Eegore wrote on 04/30/18 at 10:31:07:

"... There's nothing about bringing up banning vans that's productive, or if there is it hasn't been brought up in this post. ..."

I guess that some just Missed the 'Point',
      (In the Very First Post)
That Banning a  Van used by a Crazy, who KILLED  people.
Is Just as effective as a, Banning a Gun used by a  Crazy, who KILLED People.
 
"... It is, JUST, as  Ridiculous, as,  
           BANNING, a type of firearm,
            and capacity of clips/magazines..."

Makes equal sense?
Or, equal stupidity?

I'm not saying the analogy is stupid,
It's accurate, to me.
It's that no matter how ridiculous the gun control idea can be shown to be, they don't yield. They refuse to admit
They have been Wrong
And rather than admit it and change
They double down.

Eegore wrote on 05/01/18 at 08:43:36:

   I feel like both sides do that.    

         So then, WHO, Compromises ?
Say their are two sides.  Pro/Anti - Gun

Should the ‘Anti’, compromise, and allow, people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, (when necessary). ?
Should the ‘Pro’, compromise and allow a ban on a certain kind of firearm?

           (their are a lot more ideas on the table, this is a ‘sample’)

         Or perhaps, NO  one compromises !

That would be,  just,  ENFORCING, the Laws already ON THE BOOKS.
Like  Prosecuting, More than,   0.04%  of the people that  LIE  on the 4473.
And, the  REPORTING, Violent Crimes,  for a  ‘Background Check’,  
“…The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands…”

 Both those are, ‘Compromises’,  the Pro people, HAVE  done, in the past.
And because, they are NOT  DONE, Have NOT BEEN Done, Have been IGNORED, by a POTUS for the last 8 years.

                       Their is to be, MORE,  Comprise !

Banning a gun, to ‘Fix’, a school/etc shooting.
Is the SAME THING, as rebuilding the Carb on your S-40,
              (When you have a, ‘Wobble’)
and saying:  ‘Yep that will work”

Eegore wrote on 05/01/18 at 09:35:16:

 I think both need to compromise.  The first step is to stop having endless debates about the 2nd Amendment or firearm types and allow for actual studies to be done and audited.    These would include how to streamline the reporting process to law enforcement, and not have more debate about what might happen to our rights.  Just see what works, then look into the constitutionality and such.  

  “… allow for actual studies to be done …”
And one study is, ‘Pro’, and another is, ‘Anti’.
  And the discussion continues.

“… how to streamline the reporting process to law enforcement…”
And one study is, ‘Pro’, and another is, ‘Anti’.
  And the discussion continues.

“…look into the constitutionality…”
And one study is, ‘Pro’, and another is, ‘Anti’.
  And the discussion continues.

Pushing a piece of paper from one side of the desk, to the other,
          is NOT  going to, "Get ‘er Done”

 If we don't conduct study, that's audited, then how will we use any actual data to create a method?

 Do we just imagine up numbers and then guess our way to something that works?  That's like Suzuki designing a bike and never starting it up or putting it to any road tests before distribution.

 The numbers are too high to get the entire US population to come to agreement, however those who will create actual legislature can have data, or the screams of people marching down a sidewalk.  Which one will most likely end up as law?

FormerlyLostArtist wrote on 05/01/18 at 13:38:52:

 "how about the Pro gun side compromise and try to encourage the "people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, "  as more of a NORM than the exception.  This includes those in the business of selling guns, doesn't need any government regulation, good guys with guns shouldn't have a problem with that and I'm glad to see that you agree that the background check system needs fixing. I'm 100% fine with doing that and seeing how that works. and the reason they are ignored by the POTUS is that those are STATE issues, those things are done at a LOCAL level, so to have a POTUS speak about those things, could you imagine the shouts of TYRANNY coming from libertarians and conservatives about big government overreach?

"how about the Pro gun side compromise and try to encourage the "people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, “  as more of a NORM than the exception…”
WHAT  in the  HE LL, are you talking about ?
That, “… to encourage the “people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns…”.
Is, NOT  WANTED, by the  ANTI  Gun side !!!!!!!!!
Are you NOT, paying attention ?
 or just,  ‘Parroting’  again ?

“…and I’m glad to see that you agree that the background check system needs fixing. I’m 100% fine with doing that and seeing how that works…”
Does not need, ‘fixing’, it need to be  DONE !
(Unless you call, NOT Doing Something, then Doing it, ‘fixing’)

“…and the reason they are ignored by the POTUS is that…”
 Could it be, that the, (then),  POTUS, After Sandy Hook, even did LESS !!!!!!!
        (Never waste a good Tragedy to make your point)

“…  those are STATE issues, those things are done at a LOCAL level, so to have a POTUS speak about those things, could you imagine the shouts of TYRANNY coming from libertarians and conservatives about big government overreach?”

Wait, that is what you said the NRA  Said. And you said it was  BAD !
So, The NRA  is BAD  for saying that, yet now, suddenly, it is, ‘Good’ ?????????

                 Cheese and Rice.

Do, two simple things,
Which were HUGE,  Compromises
Which were NOT   Done !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like the, Anti's Said they would be.

Before, one starts PAYING,
someone to push a piece of paper back and forth on a desk.