New York State - First Out of the Gate on Gun Control Laws

[Rolyo85]

It's the actions of the user that need to curtailed. Bandaids will not work on a gunshot wound.

New gun laws only help people feel good that they did something -- it will not stop the violence. After the new laws don't work -- they will want more laws. In the end the only people with guns will be the crooks and murderers.

And where will THEY get their guns from?

[Jack Springer]

^^

Haven't you ever heard of personal responsibility and restraint?

[CowboyBob]

^^

Haven't you ever heard of personal responsibility and restraint?

Irresponsible and unrestrained people haven't so someone has to do it for them.

[xbuzzerx]

It's the actions of the user that need to curtailed. Bandaids will not work on a gunshot wound.

New gun laws only help people feel good that they did something -- it will not stop the violence. After the new laws don't work -- they will want more laws. In the end the only people with guns will be the crooks and murderers.

You left out "and far fewer deaths from guns."

[Jack Springer]

You left out "and far fewer deaths from guns."

Again .... the previous "assault" weapon ban only increased mass murders. The reasons for the shootings has to be addressed.

Having a lawnmower doesn't make me want to mow my lawn more often -- guns by themselves do not make make people go out and kill other people.

[xbuzzerx]

Again .... the previous "assault" weapon ban only increased mass murders. The reasons for the shootings has to be addressed.

Having a lawnmower doesn't make me want to mow my lawn more often -- guns by themselves do not make make people go out and kill other people.

So by your logic all European countries have higher mass murder rates than we do right? Because gun bans increase guns in the hands of criminals and increase gun deaths.

[Kulindahr]

Luckily, this isn't.

Other than the possible exception I noted, this is pure feel-good legislation. It won't affect the murder rate, it won't touch mass shootings -- though it may make such shooters do a little more preparation.

Only if you can prove that the higher rate of firearms violence started AFTER the limitation of access, or even that it didn't go down (while still remaining higher than area A). Otherwise you're just comparing two areas with different firearms violence levels and proving nothing.

Huh?

If area A has free access to firearms and area B doesn't, and B has the higher firearms violence rate, then the problem clearly lies in area B -- if it had anything to do with the availability of firearms, then the rate in A would be higher.

[Kulindahr]

Whether you focus on the daily murders or the less frequent spree killing firearms are still equally part of the equation.

So are shoes. Basically without exception, murderers of any kind wear shoes.

[Kulindahr]

Swing and miss. Laws need to be stronger. The old ban had too many holes.

What you really mean is "ban all rifles".

And that won't have any effect, either, because very little gun violence involves rifles.

[Kulindahr]

Making it sound like a fact (a la 'period'), does not make it a fact. One could just as easily summise that the gun availability in area A is providing criminals in area B a means to circumvent the law in area B, and that with less firearm deterrent, makes B an easier target, not just for criminals of area B, but for criminals of area A. There would potentially be a false representation of crime rising in area B whilst falling marginally in area A (as criminals like easier targets). Thus, the problem is area A, for allowing criminals access to firearms.

So the real factor is that the citizens in B aren't as armed as those in A, so the criminals go there.

So, you think crime prevention is pointless???

Penalties are the only means to crime prevention there are -- and ever will be, until humans develop telepathic skills that make it possible to 'hear' someone thinking about doing a crime in the immediate future.

[Kulindahr]

And where will THEY get their guns from?

LOL They'll make them. If 12-y.o. boys in Afghanistan can duplicate any model of gun in the world, criminals here can do it, too.

And in the near future, using 3D printers, all criminals will have to do is 'print' their guns.

- - - Updated - - -

You left out "and far fewer deaths from guns."

And far more violent crime without guns -- at least that's what the stats from the UK show.

[Kulindahr]

Again .... the previous "assault" weapon ban only increased mass murders. The reasons for the shootings has to be addressed.

There was no statistically significant change.

Having a lawnmower doesn't make me want to mow my lawn more often -- guns by themselves do not make make people go out and kill other people.

Heh.

- - - Updated - - -

So by your logic all European countries have higher mass murder rates than we do right? Because gun bans increase guns in the hands of criminals and increase gun deaths.

Would you stop approaching this as a single-variable situation? It plainly isn't.

[Jack Springer]

So by your logic all European countries have higher mass murder rates than we do right? Because gun bans increase guns in the hands of criminals and increase gun deaths.

The US has a unique history regarding guns. America was tamed with the gun. It's part of who we are whether you accept it or not.

Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the laws.

My point is that people operate guns ... they inherently are not bad things by themselves -- it's the person who uses it who decides if it's used for good or bad.

[frankfrank]

Every time I hear stories about somebody shooting up a place with an AR-15, my mind always pictures somebody walking into a place with a big-ass vintage AM/FM receiver, trying to bonk people over the head with it.



--Heathkit AR 15 stereo receiver, 1973--

Sorry, I can't help it.

[Stardreamer]

Every time I hear stories about somebody shooting up a place with an AR-15, my mind always pictures somebody walking into a place with a big-ass vintage AM/FM receiver, trying to bonk people over the head with it.



--Heathkit AR 15 stereo receiver, 1973--

Sorry, I can't help it.

Is that a 'large capacity' 8-track magazine receiver on the front?

[xbuzzerx]

So are shoes. Basically without exception, murderers of any kind wear shoes.

Except you can carry out a mass public shooting spree with double digit casualties in seconds without shoes. You can't do it without high capacity firepower. (Unless you have access to something worse, I suppose, like nerve gas.)

LOL They'll make them. If 12-y.o. boys in Afghanistan can duplicate any model of gun in the world, criminals here can do it, too.

And in the near future, using 3D printers, all criminals will have to do is 'print' their guns.

Seriously?

Would you stop approaching this as a single-variable situation? It plainly isn't.

When the primary counterargument isn't "American Exceptionalism; everything works different here and nothing pertinent anywhere else in the world is relevant", sure. Till then no because your conclusions haven't controlled for differences in national gun availability.

The US has a unique history regarding guns. America was tamed with the gun. It's part of who we are whether you accept it or not.

Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the laws.

My point is that people operate guns ... they inherently are not bad things by themselves -- it's the person who uses it who decides if it's used for good or bad.

^ Like this, as an example. American Exceptionalism.

[GiancarloC]

What you really mean is "ban all rifles".

And that won't have any effect, either, because very little gun violence involves rifles.

It's not just about banning all rifles, but also restricting handgun ownership as well as increasing background checks. In addition anyone who does own guns needs to have more rigorous psychological testing.

[tigerfan482]

LOL They'll make them. If 12-y.o. boys in Afghanistan can duplicate any model of gun in the world, criminals here can do it, too.

And in the near future, using 3D printers, all criminals will have to do is 'print' their guns.

First off, where do you get this information about 12 year old boys in Afghanistan making any gun? Second, have you ever used a #D printer or a gun? The materials that 3D printers use wouldn't come close to be able to stand up to the stresses that firing a round of ammunition would put on them more than once. I would actually prefer having 3D printers make guns because then you'd only get one (most likely inaccurate) shot off before having to go make yourself another gun.

[Rolyo85]

I just want to put it out there that criminals will not make guns. Same way as they don't make guns anywhere else in the first world. Maybe in Muslim countries where they grow up in terrorist cells, it's different. Criminals in the US will not start making guns if they can't buy them. That is a fact.

[rareboy]

^^

Haven't you ever heard of personal responsibility and restraint?

This is simply nonsense.

And one parallel that can be drawn is drinking and driving.

Or driving period.

People do not exercise personal responsibility and restraint. And they injure others. On a daily basis.

It is why there are about a million laws on the books regarding vehicles and driving and, of course, drinking and driving.

It is why cars are licensed. Why speeds are regulated. Why the vehicles themselves are regulated. Why licenses are granted after testing and why they can be revoked. We want only people who have demonstrated the fact that they are responsible to be behind the wheel of a vehicle on our roads. And even with this...the carnage from intoxicated driving is still going to happen...but is reduced considerably.

I never hear people screaming about how having to be licensed to drive a vehicle is a violation of their personal rights and freedoms, or about how there should be no oversight at all on drinking and driving. It is because everyone has come to agreement that there is a community responsibility here as well.

So your statement is not simply misguided...it demonstrates an utter lack of understanding about how a community actually works.

[Stardreamer]

I just want to put it out there that criminals will not make guns. Same way as they don't make guns anywhere else in the first world. Maybe in Muslim countries where they grow up in terrorist cells, it's different. Criminals in the US will not start making guns if they can't buy them. That is a fact.

Generally the black market that springs up whenever you ban something will make the guns and sell them to the criminals.

[andysayshi]

^ This is proven time and time again in nations like Britain and Australia, who have strict gun controls and a huge black market industry that manufacture all sorts of guns.

