When Assault Rifles get into the hands of people that want to harm police, and other people

[Anonymous]

When this was a smaller and more community based country, it was no problem to have guns around. People knew each other. People had more intact family structures. People basically policed each other. I will admit that most of the guns were for hunting and were not AR 15s. I grew up in that place.

Now it is a far more anonymous country. We don't know who is around us or where they came from or whether they have "anger" issues. Or whether they have a gun.

This makes us act in ways we never would have in the past.

We can make assault weapons less easily available (and certainly not available to those with mental illness). But we also need to do better in taking care of each other through our families and communities. It should never come to shooting at each other when we have problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you have been happier if the Dallas cops had been murdered by horse shit? By edged weapons?

Guns are not responsible for murder. Murderers are responsible for murder.

Are you listening to yourself?

How many Dallas police officers would be dead if the committed murderer had been armed with an edged weapon?

You're not making sense.

Right, Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers were completely frustrated in their efforts to carry out an attack that resulted in a large number of casualties.

OK, so let's restrict access to guns so we can stop evildoers with guns from committing many thousands of gun homicides every year. Then, when we've solved the obvious first problem, we can begin to work together to stop other evildoers from killing people with homemade bombs.

Just because restricting gun access won't stop 100% of murders doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
When this was a smaller and more community based country, it was no problem to have guns around. People knew each other. People had more intact family structures. People basically policed each other. I will admit that most of the guns were for hunting and were not AR 15s. I grew up in that place.

Now it is a far more anonymous country. We don't know who is around us or where they came from or whether they have "anger" issues. Or whether they have a gun.

This makes us act in ways we never would have in the past.

We can make assault weapons less easily available (and certainly not available to those with mental illness). But we also need to do better in taking care of each other through our families and communities. It should never come to shooting at each other when we have problems.

Excellent points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you have been happier if the Dallas cops had been murdered by horse shit? By edged weapons?

Guns are not responsible for murder. Murderers are responsible for murder.

Are you listening to yourself?

How many Dallas police officers would be dead if the committed murderer had been armed with an edged weapon?

You're not making sense.

Right, Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers were completely frustrated in their efforts to carry out an attack that resulted in a large number of casualties.

OK, so let's restrict access to guns so we can stop evildoers with guns from committing many thousands of gun homicides every year. Then, when we've solved the obvious first problem, we can begin to work together to stop other evildoers from killing people with homemade bombs.

Just because restricting gun access won't stop 100% of murders doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal.

You are confused. The argument is that guns are responsible for murders. Meaning without the guns, there will be no murders or mass murders. This is obviously a false statement. Your argument seems to be in agreement with me that indeed guns do not cause murders, and are only a tool to commit murders by murderers. Agreed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see what Dallas Police Chief thinks about gun control...

"In a dramatic moment, he urged legislators to do their jobs and propose new laws to combat gun violence.

"We're doing ours. We're putting our lives on the line," Brown said. "The other aspects of government need to step up and help us.""

He also addresses open carry laws.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/11/485559307/listen-on-guns-dallas-police-chief-tells-legislators-do-your-job

Select quotes:

"2. He also touched on the problem he sees with open-carry laws, which he said were increasingly challenging for law enforcement. "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting," he said."

So in his mind, only the bad guys should be shooting? He wants innocent people to be powerless to defend themselves against an active shooter because that makes it easier for the police to tell who the bad guys are? Really? Is this what you want, a police that guns only in the hands of criminals and murderers?

The less guns the better - good and bad guys. Let's get rid of them all.

This guy has a lot of experience with bad guys/violence and is trying to keep his community safe. I'll listen to him over some hobby gun nut.

No, there is no evidence that less guns = less bad guys/violence.

Take a look at actual data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun ownership rate has *NO* correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. Just because this guy has a lot of experience does not make him right. Donald Trump has a lot of experience running a business, does not make him a great business man.

You are deluded into thinking guns = safety. It's a shame you care much more about your right to a hobby than to the safety of your community.

I really don't understand why you wasted your time typing this when I very clearly said that gun ownership has no correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. In other words, guns don't cause any more or less murders and gun murders. No correlation. Got that? This is shown by actual data. This is not based on my warm and fuzzy feelings. My preference to own or not own a gun does not factor into this. This is real actual raw data for people to see, examine, and understand. Understand?

But then when you look globally there is a correlation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Did you look at the data you posted? The by country data clearly shows no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicides by guns per 100,000 rate, or the % of homicides by guns rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see what Dallas Police Chief thinks about gun control...

"In a dramatic moment, he urged legislators to do their jobs and propose new laws to combat gun violence.

"We're doing ours. We're putting our lives on the line," Brown said. "The other aspects of government need to step up and help us.""

He also addresses open carry laws.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/11/485559307/listen-on-guns-dallas-police-chief-tells-legislators-do-your-job

Select quotes:

"2. He also touched on the problem he sees with open-carry laws, which he said were increasingly challenging for law enforcement. "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting," he said."

So in his mind, only the bad guys should be shooting? He wants innocent people to be powerless to defend themselves against an active shooter because that makes it easier for the police to tell who the bad guys are? Really? Is this what you want, a police that guns only in the hands of criminals and murderers?

The less guns the better - good and bad guys. Let's get rid of them all.

This guy has a lot of experience with bad guys/violence and is trying to keep his community safe. I'll listen to him over some hobby gun nut.

