Is there now justifiable hope of enacting sensible gun law?

It also ignores all murders committed by means other than gun. If a criminal switches to a knife because he can't find a gun, his murder statistic isn't counted, even though his victim is just as dead.

 

Pretending advocates of sensible laws oppose their enforcement is very, very silly.

False. As noted by FactCheck:

• In 1991, the NRA endorsed legislation creating a national system of “instant background checks” as an alternative to a seven-day waiting period contained in the proposed Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the technology didn’t exist yet. A gun-control advocate said the “instant check bill would have completely gutted the Brady bill by eliminating the waiting period.”
• 
  
• In 1993, the Brady bill became law with compromise language on background checks. The law required a five-day waiting period until an instant background check system could be established. Background checks would apply only to federally licensed firearm dealers, and the NRA said it opposed attempts to expand background checks to all gun sales as “foolish.”
• 
  
• In 1998, on the day that the FBI launched the instant check system, the NRA sued to bar the federal agency from keeping identifying information on gun buyers for 90 days, claiming the brief retention of records amounted to a de facto gun registry. Although the NRA lost its suit, Congress would later mandate that the FBI destroy its records within 24 hours of an approved gun sale.
• 
  
• In 1999, Congress considered expanding background checks to include gun shows after the Columbine High School massacre. The NRA supported a narrow expansion of background checks in a House bill that then-President Clinton said was “plainly ghostwritten by the NRA.” The NRA opposed a more expansive Senate version. The Senate sponsor said that “the gun lobby killed the legislation in House-Senate conference.”

The balance of the article recounts the persistent efforts of the NRA to weaken the legislation they failed to have declared unconstitutional.

No, your claim that they are being "dishonest" is false. The number of firearm deaths per state includes suicides by firearms, and does not purport to exclude them. There is nothing dishonest about it, of course, because suicides are relevant, much as you might prefer to ignore them.

Do you believe that individuals who have been diagnosed with suicidal tendencies should have easy access to guns?

 

OK...find stats that support your supposition

 

Nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

The above statement is factually incorrect. One need look no further than the supposed universal background check requirement implemented in the state of Nevada, crafted by its advocates in such a way that makes it completely unenforceable. The FBI have stated that they will not expend finite resources to comply with the local law, and the state attorney general has declared that the law cannot be enforced, thus meaning no one can be arrested for buying or selling a firearm in private without performing a background check.

It is your interpretation that is false.

Thus demonstrating the claim of yourself about the NRA opposing the NICS system is false.

Again, demonstrating that the NRA did not oppose the NICS system. Rather they opposed efforts to require private sales to go through the NICS system, because there was no way of actually enforcing the requirement.

Again, demonstrating that the NRA did not oppose the NICS system. Rather they opposed efforts to transform the resulting sales records into a firearms registry.

Cite the legislation in question.

Not so much as a single word in the entire post presented by yourself is even remotely close to the truth. The NRA never sought to have the NICS declared unconstitutional, nor has it attempted to weaken it from its current form.

The above statement is exactly what was initially claimed. Suicides committed with a firearm are counted along with firearm-related homicides, all labeled as firearm-related deaths, in order to distort what are the actual facts of the matter.

Was the post made by yourself even thought out before it was presented for consideration? It certainly does not appear as such.

Suicides are not acts of violence, nor can they be counted along with acts of murder.

It is believed that they should be confined to medical facilities and subject to constant supervision and observation to prevent them from ending their own existence, if the preservation of their lives is regarded as being so important. Anything less is unacceptable.

Is it believed by yourself that individuals who have been diagnosed with suicidal tendencies should be left to their own devices, so long as firearms are, theoretically, not easily accessible via purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer?

 

It is presented in the headings, referring to firearm-related deaths. This means that deaths related to any other method are not counted.

 

Those who are resigned with the astronomical rate of firearm murders in the United States, or who believe that Americans are powerless to reduce the carnage, become upset when the problem is confronted and measures are proposed to deal with it.

Others ask, why can citizens of other advanced nations defend themselves against the predations of gunsters through legislative safeguards?

Putting aside the emotional aspect of dependency, an objective comparison of the huge disparity between the figures of United States and Canada, and the divergent methods of dealing with it may help Americans finally confront its problem.

​

See https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...rican-gun-deaths-and-gun-laws-compare-canadas.

Of course, alternative measures to reduce the gun slaughter in the US from anyone recognizing the need to do so are welcome.

Doing nothing solves nothing.

 

Going by the number of posts made by yourself, all sharing the same narrative, it is more than apparent that the presence of yourself is not for the purpose of engaging in an open, honest, and legitimate debate or discussion, Rather it is for blathering on and on about nothing more than empty, rhetorical, and emotional nonsense, complaining incessantly about perceived impotence on the part of those that do not support transforming the united states into an entirely different nation in response to firearm-related homicides, through the implementation of drastic legislative restrictions that would not even work in the united states to begin with.