Oh, except THEY DON'T.

[Jack Springer]

I just want to put it out there that criminals will not make guns. Same way as they don't make guns anywhere else in the first world. Maybe in Muslim countries where they grow up in terrorist cells, it's different. Criminals in the US will not start making guns if they can't buy them. That is a fact.

Criminals don't manufacture drugs either?

How can you state your opinion of the future is a fact? The fact is you or anyone else has no idea.

[Rolyo85]

Criminals don't manufacture drugs either?

How can you state your opinion of the future is a fact? The fact is you or anyone else has no idea.

Well, lucky for me my argument wasn't that criminals don't manufacture anything, just guns specifically. Read the post directly above you. Reality shows I'm right.

[mitchymo]

So the real factor is that the citizens in B aren't as armed as those in A, so the criminals go there.

And your point is what? You can circumvent this by Area A getting rid of ITS guns also. I assume you were trying to argue that area B should therefore keep their guns? Its the only possibility to a pro-gunner though aint it. Never mind that restriction works, oh no...

Penalties are the only means to crime prevention there are -- and ever will be, until humans develop telepathic skills that make it possible to 'hear' someone thinking about doing a crime in the immediate future.

Creating a fair society, and an accommodating one, looking after everybody, particularly those in poverty, will prevent crime. Penalties don't matter unless you get caught. Its far better to provide people in desperate circumstances from having a way out of whatever mess they are in, without having to resort to crime, than simply imposing a tough sentence AFTER the crime has occurred. Not to mention, it creates bitterness to recieve a punishment that outweighs any crime.
How are the US' tough sentences working out so far, they're already generally tougher than elsewhere.? All you end up doing is increasing the prison population. You'd be much better off relaxing the punishments for lesser crimes, and use the money you save on prisoner care on community resources for poor neighbourhoods.

[xbuzzerx]

^ This is proven time and time again in nations like Britain and Australia, who have strict gun controls and a huge black market industry that manufacture all sorts of guns.

Oh, except THEY DON'T.

Also I simply don't buy whatsoever that a mentally unstable teenager considering a school shooting is going to make an AK-47 at home in his spare time beforehand.

[Stardreamer]

^ This is proven time and time again in nations like Britain and Australia, who have strict gun controls and a huge black market industry that manufacture all sorts of guns.

Oh, except THEY DON'T.

They don't currently need to manufacture guns, they import them from other places.

'There has been an increase in the number of firearms available on the black market. Without having a 'fortress Britain' policy, we cannot keep them all out.' He said the situation was 'hellishly worrying' and was concerned that his officers had to face firearms almost every day.

Crack dealers smuggling guns

Oddly based on some theories being spread around these threads that should mean that gun violence in the UK should be higher than the US. Currently it is easier to import the weapons than to manufacture them locally but if the supply dried up (not likely, the AK-47 is the most copied rifle in the world and manufactured in 20 different countries most of which have little 'export' controls) then they would simply turn to local manufacturing. The business is too profitable to think you could just regulate it away.

[Stardreamer]

Also I simply don't buy whatsoever that a mentally unstable teenager considering a school shooting is going to make an AK-47 at home in his spare time beforehand.

Most of the recent spree shootings were planned in advance including the shooter(s) collecting the materials they needed.

[Rolyo85]

They don't currently need to manufacture guns, they import them from other places.



Crack dealers smuggling guns

Oddly based on some theories being spread around these threads that should mean that gun violence in the UK should be higher than the US. Currently it is easier to import the weapons than to manufacture them locally but if the supply dried up (not likely, the AK-47 is the most copied rifle in the world and manufactured in 20 different countries most of which have little 'export' controls) then they would simply turn to local manufacturing. The business is too profitable to think you could just regulate it away.

Yeah, but street level thugs aren't crime organizations and their access to guns is mostly through unregulated purchases and stealing them.

[Rolyo85]

Most of the recent spree shootings were planned in advance including the shooter(s) collecting the materials they needed.

"Materials" is misleading, as it implies they built something with those. They got ready to use weapons. Directly, and with ease.

[Stardreamer]

Yeah, but street level thugs aren't crime organizations and their access to guns is mostly through unregulated purchases and stealing them.

That is what we call a black market.

- - - Updated - - -

"Materials" is misleading, as it implies they built something with those. They got ready to use weapons. Directly, and with ease.

Which in case of lacking any other source would be a black market.

[xbuzzerx]

That is what we call a black market.

