Is there now justifiable hope of enacting sensible gun law?

Unsupportable nonsense.

More of the above.

 

What seems obvious to you?

 

Oh dear! You have agreed with me without realizing it

 

Why anyone with his wits about him would tell some anonymous caller he has no firearms in the house.

 

Unlikely.
But, go ahead -- show how this is the case.

 

You mean like post 64:
In what way is it logical to tell an anonymous caller that you have no defense in your home? If I suspected an anonymous person of being a threat to me I would tell him that I had guns even if I didn't and had a pack of hounds too.

 

This will be roundly ignored

 

You are correct:
No one with his wits about him would tell some anonymous caller he has no firearms in the house.

 

For good reason.

 

Empirical data that dos not comport with ideological dogma is emotionally unacceptable.

Whether anthropogenic climate change, the superiority of the universal coverage health care of all advanced nations, or their far lower incidence of firearm slaughter, factual information that contradicts articles of faith just upset some folks..

 

The DOJ OIG. Just released a report that states an average of 100,000 prohibited people tried to purchase firearms by lying on the FF4473. This report covers the entirety of the Obama presidency. It also states that the Obama DOJ only considered prosecuting 30 - 40 cases a year. Lying on the form is punishable by ten years in prison. How many crimes would have been prevented had half these people been taken off the streets?
Enforce the laws on the books before adding new ones.

 

Please watch:

 

Like all that call for "sensible' gun laws, you have not specified what those "sensible" gun laws are that we refuse to impose. Have a go at it, I am ready to be instructed as to where we went wrong.

 

An extremely hard and difficult question. Banning ownership from extreme mental deficiencies might do a little, but some of that is in place now. Plus most of the recent mass shootings (that I remember) would not have stopped the shooter as they were very marginally bothered: like Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Florida, Columbine, San Bernadino; Boulder and Tucson are marginal in that serious mental problems were known but not to the level action against. The recent Sutherland Springs church shooter had many mental and violent large red flags on him and should have been detected and handled. (It goes much further than the Air Force not reporting domestic violence -- which is a shaky criteria in my opinion, but that's another story).
Somehow our current society is raising kids and people who have a narcissistic complete disrespect for life. Somehow killing a bunch of people (including the self) has replaced writing letters to the editor to both protest something and to show off. I don't know how to fix it. But more gun control is not the answer. Every gun control discussed would not have stopped any of the mass shootings.

 

All of the poll numbers you post are so much trash. If the pollsters were to preface their polls with an explanation of all of the gun laws that are already on the books, but not supported, and how tight gun restrictions already are the polls would do a 180.

What's that old saying about lies, damned lies and polls.

 

A statement for which there is absolutely no actual evidence, only supposition and hypothesis.

Since such individuals cannot legally purchase firearms to begin with, and since such records are already supposed to be available for the NICS database, there is no point in pressing the matter further. If the various branches of the federal government are not actually doing their job in compiling such data, then that is not a loophole in need of closing, rather it is dereliction of duty and a failure to comply with the law.

 

Such is nothing more than your assessment of the situation, with no regard to actual facts on the matter.

 

Let me introduce you to Tog 6:

"What kind of fool admits to a random stranger he has no means to defend himself or his home?"

"Why anyone with his wits about him would tell some anonymous caller he has no firearms in the house."

 

None of which changes the fact that there is no way of proving whether or not the answer provided to a random survey is actually correct. Simply because someone does not admit to owning a firearm, does not mean such is the truth. Despite everything that has been presented by yourself and others to try and prove the random results of random telephone surveys are factually correct, nothing presented has actually done such. Very little has actually been presented by yourself than out of hand dismissal, justified with the question of "why would they lie?" as if such were a valid argument. Indeed it is not.

 

I have continually requested that gun fanciers, who seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to any and all legislative effort to allow Americans to be able to protect themselves from firearms, to offer their solutions to reduce the rampant slaughter by guns in America. Instead, they defend the status quo, surrendering to the current plight.

One modest, sensible step is enforcing current law that would redress the permissiveness that allows gunmen to so easily obtain the weapons they use to murder Americans in churches, schools, and other public venues:

The gun radicals are demanding the right to strut around armed in states that have achieved much lower rates of firearm fatalities by not indulging such behavior.

