It's Gone

More fundamentally, I think we're wasting a lot of time looking for perfect, but impossible solutions, rather than looking at possible improvements. Since no one on this thread has expressed an opinion that our current weapons laws are optimal, what would you change that might actually have enough political juice to become law within, say, the next two years?

John

traffic signals, corporate and consumer safety, food and drug laws, etc

can someone point out anything wrong with this logic?

Since no one on this thread has expressed an opinion that our current weapons laws are optimal, what would you change that might actually have enough political juice to become law within, say, the next two years?
John

A central issue in Mrs. Clinton’s proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores. But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers.

Under Mrs. Clinton’s plan, she would use administrative powers to make anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared “in the business” of firearms dealing, and subject to the same rules as retailers, if Congress does not act, according to the campaign aide.

It was not immediately clear what the bar for being declared “in the business” would be. And use of executive action in connection with guns is certain to face criticism from staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. It is also likely to be applauded by Democrats who have grown weary of gridlock in Congress.

Earlier in the evening, another Democratic candidate, Martin O’Malley, urged Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders to embrace policies he supports, including a reinstatement of the lapsed federal assault weapons ban. That does not appear to be among those she will suggest.

Mrs. Clinton will suggest urging Congress to end another loophole, by which people with felony records who should be barred from obtaining a gun can get one if their background check is not completed within three days. That loophole was how Dylann Roof, the accused killer in Charleston, obtained his weapon despite a felony conviction for a drug arrest.

Since the Charleston shooting, Mrs. Clinton has frequently talked about gun control, but her comments have grown stronger. On Friday, a day after the shootings in Oregon, Mrs. Clinton said she wanted to lead a “national movement” that would counter the National Rifle Association.

“Here’s what the other side counts on,” Mrs. Clinton said. “They count on really having an intense, dedicated group that scare politicians and say, ‘We will vote against you.’ ”e

Mrs. Clinton will suggest urging Congress to end another loophole, by which people with felony records who should be barred from obtaining a gun can get one if their background check is not completed within three days. That loophole was how Dylann Roof, the accused killer in Charleston, obtained his weapon despite a felony conviction for a drug arrest.

this suggestion of Mrs. Clinton's is something we can all agree on....right?

Why aren't all of us, including the NRA, getting up in governments face and telling them we want current gun laws fully and strictly enforced.

You do realize that the NRA isn't simply failing to do this, it actively lobbies against increased funding, investigation and enforcement of current gun laws?

Interestingly, peoples' unaided hands or feet are the instruments of death in more than twice the number of homicides involving rifles of any form. The hysteria on banning "assault rifles" therefore seems to miss the target (so to speak) by miles.

It's not a logic problem, but there is a practical difference between the examples you cite and the problem of active-shooters....

If stricter guns laws don't deter criminals from getting guns, how come so few fully automatic weapons are used to commit crimes?

Regarding the rest, it's simple: If I run a red light, MOST likely no harm will come of violating that law. If I violate the law against murder, 100% of the time I have committed murder.