CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[320 Years of History]

We already have prescriptive on the sale and distribution of fully automatic firearms. Those proscriptions make it sufficiently hard to get a fully automatic weapon that very few criminals get them and in turn use them when committing their crime(s). Does that impede every criminal's efforts to obtain one? No, but it puts the kibosh on many folks ability to do so, and among the folks who thus don't get hold of them are criminals. That's a good thing.

Wrong...that is not why our criminals don't use fully automatic weapons...they don't use them because they are hard to coneal in a baby mommas purse or under the seat of a car or to hide in a drug house......

Criminals in France and Europe culturally prefer fully automatic weapons.....they are considered a status symbol for crimnals in France....

The best way to discourage gun crime is to put a long sentence on gun crime.....for reasons of race, our politicians refuse to do this....our prosecutors do not punish felons caught with guns with prosecution, and judges do not punish gun criminals with long sentences...

You are wrong on both points.

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

Red:
I don't really demand an explanation for that. My value of human life is such that accelerating the rate of decline in that statistic is what I would like our nation to effect. If more or fewer guns in distribution be one way to do that, fine. If something else contributes to making that happen, fine, do that too. I don't demand that there be just one way -- "the" way -- to make that objective come to fruition; I'm willing to support the implementation of each of the ways that incrementally contribute to accelerating the rate of decline in the U.S. murder rate. I don't understand at all how anyone can justifiably and with a clear conscience oppose any of the ways that may aid in doing so.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

I just told you that your average soldier is not issued a fully automatic rifle.

Fully auto guns are only practical with some sort of vehicle mount and they are used for wide spread suppression and cover fire not for accuracy

and a mass murderer does not care about accuracy

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, you admit that the control methods used to keep criminals from obtaining fully automatic weapons work?

Careful. If you admit to that, then you have to admit "Gun Control Works".

Fully auto weapons require a federal permit that is very expensive. No one who jumps through all those hoops is going to sell to a criminal.

So I suppose you want the same expensive federal permitting process for your average everyday semiauto .22 right?

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

Red:
I don't really demand an explanation for that. My value of human life is such that accelerating the rate of decline in that statistic is what I would like our nation to effect. If more or fewer guns in distribution be one way to do that, fine. If something else contributes to making that happen, fine, do that too. I don't demand that there be just one way -- "the" way -- to make that objective come to fruition; I'm willing to support the implementation of each of the ways that incrementally contribute to accelerating the rate of decline in the U.S. murder rate. I don't understand at all how anyone can justifiably and with a clear conscience oppose any of the ways that may aid in doing so.

What laws do I oppose?

I will never support gun bans but we already have thousands of laws on the books so tell me what law do you propose that will keep criminals from getting and using guns illegally that will not prevent me from getting and using guns legally?

My solution is to make all gun crimes federal crimes with mandatory minimum 25 year sentences

 

[Skull Pilot]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

I just told you that your average soldier is not issued a fully automatic rifle.

Fully auto guns are only practical with some sort of vehicle mount and they are used for wide spread suppression and cover fire not for accuracy

and a mass murderer does not care about accuracy

When half the rounds hit the ceiling you ain't going to be killing too many people

 

[Hiryuu]

Red:
I don't really demand an explanation for that. My value of human life is such that accelerating the rate of decline in that statistic is what I would like our nation to effect. If more or fewer guns in distribution be one way to do that, fine. If something else contributes to making that happen, fine, do that too. I don't demand that there be just one way -- "the" way -- to make that objective come to fruition; I'm willing to support the implementation of each of the ways that incrementally contribute to accelerating the rate of decline in the U.S. murder rate. I don't understand at all how anyone can justifiably and with a clear conscience oppose any of the ways that may aid in doing so.

A great number of people suffer from complications and death as the result of obesity, smoking, skydiving, alcohol, driving and a pant-load of less than safe recreational exploits. The key is that it doesn't matter what you find objectionable, or have a hard time understanding how anyone with a clear conscience can oppose your will. Personally, we are not beholding to you, and have the liberty to do things you may or may not agree with, imagine that.

