"“or be stolen from cars. Theft is a big source of these guns, and it doesn’t take a high percentage of stolen guns to result in a high absolute number accessible to criminals.”

more and more of the dang things.

If we kept robbers and other people who make careers victimizing people behind bars longe maybe we wouldn't have so many low life scumbags out stealing guns and everything else they can.

There are criminals that will traffic in illegal guns regardless of where a law abiding citizen keeps theirs....that horse left the barn decades ago.

Zimmerman buys a gun, etc., it keeps putting more and more of them on the streets, keeps the NRA in business and GOPers in office, unscrupulous dealers in business, promotes more gun shows where any fool can buy a gun without a background check, etc. Gunners -- to the extent they are truly law abiding, could all but end this crap if they'd do what is moral. Don't expect them to, but they could.

How about enforcing EXISTING laws to the fullest extent....that's moral...No(?)

Am I racist for wanting to stop the theft of guns in neighboring states and trafficking of them in Cities with already high crime rates?

They will just dismiss it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

enforced...or forcefully adjudicated.
The article says....“Theft is a big source of these guns, and it doesn’t take a high percentage of stolen guns to result in a high absolute number accessible to criminals.”
A Thief is selling stolen arms to criminals.... lock them all up I don't care if it's purple guys.....enforcement doesn't need a racist metric

Dallas..racist, my wife, maiden name Gonzalaz...racist? For legally owning?

You said you didn't use "white wingers" pre Dumpster...shall we revisit that false claim?
Your credibility is waning....I'll post the links here if you'd like

So a gun from Michigan, can miraculously travel to IL and be used in a crime?

Who woulda thunk it?

And it must be a background check and the purchase must be in compliance with the laws of the buyers residence.

If Illinois residents are raveling outside the state they are either buying legally and following all the laws they would buying in Illinois or both the buyers and sellers are committing Federal level felonies.

If residents from other states are bringing guns into Illinois and selling them they are committing multiple felonies per transaction.

The problem is nobody bothers with enforcement of the laws that exist and address this exact issue. Making it more illegal on a state level isn't going to deter people willing to commit Federal felonies because Federal time is a lot harsher than state time. But it's all pointless because the BATFE doesn't put enough focus or effort on it.

Their government is deluded and won't control sales in Indiana.

Adding more laws because you can't be bothered to enforce the ones that exist already is like buying more food because you are hungry when you haven't bothered to eat the pantry full you already have.

But they want more laws because the agenda isn't really to target the guns flowing into Chicago. Existing laws are there to do that well if they are just used. But enforcement of those laws will just target the criminals. They instead want to use this as an excuse for new laws that affect all non-criminal gun owners in those other states.

Because their main goal isn't targeting and stopping criminal use of guns, that is just the excuse. They want to limit all gun use by the law abiding, and they are willing to use high levels of inner city violence to justify it even if that means advocating policies that will allow that violence to go on longer, because it serves their agenda for it to exist.

If your claim is the problem is that guns from Indiana are going into Chicago, and there are laws against taking them across state lines in the way that they go, and those laws are not enforced (as evidenced by the fact that it's happening) then the problem is indeed that the law intended to prevent the problem is not enforced.

More restrictions in Indiana would make Indiana and Illinois safer. Most Americans know that and most Americans, including many gun owners, want that. The NRA stops legislatures from protecting us, though. They want more sales of firearms.

Wouldn't enforcing existing laws both Federal and State.....like don't steal guns from ANYwhere make Illinois safer?

Banning the sale of guns would stop the flow at the source.

Is that really hard to understand?

Let's suppose that happened......350M+ firearms out there now, how do you "stop that flow at the source" ?
Do tell.

Again pretty simple.

Kinda like saying I just watered my lawn and the grass is all wet! How do I stop the grass being wet?

Turn the fucking water off. Yes it will still be wet for a while but it will dry out.


Pretending we can't outlaw guns because there are a lot of them is ridiculous.

Your analogy is foolish....do you have any idea grass-guns....
This is why we can't have nice things...."Pretending we can't outlaw guns because there are a lot of them is ridiculous."
What do you propose...confiscation?

You know more about this than your irritated post indicates. I read your posts downthread, stop being coy.

Or irritated in the least...the question remains....what is the fix?
Wholeheartedly honest question that shouldn't take much effort to answer.

Damn right I know about it...been around for a LONG time.

So I think there's zero chance they'll ban the sale of firearms (assuming such a law would even be constitutional). And the vast majority of states would vote out any politician that proposed banning the sale of firearms.

And we have already banned assault weapons in the past with no issues with the second amendment so yet again another weak excuse.

weapons.

You have a whole.lot of silly excuses

Even if the political will existed to enact such a ban -- and you appear to agree that it doesn't -- Heller rejects the notion that the 2d Amendment only protects arms that were in existence in the 18th Century, stating that argument "borders on frivolous."

President Clinton didn't ban semi-autos.
9minutes after the 94 "ban"...manufactures were doing a work around.

I live in NY...SAFE act state....many AR type guns are "banned"....on cosmetic features
This isn't.....it's compliant.....yet functions exactly the same way as any AR....

Don't give me that your data doesn't kill people because we KNOW ISIL uses the Web to recruit....and on occasion 1 of those a'holes goes off and commits a horrific crime.

Would be unconstitutional, but a ban on the sale of all firearms likely would be. Anyway, an assault weapon ban would have very little impact on the firearm violence that is a problem in Chicago, since the vast majority of crimes there are committed with handguns.

If the GOP pick Kennedy's replacement(the most likely candidate to step down next), then I fully expect an Assault Weapons ban case to get run through the courts as fast as the NRA can fund it. Kennedy is seen by many as the main reason the current Court has refused to hear any more gun cases. Talk among former SCOTUS clerks is Kennedy was the main dampening factor on Scalia's DC v Heller decision, that Scalia softened it some to keep Kennedy on board. SCOTUS has a tendency to want to correct splits between appellate courts, and to some extent, State supreme courts. Primarily to keep the law as uniform as possible at the higher levels. There is currently a split between courts on concealed carry and the SCOTUS has bopped 2 cases so far that could be used to resolve the split.

About banning guns. I was told that is simply an NRA lie

Guns are a symptom of the problem, not the root. The problem is poverty and lack of opportunity for the disadvantaged

Fix economic inequality, take the stupid out of the drug war, and fix our education system and then you will see real results.

(That being said, laws to reduce unintended access to guns are still a really good idea. Safe storage laws would cut down on gun theft and accidents by children)

We should address those issues if we want to actually help people. Less poverty correlates very strongly with less crime.

It's not legal owners in those cities committing the assaults is it?
Yes there are legal owners in those cities.

Much of Chicago is very safe, so one could make the case that gun control is working exactly as designed in those neighborhoods.

Lincoln Park for example has had a single homicide in the last 365 days.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/community/lincoln-park

When attempting to reduce crime the most effective approach is to reduce poverty, ignorance, and lack of opportunity.

Your use of that term set off my dog whistle detector.

Teenage and young adult men get into crime at a higher rate than "normal".
There are other factors that brought the crime rate down. Employment opportunities were truly bad thirty or forty years ago.

Attacking the root causes of violent behavior instead of one tool (of many) used in that violent behavior requires critical thinking skills and looking at violence as a complex problem instead of just yelling about guns.

Or is that too complex for you?

What's his excuse . You can't pin it on poverty.

..but by mid August this yr...2400 people had been shot in Chicago(down almost 300 from '16)....some 450 total homicides.....what would you say that's based on?

A vest majority of the guns in DC Baltimore Philly and NYC come from Virginia.