82 shot, 14 fatalities, over the 4th of July weekend

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Acquiring guns no registered to them. So more laws directed toward registration would probably be pretty ineffective.

Right, illegal guns start off as legal guns.  I buy a guy, I sell it at 3x value to a criminal.  Does anyone check to see if I do this?  Where did the gun go?  Ida know, it was stolen or lost.  Who cares?  Give me another gun to sell.

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope my logic is you could "magically teleport" Chicago's stricter gun regulations to any big city and see virtually no change.
 

Except NYC where gun control is effective due in no small part to bolstering it with preventative measures, increased police presence, pro-active measures, and less access to areas with lax gun control laws in which guns can be "lost" by "law-abiding" citizens and end up in criminal hands.  Rudi Giuliani addressed the issues with guns in NYC and the reasons it worked and was difficult.

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't blame you for making up my logic. Folks that are not qualified to own firearms should not. I am just not so naive that I think passing a law will change it.

There is evidence that gun control does work.  There is evidence that gun control does not work.  And who decides who is qualified to own a firearm?  Don't criminals have the right to protect themselves and their families from intruders, too?

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the answer is stricter punishment. Commit a felony with a firearm and not be a registered owner; throw away the key.

Fair enough.  And what about the punishment to the "law-abiding citizen" that facilitated the purchase in the first place?  Why not have something in place to hold that person accountable for supplying firearms to criminals?