Well now the more likely last thought is going to be, "God damn, why did I buy my wife that gun?"

I'm not actually actively participating in the debate, and was and am commenting on your approach in it, from my position as moderator. Fix it going forward. Given the wide range of options available to you to discuss political topics on this very site, coupled with really strong feedback from SE forum users about the impact of your approach to these topics, I'm just not going to give you a ton of rope man. You can either just do it, or nit whether or not my comments constitute "actively participating" or some other tangential point, but I really think we'll both be happier if this is the last post ever needed on the topic of your approach.

I'm off to get a burger, lock up my Schrader allocation and enjoy my day. I may or may not decide to flesh out my thoughts on the topic for you but it's largely a waste of both of our time given how little time I have to follow-through anyways. Hugs.

Long Island is the home invasion capital of the country.

Yes. That Cato article makes statements that are untrue about people going through the FBI database.

Closing the loophole is obviously a net gain, as there should be no gray market for arms, but I agree with pro-gun folks in that this is largely inconsequential without requiring strict licensing of the merchants at the shows. Personally, I am for eliminating the shows and only licensing shops with frequent audits selling the basic arms I mentioned earlier.

Probably not good for their business, but **** them. They have no absolute right to sell a wide range particular product. It's on them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and find a viable business model or start a different business.

Ikes,

I agree with ending the drug war. But I don't think that means we can't ban some guns too.

Ike's position has been beyond clear. If you actually care about gun violence and gun deaths there are far better measures to take that will actually cause and promote change in this country that doesn't involve opening pandora's box. "Scary looking rifles" isn't even remotely close to a significant part of the problem of gun violence and death in this country.

Your comment about my approach is obviously false and your approach and just applies to me. Anyone else, and, most importantly, yourself doesn't meet your standard. It's tough to come up with an explanation for your position other than not being able to deal with views you disagree with. Why get in this thread at all if that's the case?

That speaks well to our country then. While there is a fair amount of them, it's still a case of sensationalized coverage making it seem worse than it is.

I also would not want to choose to engage what is hugely likely to be a strung out heroin addict looking for something to pawn for 20 dollars in a battle to the death if I don't have to.

Even if you could tell me that there is a 100% chance my home would be invaded in my lifetime, I would still choose not to own a gun.

Do you think we should have much higher bars to jump over before taking people's rights away than when we're restoring rights?

(also not saying we can't ban guns because of the gun war ldo)

none of you have answers to this?

The 'IF IT COULD SAVE ONE LIFE' approach isn't really enlightening CDL.

Ending the drug war is a cause that's actually politically viable, restores more liberty to it's citizens, saves billions of dollars, and saves millions of lives. I just don't get why this isn't a major topic worth citizens' fury, even specifically related to gun deaths and violence.

Instead we are fighting for "better gun control" by people who don't even know what that means, that will just inevitably cost more money, restrict more freedom, and not actually affect violence and death in a meaningful way.

It entirely misses the point and then makes the case against itself.

Directly from the article. Person A can sell to Person B without any background check, form of identity, or anything, so long as their main source of income is not selling firearms.

I have and I know my fears are largely unfounded but I only get one chance at life on this rock so I'm going to do what I feel is best.
If this happens at least I'll get a chuckle at the irony since she doesn't want them in the house.

Well, if that's the point (and it's a fair one), why are you calling it the 'gun show loophole'. The reason why that article is so ****ing old is that the 'gun show loophole' isn't really talked about anymore because it's a moronic talking point from the 90s.

So your wife doesn't want guns in the house but you're that god damn scared you're going to go buy 4 of them? Gun industry got you good, bud.

IDK what you mean by enlightening in this spot, but it seems like you agree it would save lives. If you agree that it would save lives then what possible downsides are there that would outweigh the value of these lives? There is no reason people should have the right to own guns.

Just because it is the status quo in the US doesn't make it right. The status quo recently banned gay marriage. The status quo once allowed the ownership of slaves. The status quo here is morally offensive as well.

Because the 'gun show' scenario is the most extreme example of the point of the laws trying to close this loophole. Selling a rifle to a stranger they've never met until 5 minutes before, without knowing their name, without doing a background check, knowing absolutely nothing about them is the most extreme case.

If it were named for the other end of the extreme, such as the 'firearm inheritance loophole', no one would give a ****.

CDL,

There are countless things that people don't like that if made illegal would save lives. That's what ikes means when he says your approach isn't really enlightening.

Are those things produced with no other purpose than to injure/harm living beings? Are they capable of taking multiple lives within a matter of seconds?

We literally just talked about the drug war come on.

Not scared imo, I'm not going to pack heat while I go about my day to day business but I want to be able to defend my home if needed. Will also use biometric safes to store them as well as making sure she's fully trained before purchasing.

Sorry, what point are you making?

Apply those questions to the drug war:

- Are those things produced with no other purpose than to injure/harm living beings?

In some people's view, yes. Even in my view which is extremely pro-drugs, it's plainly false that drugs like heroin are designed to not harm living beings.

- Are they capable of taking multiple lives within a matter of seconds?

Hell ****ing yes.

Ban them all imo.

heroin is banned already