 

[GaryDog]

It doesn't have to be as expensive as that. Australia has law-abiding gun owners enjoying hunting/target shooting/self-defense as we speak. But they managed to cut violent crime by 75% and END mass-shootings by making gun owners do a little more work:

-Mandatory 28-day waiting period for pistols or hunting rifles.
-Legitimate reason for owning a gun.
-Mandatory safe storage
-No automatic of semi-auto assault rifles


The proof is in the pudding. Australia has been inarguably safer since Port Arthur.

Before the gun bans in 1996 only about 7% of Australians owned guns. It was reduced to about 5% after the bans

And attributing the reduction on murders solely to the gun law changes is silly
Our murder rate is exactly what it was in 1950 and has been steadily declining so how do you explain that?

That's an assertion that is virtually impossible to defend:

Massive study of Australia's gun laws shows one thing: they work


Also, your facts seem to be wrong:

In 2003, the federal government also began buying back handguns - and since 1996, more than a million privately owned weapons have been surrendered or seized, before being melted down for metal. Overall, gun ownership hasdeclined by 75 percent in the country between 1988 and 2005.

And again, you are wrong...


Australia reloads as gun amnesties fail to cut arms



Australians own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.

A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.

Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.

Yea, you might wanna check the date on your article and compare it to mine.

You mean march of this year ...?

January of 2013, stupid. Mine's June of 2016.

 

[GaryDog]

Red:
I don't really demand an explanation for that. My value of human life is such that accelerating the rate of decline in that statistic is what I would like our nation to effect. If more or fewer guns in distribution be one way to do that, fine. If something else contributes to making that happen, fine, do that too. I don't demand that there be just one way -- "the" way -- to make that objective come to fruition; I'm willing to support the implementation of each of the ways that incrementally contribute to accelerating the rate of decline in the U.S. murder rate. I don't understand at all how anyone can justifiably and with a clear conscience oppose any of the ways that may aid in doing so.

A great number of people suffer from complications and death as the result of obesity, smoking, skydiving, alcohol, driving and a pant-load of less than safe recreational exploits. The key is that it doesn't matter what you find objectionable, or have a hard time understanding how anyone with a clear conscience can oppose your will. Personally, we are not beholding to you, and have the liberty to do things you may or may not agree with, imagine that.

People who eat too much, smoke, and go skydiving largely damage only themselves. People who drink and drive are a threat, yes, and that's why we severely curtail people's rights by allowing police to stop anyone and do a sobriety test with reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and we also have legalized DUI checkpoints. Cars must be registered, insured, and penalties for DUI are 100x more stiff than they were even 30 years ago, and getting stiffer.

Yet somehow, your recreational activity with your firearm is sacred, and shouldn't be subject to any such regulations, even though it serves none of the societal benefits that cars do. That's utter nonsense.

 

[Hiryuu]

People who eat too much, smoke, and go skydiving largely damage only themselves. People who drink and drive are a threat, yes, and that's why we severely curtail people's rights by allowing police to stop anyone and do a sobriety test with reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and we also have legalized DUI checkpoints. Cars must be registered, insured, and penalties for DUI are 100x more stiff than they were even 30 years ago, and getting stiffer.

Yet somehow, your recreational activity with your firearm is sacred, and shouldn't be subject to any such regulations, even though it serves none of the societal benefits that cars do. That's utter nonsense.

Not all of my firearms are for recreation, nor are they for any societal benefit other than my defense. I personally don't really care for your nonsense, but endure it anyway. You cannot make an argument that my ownership of a firearm is causing anyone harm at the moment, so that eliminates my need to worry about your desires. My activities are subject to regulation, so you pretty much have nothing new to offer.

We (gun owners) aren't giving you any more wiggle room to intrude in our business, and don't much care whether or not you like it. But feel free to beat your head against a wall if it makes you feel safer and satisfied you are accomplishing something worthwhile.

 

[GaryDog]

People who eat too much, smoke, and go skydiving largely damage only themselves. People who drink and drive are a threat, yes, and that's why we severely curtail people's rights by allowing police to stop anyone and do a sobriety test with reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and we also have legalized DUI checkpoints. Cars must be registered, insured, and penalties for DUI are 100x more stiff than they were even 30 years ago, and getting stiffer.

Yet somehow, your recreational activity with your firearm is sacred, and shouldn't be subject to any such regulations, even though it serves none of the societal benefits that cars do. That's utter nonsense.

