It all starts with leadership. The DNC doesn't have any!

Look at the results, Republicans won. We can only be as strong as our weakest link, those links are not voting.

Don't care about the issues at hand then do they? Folks that are worried about their gun rights, tend to vote, so why not try to get them to vote for us? Their was a time, where there were lots of pro gun dems in office, and we had a majority. Why not get that back?

In rural areas pushing for gun control is political death, so why not take that "political poison" off the table?

...are not going to be very motivated to go to the polls when a politician promises to make gun ownership tougher and more expensive. They simply don't go out in large numbers to attack a constitutional right that they don't exercise and don't care about.

The right wingers will... look at abortion and gay rights and what happened in Houston last Tuesday.

The affected ones, however, will. Gun owners job the NRA and other organizations. They call congress, and they vote.

I doubt it.

I've got no numbers to back this up, but I think the idea is that you run as a gun control candidate and voters go "that's nice and good" and will vote mostly on the basis if they regularly vote or not. You come out as a gun confiscation candidate and you'll find hordes of new voters crawling not only out of the hills, but recently dug graves to vote against you.

I like to think that it's due to progressive voters think with their heads and conservative voters think with their genitals or guts per Bush the Stupid.

Her comments about the "Australian solution" being something that needs too be looked at, Is gun confiscation.

The Australian solution was mandatory gun buybacks... that is confiscation.

was a "buy back" only because the Australian Constitution requires compensation for confiscated property, like our fifth amendment. The very fact that it was a "sell it to us or else" makes it confiscation.

senseless gun violence.

You immediately reduce everything to a "thing" oriented problem.

Are you interestd in reducing in reducing the causes of all violence? I don't know.
Are you interested in reducing mass murders in schools & theaters? I don't know, esp. since that is almost AlWAYS what sparks debate in GD.
Are you interested in reducing "gun violence" within the inner cities, the locus of a hugely disproportionate murder rate? I don't know (see above).
Are you interested in a broad, progressive approach to improving conditions with our cities? I don't know.

Gun control has become an end in itself, quite apart from any wide-ranging policy approaches to poverty, organized crime, education and bleak economic outlooks.
Perhaps this is so because Democrats in DU and elsewhere are finally realizing how far the Party has collapsed as a vehicle to effect change, let alone win elections. So we lash out at the proxy enemy of gun-owners.

Chicago, stop an abusive spouse or mate from killing their mate, interested in stopping road rage gun violence, there are more deaths from gun violence in the US than Americans killed in Iraq, why, we are supposed to live in a civilized nation, we need to step up to the plate.

I have ask for proposals several times and I have yet to get an answer, why? I am a gun owner, was taught as a young childe about gun safety, this a big part of what is forgotten. Some people are not capable of having possession of a gun, it is happening, even where a person gets someone else to go and purchase a weapon, we have the resellers, go out and purchase weapons and sell them in the streets, it needs to stop. Get rid of the short turn around of back ground checks, wait until the process is complete, stop the gun show sales without proper back ground checks. My family are big hunters, I don't hunt anymore but I still love game. They pride themselves in one shot, if they went home and bragged about shooting more than one time they would be the laugh of the family.

Can't we be sensible for a change, the other way is not preventing gun violence in shopping centers, schools, churches, theaters, we are better than this.

Well, if one side of this debate were interested in prioritizing, it would immediately stop doing what its doing and has been doing for 20+ years, and focus on suicide prevention by other means than gun control.

That's where 2/3 of gun deaths occur.

Unfortunately, the side of this debate that I refer to, would rather pick a fight with people it hates (and who vastly outnumber them), than actually get something done.

I did say "if"...

Again, those who commit suicide find other ways than guns. Let's be honest here, you and I know the gun violence happening in Chicago and other cities is because they are people who are not capable of proper use of guns. The mass shootings has guns in the possession of people incapable of owning guns. This is the part we can get under control. As a gun owner who wants to continue to possess my gun, I dont want those incapable of having possessing guns to ruin the whole barrel of apples. We can get this accomplished and this can be a non issue.

about double the use of guns. The 21K suicides are by gun, add about another 18-20K and you have the total number of suicides.

