They are reacting on a pure emotional level, and they have turned to faith-based solutions.

California has some of the strictest gun control in the nation, turned out to be useless. So they are doubling down with the faith based solutions.

than you use the state gun law meme

Take over the congress and senate... By running on a pro gun control platform..

Wait, there's that pesky problem of "weak" gun control support in the real world.

Bush is universally despised but when it comes to guns the policies of his reign- Secret lists, warrantless searches, extra-legal detention, restriction of free speech and other civil rights violations- suddenly are palatable and reasonable.

I have to stand with Mr Franklin on this one, security and freedom are not mutually exclusive.

gun control legislation does not require:

Secret lists,
warrantless searches,
extra-legal detention,
restriction of free speech
other civil rights violations

other than that you make an excellent point.

And every one of those proposed and supported in GD. I neither said nor believe they're necessary for gun control seems like a Large percentage would be willing to accept them in the effort to achieve gun control

Just one example, you cannot you have not seen all the support the secret terror watcch list has been receiving lately.

And Bernie want to use those secret Bush lists, sickening

Remove the gun and there is no shooting

I think reasonable people understand this

Who are strongly pro-control admit removing guns is impossible both legally and logistically. Simple logic shows they are correct.

If simple GC measures cannot pass how in the name of Dog are the most extreme control measures going to be put into law?

If that could somehow happen, there is the small issue of collecting guns. A 99% success rate would still leave 3 million guns available, every one of them in the hands of a criminal.

However if someone suggests reducing poverty, better education opportunities, increasing employment, fighting racism or improving healthcare- attacking many of the forces that increase crime and violence (and traditional pillars of Democrats)- they are accused of deflecting.

In my view it all comes down to what is the real goal? Is it reducing crime and violence or is it only about guns? The overlap is a small subset of the former.

...it is a forum for people to rationalize reasons for exonerating the one constant, THE GUN.

Meanwhile some of these same many defenders of the status-quo of brain splattered America, call for more guns as the magic-wand to create a more polite society.

If the gun can't cause violence. It can't cure violence.

What is the magic reserve number of slaughtered Americans that must be reached before reason rules over rounds.

the problem is not that gun control is ineffectual, it is that we do not have the political will to enact gun control.

20 years now and even with Billionaire Bloomberg and friends $$$ backing it now, there is still no grass roots movement or infrastructure pushing gun control. Online whining about it doesn't really count as a "movement".

No self reflection about what they might do better, just a weak ass reflex to always blame the Evil NRA boogeyman for "buying the House and the Senate" because they can't get shit done. At the same time they keep claiming 90%/a majority of Americans agree with them.

Not even a movement with petitions to try and repeal concealed carry in a single state.

Just a truckload of excuses and blame to pass around. That's just another less polite way to say "no political will".

Lazy and/or ineffectual? Maybe both?

Good thing violent crime keeps falling, huh?

before you say Australia, the Port Authur killer didn't get his guns legally and one of them was stolen from a police armory. Tasmania, like every other Australian state, had a licensing system. There were two or three mass shootings before then. There has been one mass shooting since, plus several mass murder by arson.
Oh,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drive-by-shooting-up-by-41-per-cent/story-e6frg6nf-1226329985537

There is no evidence the National Firearms Agreement worked as advertised. Mexico's gun laws are stricter than UK's, and Venezuela has a complete ban, but has the second highest murder rate in the world. When you adjust for population, eight European countries have more mass shootings than we do.

Now do your gunzplain

why not Australia. GB had one event and had strict gun control laws before. There is zero evidence that confiscating handguns had any effect. Same with Canada. Research mass murders in these places.
Your logical fallacy would be post hoc ergo propter hoc, except the information you have is false.

Only one caveat, they must pass muster under the Current Constitution and SC rulings.

<Terrorists attack using guns and explosives, and have an 'bomb factory' where they were living>

"We need gun control" followed by a hundred lovely suggestions to screw the average gun owner while preventing future terrorist events and the like, not at all.

Do they think of themselves as invisible, or the entire world as blind?

...Three Days of the Condor: "You people think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth."

It's an attitude among elitists.