Let's hope a clean bill can be passed in Congress without such poison-pill encumbrances.

Demanding that other states let the gun-dependent mince around in their jurisdictions is a bit much.

 

So the most, sensible step that is being referred to, is what firearm owners have been calling for all along. That being for government to enforce the laws that are already in existence, rather than trying to implement new firearm-related restrictions.

What this bipartisan effort demonstrates, is that those who support firearm-related restrictions are ultimately ready to admit that those who oppose them are correct.

Emotional rhetoric devoid of any legitimacy.

 

Oh, I have not actually said that. What I've been saying is that the number of households who say they have a gun is more likely greater than actually have a gun, definitely not less. Have you had a conversation with Tog 6 yet? Perhaps you can convince him that you are right to saying that you don't have a gun when an anonymous caller asks you

 

If that spin makes you feel good, that's fine. No sensible Americans opposes enforcement.
The permissiveness must end.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (to determine if prospective firearms or explosives buyers' name and birth year match those of a person who is not eligible to buy) was part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 introduced by Representative Schumer and signed into law by President Clinton. The NRA had spent millions of dollars and contrived several law suits that ended in the Supreme Court in their futile attempt to defeat it.

Let's hope the radicals don't succeed in their poison pill provision ploy to defeat the conscientious enforcement of the law now being legislated.

Consider the empirical data regarding

The states with the highest rates of firearm deaths:

1 Alaska 19.59

2 Louisiana 19.15

3 Alabama 17.79

4 Mississippi 17.55

5 Wyoming 17.51

6 Montana 16.94

7 Arkansas 16.93

8 Oklahoma 16.41

9 Tennessee 15.86

10 New Mexico 15.63​

The states with the lowest rates of firearm deaths:

1 Hawaii 2.71

2 Massachusetts 3.18

3 New York 4.39

4 Connecticut 4.48

5 Rhode Island 5.33

6 New Jersey 5.69

7 New Hampshire 7.03

8 Minnesota 7.88

9 California 7.89

10 Iowa 8.19​

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control complied thw data in 2013 that confirmed that states with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest overall gun death rates in the nation.

Why would states that have achieved the lowest rates of firearm fatalities emulate the states with the highest rates of firearm fatalities?

 

How someone may choose to answer a random survey is entirely their own discretion. However it does nothing to prove that the answers provided are the truth.

 

Those who support greater firearm-related restrictions, however, do indeed oppose enforcement. Otherwise they would be more careful in the crafting of their proposals.

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

[QUOTE\The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (to determine if prospective firearms or explosives buyers' name and birth year match those of a person who is not eligible to buy) was part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 introduced by Representative Schumer and signed into law by President Clinton. The NRA had spent millions of dollars and contrived several law suits that ended in the Supreme Court in their futile attempt to defeat it.[/QUOTE]

The NRA supported the passage of the NICS. What the NRA opposed was efforts at mandating that private sales must go through the program, as there is no way of enforcing such a mandate.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/biden-revises-nra-history-on-background-checks/

Let's hope the radicals don't succeed in their poison pill provision ploy to defeat the conscientious enforcement of the law now being legislated.

Consider the empirical data regarding

The states with the highest rates of firearm deaths:

1 Alaska 19.59

2 Louisiana 19.15

3 Alabama 17.79

4 Mississippi 17.55

5 Wyoming 17.51

6 Montana 16.94

7 Arkansas 16.93

8 Oklahoma 16.41

9 Tennessee 15.86

10 New Mexico 15.63​

The states with the lowest rates of firearm deaths:

1 Hawaii 2.71

2 Massachusetts 3.18

3 New York 4.39

4 Connecticut 4.48

5 Rhode Island 5.33

6 New Jersey 5.69

7 New Hampshire 7.03

8 Minnesota 7.88

9 California 7.89

10 Iowa 8.19​

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control complied thw data in 2013 that confirmed that states with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest overall gun death rates in the nation.

Why would states that have achieved the lowest rate of firearm fatalities emulate the states with the highest rate of firearm fatalities?[/QUOTE]

The above data dishonestly counts firearm-related suicides to bolster the numbers of firearm-related deaths per state. Suicides are of no relevance, and will not be discussed on matters pertaining to crime.