Not all of my firearms are for recreation, nor are they for any societal benefit other than my defense. I personally don't really care for your nonsense, but endure it anyway. You cannot make an argument that my ownership of a firearm is causing anyone harm at the moment, so that eliminates my need to worry about your desires. My activities are subject to regulation, so you pretty much have nothing new to offer.

We (gun owners) aren't giving you any more wiggle room to intrude in our business, and don't much care whether or not you like it. But feel free to beat your head against a wall if it makes you feel safer and satisfied you are accomplishing something worthwhile.

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc. As a consequence, we regulate cars heavily, and severely curtail when and how and who can use them.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun. Yet the restrictions are minimal thanks purely to a special interest group posing undue influence on our representatives. That's not democracy, that's corportocracy. Gun manufacturers should not dictate policy.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

 

[Hiryuu]

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

I am civil and don't pose a threat to anyone as long as they don't pose a threat to me. We, as a society, includes everyone, and there are quite a few people who disagree with your stance, so live with it. I am not interested in banning the use of cars any more than I am interested in banning firearms, so I really don't care what your opinions are in that matter.

Then we get to the meat of the argument. Unfortunately you fail to understand that we are not required to agree with your stance on firearms and their role in civil society. The Constitution protects our right to disagree with your opinion, and that's pretty much why they put it there. Whether or not you think it is nonsense, is nonsense, because you don't get to make those decisions. You simply aren't that important, so live with it, or cry yourself to sleep at night if it makes you feel any better.

 

[GaryDog]

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

I am civil and don't pose a threat to anyone as long as they don't pose a threat to me. We, as a society, includes everyone, and there are quite a few people who disagree with your stance, so live with it. I am not interested in banning the use of cars any more than I am interested in banning firearms, so I really don't care what your opinions are in that matter.

Then we get to the meat of the argument. Unfortunately you fail to understand that we are not required to agree with your stance on firearms and their role in civil society. The Constitution protects our right to disagree with you opinion, and that's pretty much why they put it there. Whether or not you think it is nonsense, is nonsense, because you don't get to make those decisions. You simply aren't that important, so live with it, or cry yourself to sleep at night if it makes you feel any better.

No one cares if you consider yourself "civil." No one claims we should ban guns or cars. Do you just not bother to read people's posts? That makes this process difficult.

Cars are regulated heavily. Guns should be, too. That's my point. Nothing would stop you from sleeping with your "precious" at night if you want to. And I'm not here issuing edicts, I'm here exchanging ideas just like you. XXXX -- Mod Edit -- Flame Removal. GaryDog

 

[2aguy]

People who eat too much, smoke, and go skydiving largely damage only themselves. People who drink and drive are a threat, yes, and that's why we severely curtail people's rights by allowing police to stop anyone and do a sobriety test with reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and we also have legalized DUI checkpoints. Cars must be registered, insured, and penalties for DUI are 100x more stiff than they were even 30 years ago, and getting stiffer.

Yet somehow, your recreational activity with your firearm is sacred, and shouldn't be subject to any such regulations, even though it serves none of the societal benefits that cars do. That's utter nonsense.

Not all of my firearms are for recreation, nor are they for any societal benefit other than my defense. I personally don't really care for your nonsense, but endure it anyway. You cannot make an argument that my ownership of a firearm is causing anyone harm at the moment, so that eliminates my need to worry about your desires. My activities are subject to regulation, so you pretty much have nothing new to offer.

We (gun owners) aren't giving you any more wiggle room to intrude in our business, and don't much care whether or not you like it. But feel free to beat your head against a wall if it makes you feel safer and satisfied you are accomplishing something worthwhile.

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc. As a consequence, we regulate cars heavily, and severely curtail when and how and who can use them.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun. Yet the restrictions are minimal thanks purely to a special interest group posing undue influence on our representatives. That's not democracy, that's corportocracy. Gun manufacturers should not dictate policy.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

Suicides don't count.....Japan, South Korea, China only allow criminals and cops to have guns and their suicide rates are higher than ours....

We have 357,000,000 guns and 586 accidental gun accidents in 2015

8,124 gun murders in 2014

1,500,000 self defense uses of guns

The numbers don't support you......

