More ideally something both sides walk away feeling they got the better side of the deal. Keeping in guns only one might trade a federal magazine-capacity limit for easing access to concealed carry permits in those states that make it a nightmare. In a guns for cash sense, I might trade a 10-rnd cap for de-funding PBS and the NEA. It is really just about ensuring that the concession actually offers both sides a victory and leave them feeling they got the better deal or at least didn't get ripped off too badly.

Responsible drivers wreck cars all the time, also 'we see stories' is an absolutely unacceptable argument to use with me. We're not talking about the ethics of this, you won't sway me nor I you, your faction wants something we consider very important, you can try to take it by force without exchange, or you can try to find a coin to buy it with.

You ask that mere months after that hack-rag of a newspaper released the names and addresses of citizens with concealed carry?

Kind of ducking the issue, I'm not really interested in why you think guns should be restricted. As to that case though, I don't know the specific, I would point out that if a store lost 600 TVs in one year it would be none of anyone's business except the owner of the store, unless he was claiming theft. To you a gun is an evil thing, one being lost is a big deal, to me it is no more of a concern then if they'd lost a bunch of toasters or blenders.

I don't consider the sell of a gun to imply any more moral responsibility then the sale of a can of gasoline, which is to say if a gas station sells some to an arsonist they're only morally at fault if the guy is sitting there raving about his intent to torch down a building. The real fact of the matter is that we shouldn't be banning guns to anyone who isn't a minor, or under some specific provision preventing them from being in an asylum or prison, like parole or a halfway house. Tracking gun sales makes as much sense to me as tracking alcohol sales only worse in that guns are a core right, one of the basic two of personal rights in the amendments in that number one describes your freedoms and number two describe how you are allowed to defend them.

If this guy broke any laws - and by the way, a citation is generally appropriate when you're getting specific like this - then he should be punished. If there is reasonable evidence he broke laws he should be investigated, who is this guy and what law did he break? On top of that, what moral boundary did he cross? The law is the law and should be enforced but just as I don't get worked up over pot smokers I'm not going to condemn someone as a monster without details. For all I know the dealer may have sold many thousands of guns and five or six people may have committed all those hundreds of crime he is apparently linked to. Facts, I deal in hard facts not vague and unspecific references.

But again this all goes wide of my post, you aren't going to sway me, I find your arguments unconvincing, so I return to the notion that the left demands a 'compromise' on guns and offers nothing in return. It is simply demands with nothing given in exchange.