So really, does your objection to gun legislation hold up to scrutiny?

[flamin lib]

Popular arguments against gun regulation debunked.

It's already against the law for felons to have guns, we don't need a new law.

Yeah, but it isn't against the law for an individual to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check so felons get guns really easily. If that isn't enough a lot of states are “nullifying” Federal law which means that they don't have to enforce the NICS checks done by dealers. Universal background checks and permit to purchase are shown to make a measurable difference in gun violence. Removal of guns from domestic violence situations and allowing family members to have guns removed from depression and PTSD situations help reduce suicides.

That wouldn't have stopped (insert favorite incident here).

No one law will prevent any one tragedy, but a combination of laws working synergisticlly can greatly reduce violence across a wide spectrum of situations. Everybody gets hyped when an airliner goes down but nobody sees the quiet tragedy of one death at a time which good laws obeyed by law abiding citizens can prevent. See above.

There are 20,000 gun laws on the books now, just enforce them instead of passing new ones.

Actually there are about 7,000 firearms laws (state and federal), many of which do not address gun violence and the ones that do are often difficult to enforce. As cited above NICS checks aren't applicable to 40% of gun sales so felons can just go online or hang out at gun shows looking for a private sale. Why not prosecute the people who fail the NICS check? Because by law the information on the a check (approved or denied) has to be destroyed in 24 hours. It would take an Allan Lanzing or Jeff Loughner to flag an application in that time frame.

Criminals won't obey the laws anyway.

True, but law abiding citizens following laws that require background checks, reporting stolen guns and keeping guns in locked gun safes would decrease the number of guns in hands of criminals. One estimate is that more than 200,000 guns are stolen each year and a stolen gun is, by definition, in the hands of a felon.

They'll just find another way to kill/commit suicide.

Not really. People who try to commit suicide by other means and survive are only 20% likely to try again. Guns work real good for making a permanent end to a temporary problem. On the same day that Sandy Hook occurred a man in Japan took a katana into an elementary school and slashed/stabbed/hacked 20 children. They all lived. Nothing is quite as efficient as a gun at ending life.

It's the slippery slope. Give one inch and they'll come take our guns away.

I find it hard to dignify this one with a response. In fact, I just won't.

Assault weapons bans are pointless. Rifles are used in only 1% of crimes.

Okay, lets ban handguns! Seriously, that isn't necessary or desirable, but a limitation on magazine size and perhaps rate of fire could be useful in the rare instances that such weapons are used. UVA, Aurora CO, Columbine and Sandy Hook all used these weapons and magazine capacity to very effective results. To what useful purpose would one want to fire 30, 60, 90 times a minute?

Anybody else have a favorite?

[Fred Sanders]

1. Logic is on a slower arc, but it crushes Stupid and even the virulent strain of NRA Stupid every time.

[world wide wally]

2. Can a gay person buy a gun for protection in Indiana?

[flamin lib]

3. I guess it depends on the religion of the seller? nt