USA. Restricting law abiding gun owners has only caused a backlash and rebellion and the largest proliferation of firearms the world has ever seen within a civilian population. If you keep on fighting your war against legal gun ownership, you will only succeed in continuing this massive proliferation of firearms amongst law abiding citizens.

I would keep this tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Act#Pittman-Robertson_Wildlife_Restoration_Act_of_1937

and IIRC it was amended to include camping and back packing stuff too.

This does deserve it's own thread!

though 100 percent not likely. I am not really in the mood to expand my ideas in complete sentences at the moment. But here is the basic framework.

Open NICS to private sellers
Make project exile national policy
end drug war
blanket pardon for all simple possession and addicts to make room for real criminals
change prison system to rehab who we can and only "warehouse" true sociopaths and predators
equalize school funding to allow kids to go to a neighborhood school that a kid in Watts can go to a school that is just as well equipped as one in Brentwood
close wealth gap
bring manufactures back,and change zoning laws to put good jobs near people's homes for short commutes
single payer health care including mental health
combat anti intellectualism
raise the min wage to a living wage and indexed for inflation
be less materialistic

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." - It's really about national defense.

national and individual defense. That said, since the founders wanted a Swiss style army, let's dismantle the empire and do just that. Have standing Navy and Air Force large enough to defend the US and respond to national disasters with the Coast Guard. Use the savings for more worthwhile projects.

PS: the propaganda comment goes both ways.

"The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:



{citing "Boston, March 17". N. Y. J., Supplement: 1, Col.3. April 13, 1769. qtd. in Halbrook, A Right to Bear Arms, p. 7.}

And Wikipedia adds, " . . . early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:<24><25><26><27><28><29><30><31>

deterring undemocratic government;"

1. Increase mental health testing by instituting universal single payer health care with respectful care for the mentally disabled.

2. World wide ban on Methamphetamine precursor chemicals. Meth would disappear overnight.

3. Create a program to buy and destroy drug crops from narco states and/or buy non-narcotics at narcotic prices.

4. Progressive taxation

5. Make owners and officers of corporations personally responsible for the liabilities of their corporation.

that will somehow magically prevent any behavior.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All guns should be registered

All guns and ammo should have traceable tamper-resistant IDs

ALL gun sales - including private person-to-person - should have background checks and paperwork submitted to the ATF

The ATF/FBI should keep permanent records of all gun sales and be able to rapidly retrieve them to investigate gun crimes.

that's a start

yup

Obviously you haven't. If you were a smoker, would you ask non smokers how to prevent you from getting cancer while blowing smoke in their faces. Who do you mean by "antis"? Covers a lot of differing opinions. I am anti abortion, but fully support a woman's right to choose. I am anti toting, but fully support your right to choose. Doesn't mean I support your choices, just your right to make them.

Don't put the onus on those who disagree with you to justify your own behavior. That's on you.

A gun ban would affect me, but I have nothing to do with any criminal behavior. Neither do the rest of us.

I'm not suggesting that you commit crimes. I support your right as long as it is a legal right. There's a huge difference between supporting your right and condoning your choice to carry. Making that choice is what I mean by behavior. I used to go swimming with sharks and loved it. Many people consider that crazy behavior. It's great that we have the freedom to choose what we do, but when we choose to do things that most folks consider insane, we shouldn't be asking those folks how they can guarantee the sharks have no teeth.

That would remove the right to choose.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Gun control advocates say that their draconian laws would reduce "gun crime". Of course it would. There would be less guns. However what they don't address is violent crime. There has been a plethora of evidence that suggests not only does violent crime not get addressed in countries who imposed effective gun bans but that it increased. Then they fly the victory flag because there is less "gun crime".

The most logical approach to this is of course to reduce criminals. While a certain percentage of people will always be criminals no matter their circumstances. Quite a bit of the criminal element can be prevented from becoming criminals and reformed through effective social policy.

To put it simply "Gun control" is putting a band aid on a bullet wound. You want to be safe make others feel secure in the livelihood and work to reduce desperation.