I believe we may have come up with a viable compromise.

Speaking only for myself both sides are disingenuous IMO.

While the media is guilty of overhyping the hoplophiles are equally guilty of underplaying the reality of their gun culture.

So both are wrong and something pragmatic needs to be done otherwise the hoplophiles are going to be very unhappy campers.

They need to stop denying the reality of the situation and start dealing with it.

If they don't the consequences won't be to their liking because the demographics are not in their favor.

 

Violent criminals are not part of "my gun culture". Violent criminals are usually repeat offenders that cannot legally possess a gun, therefore they are not gun owners. If I steal your car, am I a car owner?
We are not down playing the reality of gun violence. We are tired of being blamed for criminal behavior. Anti gunners can't distinguish between law abiding, honest, gun owners, and criminals that aren't even allowed to own a gun.
Do you blame peaceful Muslims for the murders of violent jihadists?
Do you blame all blacks for the black on black violence in the ghettos?

 

No, but I know that some of the guns that the criminals have at some used to belong to law abiding gun owners.

So how did they end up in the hands of criminals?

Was it because the law abiding gun owners failed to secure them?

Yes, that was most certainly the case in some instances therefore law abiding gun owners do bear some responsibility for guns being in the hands of criminals.

 

Interviews with those incarcerated for gun crimes reveals that by far, most of these criminals acquired their guns though illegal straw purchases, or through other acquaintances. It's easy to have your girlfriend or other friend with no felonies, to purchase the gun legally. It becomes illegal when they hand it to the felon.
How are responsible firearm owners to blame for this?

It sounds like you are blaming victims of home invasions and burglaries for gun crimes. This is what I mean when I say that folks like you can't tell the difference between legal firearm owners and criminals.

 

Apparently, "compromise" means "give me what I want, and I won't have to force government to take it from you."

 

You know that the FBI defines "mass shooting" as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations”
You know that the huge majority of incidents on your list do not qualify as 'mass shootings'
Your statement, therefore is false; you made that statement knowing it was false.

 

rhey redefined mass-shooting from "4 or more shot and killed" to merely "4 or more shot", so as to greatly inflate the perceived number of mass shootings, so as to further their agenda.

 

And how do you propose to get around the due process requirements of the constitution? Go on, give me your idea.