The gun violence in places like Chicago and Detroit are gangs killing each other, they are not average gun owners going off the deep end. Gangs have no problem getting guns even in Australia where they make their own machine guns. The difference is, many of these countries don't have our failed urban policies like zoning ordinances that discourage walkable neighborhoods and create food and job deserts. They also don't have schools with low literacy rates among the graduates. That is even before we get to the Tammany Hall style corruption, especially in Chicago where things haven't changed since Al Capone was the defacto mayor.

Mass shooters, or mass murderers be they with a gun, sword, homemade flamethrower fit the same profile as suicide bombers.

Push for sensible gun laws to get this accomplished. We are better than what is happening, we don't need to continue the events like Sandy Hook and Charleston. We see the profile of young men who are committing these crimes. I am hoping there can be a unified gathering of minds to get this accomplished.

the prohibitionist movement doesn't care, they want complete confiscation, they just have been less honest about it over the past forty years. It wouldn't matter if Roof used a petrol bomb or is Lanza used a black market gun stolen from a police department in a different state like the Port Authur shooter did. Roof used illegal drugs, he was caught with cocaine among other things. Doesn't matter where you are in the world, if you can get a bag of pot or some cocaine, you can get a gun. Even in Japan, and especially in Europe. Just ask Charlie Hebdo and the Kosher Deli. Yeah, you can get a silencer in a French gun store just as easy we can buy a box of shells, but not machine guns.

Every Australian state had a licensing system and half of them had registration. The killer's low IQ and history of violence would have prevented him from getting a license of any kind. Given my understanding of Tasmanian gun laws at the time, if he had a permit, he could have legally bought a semi or full auto.

Sydney went through a year and half period of over 100 drive by shootings. Fortunately, it is almost impossible to hit anything with a SMG, let alone one made in the basement without a rifled barrel in the hands of an untrained Hells Angels member.

Here is the thing about people like Roof, Lanza, or the guy that sprayed SMG rounds into a Stockholm pub, these things are planned out in detail in advance. Lack of weapon A will adjust to weapon B. Or, like the guy in Norway, use bombs and gun. The best thing to do is prevent their creation. No I don't mean mental health registries and video games like La Piere. It isn't a mental health issue. Roof was a creation of an abusive and racist parent. Abusers grow up to be abusers. The guy in Oregon, like Lanza, had no relationship with his father. Maybe there was a good reason for it. Maybe the mother was abusive. No additional gun law will fix the problem.

Health care for those who need it?

the mentally ill are actually the least violent among us. We do need mental health screening, but I don't believe stricter background checks will work for two reasons.
if nothing is in the background that shows you are a prohibited person, you pass.
Two, criminals don't go to gun stores or gun shows. That was well known even before NICS.
I think the current moderate controls is the best possible. If bans worked, Brazil, Russia, Costa Rica would not be what they are. Venezuela had door to door confiscations, and they still have the second highest murder rate.

Sensible is a weasel term, it doesn't have any meaning. I think parts of current law is sensible, parts are not. Putting a SBR like an M6 Scout in the same category as a machine gun or mortar is not sensible. That is absurd as putting pot in schedule one with heroin. I'm for amending the current five or six federal gun control laws to be sensible, but not adding new ones. I'm for fixing flaws in NICS without infringing on anyone's rights like the VA adding names to the no buy list with no due process as outlined in the Gun Control Act.

Having the law is one thing. Working as advertised is entirely different. Once the "sensible" gun laws don't work as advertised, the prohibitionists will lie about unregulated guns and demand more. When the complete ban happens and nothing happens at best, or get worse, they will be "good thing we banned guns or it would have been worse." Like I said, it is a culture war, has nothing to do with saving lives.