The position that's been repeatedly adopted by the pro-gun people in CE&P, though, is that "well illegal gun trade will just continue and nothing will change-- violent crime may even INCREASE!"

So, to me, the question remains-- why isn't that what we see in gun ban countries. Why do they have a fraction of our gun deaths per population size?

[Rolyo85]

If your post gets a response that starts with "Because" and ends with a specifically stated reason, I promise to die of shock.

[Stardreamer]

The position that's been repeatedly adopted by the pro-gun people in CE&P, though, is that "well illegal gun trade will just continue and nothing will change-- violent crime may even INCREASE!"

So, to me, the question remains-- why isn't that what we see in gun ban countries. Why do they have a fraction of our gun deaths per population size?

Actually it the anti-gun debaters who seem to think banning guns regionally increases the violent gun use.

BECAUSE There are numerous factors at play more than just the gun bans, I rather doubt any of these countries had levels of gun violence on the level of the US to start with. Nor are guns as removed from most of these societies as you think, while Australia and others claimed success with their gun buy back and other collection programs the fact is they only collected a fraction of the estimated number of guns in the country. In the end, I think the factor that most influenced the lowered crime rates we see in some of these countries was the increased risk to the criminal class of being caught with a gun so they tended to carry them less. Which is why I think focusing on enforcing guns laws and really punitive penalties for using a gun in a crime would be the most effective tool to reduce gun crime.

[Stardreamer]

If your post gets a response that starts with "Because" and ends with a specifically stated reason, I promise to die of shock.

I'lll see if its too late to edit.

[Rolyo85]

So you wish me harm? ;_;

Edits don't count! -_- Because of reasons!

[xbuzzerx]

Actually it the anti-gun debaters who seem to think banning guns regionally increases the violent gun use.

BECAUSE There are numerous factors at play more than just the gun bans, I rather doubt any of these countries had levels of gun violence on the level of the US to start with. Nor are guns as removed from most of these societies as you think, while Australia and others claimed success with their gun buy back and other collection programs the fact is they only collected a fraction of the estimated number of guns in the country. In the end, I think the factor that most influenced the lowered crime rates we see in some of these countries was the increased risk to the criminal class of being caught with a gun so they tended to carry them less. Which is why I think focusing on enforcing guns laws and really punitive penalties for using a gun in a crime would be the most effective tool to reduce gun crime.

Look so that no one is mistaken-- yes, a LOT more factors go into crime than just weapon used or whatever else. That's true. However I think talking about how we have a different economic system or a different level of socioeconomic inequality, lower quality of life or educational standards, or wahtever other factor compared to many other first world, westernized countries is useful in a discussion about crime in general-- I've not seen anything, whatsoever, to substantiate the notion that it's 'more' responsible for a crime culture fixated with guns and determined to get them at all costs, even to the point of making them in a backyard regardless of gun bans, which would apply here and not to anyone else.

Ultimately saying "well we have a different history and we have a different experience with gun crime" ultimately comes down... again.. to American Exceptionalism. "We're different, what works for others ain't good enough for us." I see no rational reason to believe this. If a mentally ill person can't get a semiautomatic weapon with high capacity clips, he can't kill 30 people in a matter of seconds unless he gets something much worse than a gun. I don't see how this is disputable. So talking about "well first we must control for every nuanced minutiae of difference between our CULTURES before we resort to something so drastic and ridiculous as gun regulation" to me is highly illogical and not supportable as the main culprit of our violence problem by any actual hard fact that I've seen.

[Stardreamer]

I would never want you harmed Lad

But to make you happy. Because gun crime was lower in those countries to start with and the increased punishment risk of using guns in crime encouraged criminals to forgo their use. With most of the population not carrying guns legally, lower levels of intimidation was adequate for most criminal intent.

[Stardreamer]

Look so that no one is mistaken-- yes, a LOT more factors go into crime than just weapon used or whatever else. That's true. However I think talking about how we have a different economic system or a different level of socioeconomic inequality, lower quality of life or educational standards, or wahtever other factor compared to many other first world, westernized countries is useful in a discussion about crime in general-- I've not seen anything, whatsoever, to substantiate the notion that it's 'more' responsible for a crime culture fixated with guns and determined to get them at all costs, even to the point of making them in a backyard regardless of gun bans, which would apply here and not to anyone else.

