Speakeasy forum: Here's where gun contol is most needed

.....in much the same way that easier access to guns results in more people getting shot.

So first, I apologize for the implication that you attacked me personally. I merely meant "ad hominem" in the literal sense as a comment directed at the opponent instead of the issue.

Second, it's nice to see you say, "not just go after the easy prey of those who have purchased guns legally, are registered, and their whereabouts known."

Having said that, I am compelled to note that, IMO:

"take your gun control fight to the inner city streets" and "round up these criminals and put them and their guns in a lockup"

are not what I would consider (new) specific gun control measures that would have prevented the shooter in this case from getting this gun.

Mark

I can't believe I am actually in partial agreement with someone who's pro-gun.

The gangbanger who gunned her down could find a weapon quite easily in Chi-town. It's about as easy as finding a 40oz in the same neighborhoods, to be honest. Actually, getting the gun here is probably easier since the (street) seller could care less about your ID/age in most cases. Legal or not, where she lives it really isn't the issue per se.

That said, to extrapolate and also state that the fact that guns are already present on the streets in great numbers (and in the wrong hands) means we shouldn't bother trying to limit their access from this point forward seems foolish at best, especially when it could mean it might save a young life or two. Don't punish the kids who have no choice but to grow up in the bad environment that their parents ended up in, with little chance for a decent education or upward mobility in life. When 80% of the neighborhood kids are gang affiliated, how can anyone blame the poor girl for hanging out with her friends in a public park(?) There have been some pretty ignorant viewpoints expressed regarding this aspect of her life, especially from some rather naive privileged folks who really don't comprehend how someone living a half mile away from their luxury condo could possible be living in seemingly a different universe full of a lot of death a disappointment in life.
It's all very sad to say the least.

Sure that all guns captured by Police are scrapped?

sometimes, overwhelming is better.

to make a working weapon with your computer and a special 3-D printer. I'd hope it's not true but I'd not say it couldn't be done.

And it's probably also a good place for other such 'backwater' type activities (LOL).

......(which he didn't, but I digress) you'd be all over him for wasting money sending people into space when the country is in debt.

I never said that, Obama never said that and the Times article didn't say that. It also didn't say that Obama was scrapping the space program, just that he was changing the focus from a return to the moon to other types of exploration.

So.....you said Obama scrapped the space program. Not true.

You suggested Obama "blamed" that on Bush. He didn't.

Next?

...of investment being focused on by the current administration. There's also STEM, which should help us out in the future economically if properly managed, along with the other facets of K-12 education in this country that are in bad shape.

Frankly, there was nothing wrong with lighting a fire under NASA's posterior region. It's fairly common knowledge that many of their programs were floundering and outdated, lacking focus especially. If you re-read what's in the NYT article you cited above, it dances around this topic. Follow some other peer reviewed literature regarding science/politics, and you might catch on to what I've alluded to.

Maybe you have ESP, or know something I do not(?) Where did I state I was going to completely ban firearms(?) I just want to keep them out of the wrong hands, especially away from kids.

Hopefully you realize, your argument above is neither original <groan>, nor applicable, and hopefully you can figure out why in your myopic, gun-toting 'second amendment' bubble. The primary response I give to such troglodyte-like reasoning such as yours, is that the difference between firearms & automobiles is one is a necessity and the other is not. The lack of one would lead to economic strife and significant inconvenience for a large majority of citizens, the lack of the other in average citizen's hands doesn't amount to much of anything.

Now back to the NRA forums you go....

Another typical response that resorts to ad hominem, and relies on vague statements like "I just want to keep them out of the wrong hands" instead of specific, factual rebuttals, even though you were asked for specifics four days ago, and you've responded to other posts--one by the same person who requested a specific response here--since then. Of course, that's the next page in playbook: ignore anything for which you have no rebuttal, just like another of your ilk did here.

And someone who started in with the positively ancient "it might save a young life or two" logical fallacy is not in the strongest position to complain about originality.

The primary response I give to such troglodyte-like reasoning such as yours, is that, per the Constitution, the difference between firearms & automobiles is one is a necessity and the other is not.

But since you apparently want to communicate at a grade school maturity level, now back to the Brady Bunch forums you go.

but the principles remain, the same. The Constitution was not written as a snapshot of those days, but on principles for then and the future.