Cars....33,000 killed about 2 million injured....by your on standard cars should be banned.

 

[2aguy]

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

I am civil and don't pose a threat to anyone as long as they don't pose a threat to me. We, as a society, includes everyone, and there are quite a few people who disagree with your stance, so live with it. I am not interested in banning the use of cars any more than I am interested in banning firearms, so I really don't care what your opinions are in that matter.

Then we get to the meat of the argument. Unfortunately you fail to understand that we are not required to agree with your stance on firearms and their role in civil society. The Constitution protects our right to disagree with you opinion, and that's pretty much why they put it there. Whether or not you think it is nonsense, is nonsense, because you don't get to make those decisions. You simply aren't that important, so live with it, or cry yourself to sleep at night if it makes you feel any better.

No one cares if you consider yourself "civil." No one claims we should ban guns or cars. Do you just not bother to read people's posts? That makes this process difficult.

Cars are regulated heavily. Guns should be, too. That's my point. Nothing would stop you from sleeping with your "precious" at night if you want to. And I'm not here issuing edicts, I'm here exchanging ideas just like you. Not sure why you switched to crybaby mode.

Guns are highly regulated.....you guys want to regulate them to the point only criminals, cops and the rich get to own them.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Guns are highly regulated.....you guys want to regulate them to the point only criminals, cops and the rich get to own them.

XXXX Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

XXXX Mod Edit -- removed flame. Wilbur Right

 

[Skull Pilot]

Guns are highly regulated.....you guys want to regulate them to the point only criminals, cops and the rich get to own them.

Bullshit. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

You full of shit.

Yes hold law abiding people responsible for the acts of criminals

Anyone who wants to murder someone can so I guess we'll hold you responsible for that

 

[Hiryuu]

Bullshit. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

You full of shit.

Who do you think should be allowed to own a firearm in America?
Do you think private citizens in America should be allowed to own firearms?

If so, what type of firearms do you think they should be allowed to own?

 

[2aguy]

Guns are highly regulated.....you guys want to regulate them to the point only criminals, cops and the rich get to own them.

Bullshit. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

You full of shit.

Yep....and the same thing happens in Europe, Australia and Japan......

 

[GaryDog]

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

I am civil and don't pose a threat to anyone as long as they don't pose a threat to me. We, as a society, includes everyone, and there are quite a few people who disagree with your stance, so live with it. I am not interested in banning the use of cars any more than I am interested in banning firearms, so I really don't care what your opinions are in that matter.

Then we get to the meat of the argument. Unfortunately you fail to understand that we are not required to agree with your stance on firearms and their role in civil society. The Constitution protects our right to disagree with you opinion, and that's pretty much why they put it there. Whether or not you think it is nonsense, is nonsense, because you don't get to make those decisions. You simply aren't that important, so live with it, or cry yourself to sleep at night if it makes you feel any better.

No one cares if you consider yourself "civil." No one claims we should ban guns or cars. Do you just not bother to read people's posts? That makes this process difficult.

Cars are regulated heavily. Guns should be, too. That's my point. Nothing would stop you from sleeping with your "precious" at night if you want to. And I'm not here issuing edicts, I'm here exchanging ideas just like you. Not sure why you switched to crybaby mode.

Guns are highly regulated.....you guys want to regulate them to the point only criminals, cops and the rich get to own them.

GaryDog XXXX -Mod Edit -- Personal Attck removed. Universal background checks and registration are not expensive. Come on.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

oh for God's sakes you two, if fully automatic weapons weren't more efficient tools to use to kill people, miltarys the world over would not use fully automatic weapons.

I just told you that your average soldier is not issued a fully automatic rifle.

Fully auto guns are only practical with some sort of vehicle mount and they are used for wide spread suppression and cover fire not for accuracy

and a mass murderer does not care about accuracy

When half the rounds hit the ceiling you ain't going to be killing too many people

Then riddle me this .

Why do Navy Seals and other spec op units equip their men with fully automatic M4s? D'oh.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Guns are highly regulated.....you guys want to regulate them to the point only criminals, cops and the rich get to own them.

Bullshit. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

You full of shit.

yep, same can be said for class 1 narcotics, which are ILLEGAL.How did that ban work out for you?