Ultimately saying "well we have a different history and we have a different experience with gun crime" ultimately comes down... again.. to American Exceptionalism. "We're different, what works for others ain't good enough for us." I see no rational reason to believe this. If a mentally ill person can't get a semiautomatic weapon with high capacity clips, he can't kill 30 people in a matter of seconds unless he gets something much worse than a gun. I don't see how this is disputable. So talking about "well first we must control for every nuanced minutiae of difference between our CULTURES before we resort to something so drastic and ridiculous as gun regulation" to me is highly illogical and not supportable as the main culprit of our violence problem by any actual hard fact that I've seen.

How do you interpret that we have a more bloody violent crime ridden society as 'exceptionalism'?

If you pay close attention I have no problem with limiting high capacity magazines, I in fact endorse it and while I think it will have little impact on overall gun crime even have no problem with the so called 'assault weapon' ban though I would rather see some sort of regulation that would still allow legal use of them such as what we do with actual machine guns. Really the only real impact on the crime that the assault weapon ban would have is practically achieved by just banning high capacity easily exchanged magazines.

[xbuzzerx]

How do you interpret that we have a more bloody violent crime ridden society as 'exceptionalism'?

If you pay close attention I have no problem with limiting high capacity magazines, I in fact endorse it and while I think it will have little impact on overall gun crime even have no problem with the so called 'assault weapon' ban though I would rather see some sort of regulation that would still allow legal use of them such as what we do with actual machine guns. Really the only real impact on the crime that the assault weapon ban would have is practically achieved by just banning high capacity easily exchanged magazines.

I do of course agree that there are cultural differences. Even BETWEEN countries which equally ban guns, there are differences in their violence level.

But their gun death level is all a fraction of ours.

So that's why I don't get the leap made in the majority of the discussions here to "regulation and restriction of access is absolutely to be avoided at all costs, it won't do anything." At the very least we should make it so that severely disturbed people can't walk into a store and pick up firearms -- I find all these discussions about black market to be off topic, most of these shooters were middle class white kids with legally acquired firearms. We aren't talking about guns that came from an organized crime black market and that's a red herring when we try to discuss access and regulation.

[Stardreamer]

I do of course agree that there are cultural differences. Even BETWEEN countries which equally ban guns, there are differences in their violence level.

But their gun death level is all a fraction of ours.

Which is why I don't understand your rather odd definition of American Exceptionalism.

So that's why I don't get the leap made in the majority of the discussions here to "regulation and restriction of access is absolutely to be avoided at all costs, it won't do anything." At the very least we should make it so that severely disturbed people can't walk into a store and pick up firearms

Since I have never advocated that regulation and restriction of access should absolutely be avoided at all costs or that efforts should not be taken to deny disturbed people access to firearms, I fear I cannot answer you here.

-- I find all these discussions about black market to be off topic, most of these shooters were middle class white kids with legally acquired firearms. We aren't talking about guns that came from an organized crime black market and that's a red herring when we try to discuss access and regulation.

A black market will exist wherever there is prohibition of a product. Some of these spree killers had legally acquired firearms, some did not and the the latter planned and prepared for the killing spree including obtaining the guns they needed despite the legal issues. We should of course do what we can to make it harder for them but you will never stop them all and there are limits to what you can do to remove guns from society under our constitution.

[xbuzzerx]

Which is why I don't understand your rather odd definition of American Exceptionalism.

Because inevitably in these discussions people say regulations won't change a thing whatsoever. Or they even say it'll make it worse.

Since I have never advocated that regulation and restriction of access should absolutely be avoided at all costs or that efforts should not be taken to deny disturbed people access to firearms, I fear I cannot answer you here.

A black market will exist wherever there is prohibition of a product. Some of these spree killers had legally acquired firearms, some did not and the the latter planned and prepared for the killing spree including obtaining the guns they needed despite the legal issues. We should of course do what we can to make it harder for them but you will never stop them all and there are limits to what you can do to remove guns from society under our constitution.

If there's confusion here it's because you responded to me, where I was talking about the typical pro-gun arguments, and you proceeded to answer for that side and then say you don't agree with any of the points I was alluding to.

So I'm not sure what we're discussing.

[Stardreamer]

Because inevitably in these discussions people say regulations won't change a thing whatsoever. Or they even say it'll make it worse.



If there's confusion here it's because you responded to me, where I was talking about the typical pro-gun arguments, and you proceeded to answer for that side and then say you don't agree with any of the points I was alluding to.

So I'm not sure what we're discussing.

