1. No it's a reality of American society. Police would have to go door-to-door for years, intrude in people's habitats, to maybe possibly eliminate >350 million weapons. What would the costs to human life, liberty, and security be from such an endeavor? No other country had to do this. Gun ownership rates were much lower in Britain and Australia, France (and other continental European countries) are not able to contain their black market, and Japan has been restricting gun ownership since the 16th century. 

2. Most Canadians live in large cities and suburbs at their border. Canadians have universal healthcare. Canadians are wealthier than Americans in the south. Canadians don't have a history of slavery. Yet still, Canada has a higher murder rate than most European countries, and many more guns. Canadians haven't banned guns. 

3. Nope, we've had this discussion about a year ago on this website. 

4. You quoted me, buddy. 

What are your thoughts on the policy proposed here?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-legal-compromise-between-2nd-Amendment-supporters-and-anti-firearms-supporters-in-the-US-to-help-prevent-future-school-shootings/answer/Yishan-Wong

It is probably the best compromise I have seen, and would probably make a real difference.

It is similar to the laws found in The Czech Republic.

Restricting private sales (without giving free access to the background check system) and require registration of each user is just a non-starter politically.

Most gun-rights advocates seem to support universal background checks so long as they can access the background check system at home with no cost to themselves rather than have to go through an FFL dealer.

Registration is politically unfeasible as it is seen as a precursor to confiscation, and has very little benefits other than that. Most registration efforts in U.S states and even Canada have failed to get even 10-20% of thd estimated guns registered. The permit system tells us the lower limit of gun owners though.

The intention behind the linked proposal is to reduce the lethality of shootings and mass shootings, by restricting higher calibers and more powerful guns (rather than merely scary looking ones) to more human contact. But being able to buy a gun to protect against wildlife or for self-protection in rural areas is very important. That is why Tier 1 is unrestricted. 

Background checks don't take a few days though. They take a few minutes to hours.

The whole point about compromise is that there are some things that are important to one party but other things which can be horse-traded on. That is how parliamentary reprsentative politics works. 

What is the big benefit of registration that it is worth killing the other, more effective reform for it?

And it is not just the far right that is skeptical of registration. The guy who posted that proposal says he is a "liberal gun owner" and I am on the far-left, a proudhonian socialist. 

What percentage of murders by people who bought guns in the "heat of the moment?" I am not convinced this is an extant problem which must be resolved.

Compromise is not, "we will do only a little bit of what you don't want." Compromise is an exchange, "I give you a policy reform you want and in exchange you reform something I want.We won't touch those things which we chose not to budge on."

I am less skeptical of registration as a means of confiscation and see it more as a means of criminalization of the otherwise  peaceful, because those proposing it know very well that the overwhelming majority refuse to abide by the registration requirement. It is an onerous requirement with no purpose other than to create a misdemeanor or felon who wouldn't otherwise exist as a criminal.

1. Do tell us all about Canada’s history of police going “door to door” every time they passed gun control measures.  I am certain it will be a very, very quick history lesson, one that reinforces how weak an excuse you had.

2. So you acknowledge that Canada is more successful than West Korea without having to ban guns. Awesome.

3. And yet I am still not seeing any evidence of that. Not even a quote.  What are the odds?

4.  And I’m not seeing a word uttered on all that silliness about disarmament.  You brought that up, only to profess no interest in talking about it.  Is there anything else that I didn’t bring up that you don’t want to talk about?  Now’s your chance to talk about it.

1. & 2. You are using a tactic of mixing up responses to general claims you made, such as "other countries" and specific ones such as "Canada." Canada has not been able to reduce gun crime in Canada at a faster rate  than the U.S has in the U.S. The rate of homicides in the U.S has always been greater than in Canada, because of particular social problems which exist in the U S which don't exist in Canada, such as: the legacy of slavery, greater socio-economic inequality, and greater poverty. For any particular gun control law Canada has incorporated there is no evidence that it has reduced the already comparatively low Canadian crime rate.

And there is a much larger problem for the U.S (three times as many guns per capita) and a larger population living in more habitable area.

3. I am not able to spend the time to use VGChartz's search feature right now but I will look for the thread later and get back to ya. It is useful to do so, because I don't feel like having this conversation again with you. We agreed to disagree the last time after pages of quotes.

4. No I am interested in talking about these things. Just not with you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Been there; done that. 

I believe they should ban carry on laws. If you own a gun, keep it in your house under lock and key. Throw anyone carrying guns in jail. Guns only purpose should be to keep the government in check not for pleasure or to run around like a cowboy looking for people to shoot. Yes criminals will still carry them, but I am more scared of random nutjobs who think themselves cowboys and are looking for any excuse to use their expensive handgun in any confrontation. It could also slow down all this gun crazy culture.

Which ironically is slowly happening in the US. You can;t stop tyranny with your little lead throwers my man. They have tanks and rockets and aircrafts. The only thing to stop tyranny is the voice of the people, people don't need guns to do it, only a will and heart of steel. Just zoom out and look at what's happening in the US and tell me it's not going towards tyranny, slowly but surely. Drumpf is not the worst of it trust me. You will continue to get worse and worse leaders and both parties are corrupt so only the people have the power to stop this either by a new party or radically getting into and changing these parties from within

As I am sure most of you already know. The killer posted that he was incited by the Soro's funded Migrant caravan... which of course was a Trump lie. I don't know what more else you need to know to see that this man is dangerous... In his position, he has to understand that unstable people may be out there listening to him and believing his lies. Then you hear that one of his victims was a 97 year old Holocaust survivor and then you get this sick feeling in your stomach. We, the silent majority are done with his machinations and fear mongering. Enough is enough. You can worship the ground Trump walks on but you don't get to tell us we have to stand here and take it. Enough!