Summations Only

The new thread is simply a continuation of the record. We now have had three, with the overall record being preserved through all of them. Gun ControlGun Control AgainAnd the current one:
Gun Control IIIMy reasoning is that there are too many side arguments that drag the thread out rather than focusing on guns themselves. I hope this is ok with you, Percy...you were the one with the most posts in the second sequel.My plan is for the third sequel to simply resume the discussion---minus internal bickering.Edited by Phat, : explanation

New Cat's Eye - Yes, the private market is pretty big. So if you want to avoid those checks - the loophole is wide enough for anyone to step through. No specialist knowledge is required. The point of the background check is to identify someone who has committed crimes. How else is a seller to know? Every time I sell a car there is paperwork to notify the change in ownership of the vehicle to the government. It doesn't ban me from selling my car privately. Not all guns, just the ones that a clearly liable to causing problems. When a Chicago resident can pop over to Gary without much fuss, it does render the States a poor bellweather. Studies have indicated that many of the guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought in Indiana. Are you really curious? It looks like rhetoric to me. I don't see the need for the licences you reference. Illegally holding a firearm or driving a vehicle are possible, and it's good to have a system the police can use to efficiently estimate if that is the case.I don't see any instances of a person who is prohibited from engaging in free speech or is banned from due process. To allow victim's of damages to sue for costs and compensation. A firearm injury can rack up $350k in medical costs - and that doesn't take into account loss of earnings or business, compensation for pains and lost opportunities during recovery etc. The medical costs are typically borne by the tax payer or the victim's own insurance.If gun holder's were insured - their insurance would cover the costs of any damage their negligence or malice caused rather than the injured party or the tax payer. Much like with car insurance. I doubt many shooters are capable of covering those kinds of costs so fining people for that amount wouldn't generally result in the victim receiving compensation. A criminal going to prison doesn't pay a victim's doctor, doesn't pay their rent if they are unable to work for extended periods, doesn't cover their transportation costs if they are unable to drive or walk for some time etc.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I doubt that anything will ever be done about the gun problem in the United States. The politics of the situation is such that all reasonable inferences we would make about any other situation are off limits when we are talking about gun control.We don't allow our government organizations to conduct research in the area, our legislature won't vote on ideas that the majority of the country is on board with, and some of us make arguments that we would not accept in other contexts.Let's see what happens in the next thread.

This is my summation, yet in the matter of gun control and gun violence, there is no National Consensus, summation, or resolution. The topic never ends, but will be continuing here:
Gun Control III