I fear we all get too much into pigeonholing folks into categories we create instead of really trying to understand their positions. I am supporter of the 2nd Amendment because I am a civil libertarian, that does not mean that the right of self defense it represents does not have restrictions or limits just like every other right does. It that context I am pro-legal gun ownership and pro-reasonable gun control.

[xbuzzerx]

I fear we all get too much into pigeonholing folks into categories we create instead of really trying to understand their positions. I am supporter of the 2nd Amendment because I am a civil libertarian, that does not mean that the right of self defense it represents does not have restrictions or limits just like every other right does. It that context I am pro-legal gun ownership and pro-reasonable gun control.

Well I was legitimate with the points I brought up. But if you don't disagree with them then there's just not much to be gained from you and I discussing it at each other.

I continue to think that the leap from America's never tried serious, real restrictions similar to what you might see elsewhere in the world on a real, nationally standard level and "they can't possibly work and it's a waste of time to try, we should focus on totally different things" is exactly that, a leap. I think that leap is an elephant in the room when we try to have these discussions because I'm still, legitimately, puzzled as to how people leap to this conclusion for any reason other than "because I don't want restrictions."

[Stardreamer]

Well I was legitimate with the points I brought up. But if you don't disagree with them then there's just not much to be gained from you and I discussing it at each other.

I continue to think that the leap from America's never tried serious, real restrictions similar to what you might see elsewhere in the world on a real, nationally standard level and "they can't possibly work and it's a waste of time to try, we should focus on totally different things" is exactly that, a leap. I think that leap is an elephant in the room when we try to have these discussions because I'm still, legitimately, puzzled as to how people leap to this conclusion for any reason other than "because I don't want restrictions."

Well we can never achieve the level of restriction in many of these other countries without amending the bill of rights which is not likely. Without that, you will never be able to ban handguns which is the primary weapons used for gun crimes and suicides. So trying to go to there is ultimately counter productive to the real discussion of what is reasonable doable regulation inside the context of the constitution.

[xbuzzerx]

Well we can never achieve the level of restriction in many of these other countries without amending the bill of rights which is not likely. Without that, you will never be able to ban handguns which is the primary weapons used for gun crimes and suicides. So trying to go to there is ultimately counter productive to the real discussion of what is reasonable doable regulation inside the context of the constitution.

I've brought up the instance of Israel which has a substantial wait period and a psychological evaluation.

You can still get a firearm.

But this is where people will say "Israel doesn't have a 2nd Amendment", and that's where we get into the 2nd leap, that the 2nd Amendment is somehow against any restriction-- when clearly, the government can and does regulate the level of weaponry individual citizens may own.

[Stardreamer]

I've brought up the instance of Israel which has a substantial wait period and a psychological evaluation.

You can still get a firearm.

But this is where people will say "Israel doesn't have a 2nd Amendment", and that's where we get into the 2nd leap, that the 2nd Amendment is somehow against any restriction-- when clearly, the government can and does regulate the level of weaponry individual citizens may own.

Israel also understands the difficulty of stopping spree killers who are not allowed weapons who are willing to die to make an impact.

[xbuzzerx]

Israel also understands the difficulty of stopping spree killers who are not allowed weapons who are willing to die to make an impact.

Yet if Israel shared any form of agreement with the pro gun camp here in CE&P that restrictions do nothing, why have a wait period and why have a psychological evaluation?

In other words, what you're implying doesn't follow. Terrorist attacks and people who snapped mentally are apples and oranges, as is the criminal black market when the topic comes up because of school massacres.

[chrisrobin]

“Most” is materially different from “the two recent.”

A good example of using ambiguity to prove a point. Saint Ronald of Regan used this propaganda technique - the Cadillac-driving welfare mother. The woman never existed. If it worked then, it should work now. Sort of like asking, "what magazines do you read"? and you say "all kinds".

[Stardreamer]

Yet if Israel shared any form of agreement with the pro gun camp here in CE&P that restrictions do nothing, why have a wait period and why have a psychological evaluation?

In other words, what you're implying doesn't follow. Terrorist attacks and people who snapped mentally are apples and oranges, as is the criminal black market when the topic comes up because of school massacres.

Yes we are pretty much jumping down rabbit holes at this point.

I don't have a problem with waiting periods as long as they aren't abused AND there is provision to ensure someone whose life is at risk can obtain a gun if they need it. The efforts at perfecting the instant check system is the best way of addressing that. The same goes with psychological checks.