>>>>>So in respect to crimes committed with guns the issue is not guns but poverty. To focus on guns only is actually doing the real problem a disservice. It is easy to focus on guns, it is a great political soapbox, a vote garner, but detracts from the far more complex and costly to solve root problem. It looks like we are doing something, looks like we are doing the right thing but we are potentially doing more harm to society by not paying attention to and addressing the root cause of the crime - poverty.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't this also true for pro-gunners who claim they need the gun for their own safety?
>>>
>>>Once society guarantees (and demonstrates that the guarantee is iron-clad) our protection from criminals, then we won't find a need to defend ourselves.
>>>
>>>Until then, there is absolutely no justification for taking away a person's ability to defend himself, his family, and his property. None.
>>
>>Which brings us back to this ..... how is background checks and registrations going to take away a law abiding persons ability to defend himself, his family, or whatever again?
>
>Look at NY. They have already passed confiscation laws for scary looking guns and parts. They require registration of your weapons. It is only a matter of time before they legislate your right to defend yourself completely away.

So in other words I'm right - nothing about background checks and registrations will keep one defend himself, his family, and his property....buuut since you're driven by the paranoid expectation that the government is itching to confiscate all of your guns - screw it.
Really dude? Wasn't it YOU just the other day that was jumping up and down calling ME pro-criminal / anti-government?

>FWIW, I purchased a pistol as a Christmas present last year and had to do the background check. Important information - Am I Puerto Rican (checkbox). This is a check designed by a committee more used to fighting over the appetizer for lunch.

If you would of bought it off the internet or at a gun show or from a friend or from a relative, etc etc etc then that wouldn't be true though..would it?