Contribute something of actual relevance to the discussion, or do not participate any further in the ongoing discussion. The current blather adds nothing and simply derails from the discussion. Any further such contributions will be reported.

 

It has also been noted that is you take about 5 large democrat run cities out of the mix, the US is near the bottom.

 

That's completely wrong. Suicide is an EXTREME act of violence and anger and far too often a person committing suicide takes people with them.

I give you Vegas...

In fact almost all mass murders are suicides.

Ask a cop how they feel about people committing "suicide by cop".

It's an extremely dangerous act

 

Are any of those cities in these states?

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/06/17/the-10-states-with-the-worst-gun-violence/4/

 

Prove such.

Far too often? Exactly what does "far too often" amount to in round numbers? Is even one time too often to be acceptable?

Approximately two thirds of all firearm-related deaths in the united states are suicides. Demonstrate precisely how many of them take others with them, if the claim presented by yourself is indeed valid.

Simply because the perpetrator decided to kill themselves rather than be taken into custody, does not demonstrate that they were suicidal to begin with. What is being presented by yourself is a false narrative.

Suicides are not acts of violence, nor can they be counted along with acts of murder. Nor will they be counted and/or discussed along with acts of murder.

 

I already posted stats that dispute your claim that states with tough gun laws and low violence rates have higher non-gun related violence rates. Guess you (intentionally) missed it.

 

Nonsense. These people have no escape plan. They know going in that they're not coming out alive. It's suicide

Ask any cop how dangerous it is to deal with a potential suicide,

They are going to take a human life.There is a huge amount of anger there and all bets are off.

 

Again, alternative measures to reduce the gun slaughter in the US from anyone recognizing the need to do so are welcome.

Doing nothing solves nothing.

 

Again, alternative measures to reduce the gun slaughter in the US from anyone recognizing the need to do so are welcome.

Doing nothing solves nothing.

 

the above amounts to little more than the opinion of yourself, and does not reflect what are actually facts of the matter.

 

The above assumes that there is actually a way to prevent some from murdering others. There is not. It does not matter what the most popular implement is, the problem remains the same; a willingness on the part of one to murder another for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

Pray tell, what does one do when those who are responsible have no regard for human life? How is such a problem addressed?

 

There is. Reduce the number of guns sold. Make it harder to buy then.

A lot of crimes are committed with guns recently and legally bought. That can be dealt with

A ten day waiting period for gun purchases is not an onerous imposition. Neither is a comprehensive back ground check.

And no one needs an assault rifle.

 

I you believe Americans are impotent in reducing the nation's astronomical level of firearm fatalities , that is what you believe.

 

Elaborate on precisely what the above means. How is the number of firearms sold in a given year reduced? By what percentage is the amount to reduced by? What is the amount reduced to? What amounts to making it more difficult to purchase firearms?

A statement that is devoid of factual evidence. Those who can legally purchase firearms are not the ones responsible for the majority of firearm-related offenses in the united states, and the FBI has stated as such.

And if someone does not have the luxury of being able to wait ten days before they can legally take possession of what is legally regarded as their property? What is your answer to them?

Explain precisely what a so-called "comprehensive background check" will amount to, that differs from what is currently in place.

Such firearms are already regulated under the national firearms act, and are not relevant to the discussion.

 

Which does nothing to answer the question that was actually presented to yourself. Pray tell, what does one do when those who are responsible have no regard for human life? How is such a problem addressed?

 

That's it? Enforce existing laws? Natty, you are really out of touch. The NRA has been pounding on that drum for a very long time. Liberal judges have discovered that criminals have rights and punishment for existing gun violations goes out the window.

"Strut around"? "Mince around"? You really need to get out of your foil-lined bunker one of these days. Liberals seem to have tumors in their heads when it comes to concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. There is no "blood flowing in the streets" and there are no "bodies everywhere." When I researched the subject prior to Illinois getting concealed carry, I found out that permit holders have a lower crime rate than the police do. I've carried a gun for years after I got my permit and to this day, no one but my wife knows I do. And I still haven't been able to "strut" or "mince." That's just silly.

 

Presumably, the proclivity of homicidal killers is not an especially American trait, yet America leads all advanced nations by far in firearm fatalities.

It is entirely logical to examine why they succeed in reducing their frequency. Pretending that they are just less disposed to shoot people doesn't seem to be a viable explanation.

 

What measures do you recommend that Americans take to reduce the obscene level of firearm fatalities that is so far beyond what all other civilized nations are forced to endure?