No, there is no evidence that less guns = less bad guys/violence.

Take a look at actual data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun ownership rate has *NO* correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. Just because this guy has a lot of experience does not make him right. Donald Trump has a lot of experience running a business, does not make him a great business man.

You are deluded into thinking guns = safety. It's a shame you care much more about your right to a hobby than to the safety of your community.

I really don't understand why you wasted your time typing this when I very clearly said that gun ownership has no correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. In other words, guns don't cause any more or less murders and gun murders. No correlation. Got that? This is shown by actual data. This is not based on my warm and fuzzy feelings. My preference to own or not own a gun does not factor into this. This is real actual raw data for people to see, examine, and understand. Understand?

But then when you look globally there is a correlation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Did you look at the data you posted? The by country data clearly shows no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicides by guns per 100,000 rate, or the % of homicides by guns rate.

Sorry - should have said "in high-come countries" and you'd have to parse it out.

This is more readable:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see what Dallas Police Chief thinks about gun control...

"In a dramatic moment, he urged legislators to do their jobs and propose new laws to combat gun violence.

"We're doing ours. We're putting our lives on the line," Brown said. "The other aspects of government need to step up and help us.""

He also addresses open carry laws.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/11/485559307/listen-on-guns-dallas-police-chief-tells-legislators-do-your-job

Select quotes:

"2. He also touched on the problem he sees with open-carry laws, which he said were increasingly challenging for law enforcement. "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting," he said."

So in his mind, only the bad guys should be shooting? He wants innocent people to be powerless to defend themselves against an active shooter because that makes it easier for the police to tell who the bad guys are? Really? Is this what you want, a police that guns only in the hands of criminals and murderers?

The less guns the better - good and bad guys. Let's get rid of them all.

This guy has a lot of experience with bad guys/violence and is trying to keep his community safe. I'll listen to him over some hobby gun nut.

No, there is no evidence that less guns = less bad guys/violence.

Take a look at actual data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun ownership rate has *NO* correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. Just because this guy has a lot of experience does not make him right. Donald Trump has a lot of experience running a business, does not make him a great business man.

You are deluded into thinking guns = safety. It's a shame you care much more about your right to a hobby than to the safety of your community.

I really don't understand why you wasted your time typing this when I very clearly said that gun ownership has no correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. In other words, guns don't cause any more or less murders and gun murders. No correlation. Got that? This is shown by actual data. This is not based on my warm and fuzzy feelings. My preference to own or not own a gun does not factor into this. This is real actual raw data for people to see, examine, and understand. Understand?

But then when you look globally there is a correlation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Did you look at the data you posted? The by country data clearly shows no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicides by guns per 100,000 rate, or the % of homicides by guns rate.

Sorry - should have said "in high-come countries" and you'd have to parse it out.

This is more readable:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Aha!!!! So you are admitting that there are other factors? I thought the argument was that guns cause homicides because it makes them so easy to commit. If this was the case there should be a clear correlation between gun ownership and homicides. So you now agree that there are other factors that cause homicides and eliminating guns or reducing gun ownership rate may not result in less homicides?

[Anonymous]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/

"While federal gun laws are uniform across the country, state regulations vary, offering more lax or more strict approaches to firearm use. Seven of the 10 states with the most firearm deaths in 2013 have enacted stand your ground laws. In keeping with a state's culture, Roman explained, many states with these laws likely also have laws that make it easier to possess firearms and buy ammunition.
In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see what Dallas Police Chief thinks about gun control...

"In a dramatic moment, he urged legislators to do their jobs and propose new laws to combat gun violence.

"We're doing ours. We're putting our lives on the line," Brown said. "The other aspects of government need to step up and help us.""

He also addresses open carry laws.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/11/485559307/listen-on-guns-dallas-police-chief-tells-legislators-do-your-job

Select quotes:

"2. He also touched on the problem he sees with open-carry laws, which he said were increasingly challenging for law enforcement. "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting," he said."

So in his mind, only the bad guys should be shooting? He wants innocent people to be powerless to defend themselves against an active shooter because that makes it easier for the police to tell who the bad guys are? Really? Is this what you want, a police that guns only in the hands of criminals and murderers?

The less guns the better - good and bad guys. Let's get rid of them all.

This guy has a lot of experience with bad guys/violence and is trying to keep his community safe. I'll listen to him over some hobby gun nut.

No, there is no evidence that less guns = less bad guys/violence.

Take a look at actual data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun ownership rate has *NO* correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. Just because this guy has a lot of experience does not make him right. Donald Trump has a lot of experience running a business, does not make him a great business man.

You are deluded into thinking guns = safety. It's a shame you care much more about your right to a hobby than to the safety of your community.

I really don't understand why you wasted your time typing this when I very clearly said that gun ownership has no correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. In other words, guns don't cause any more or less murders and gun murders. No correlation. Got that? This is shown by actual data. This is not based on my warm and fuzzy feelings. My preference to own or not own a gun does not factor into this. This is real actual raw data for people to see, examine, and understand. Understand?

But then when you look globally there is a correlation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Did you look at the data you posted? The by country data clearly shows no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicides by guns per 100,000 rate, or the % of homicides by guns rate.

Sorry - should have said "in high-come countries" and you'd have to parse it out.

This is more readable:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Aha!!!! So you are admitting that there are other factors? I thought the argument was that guns cause homicides because it makes them so easy to commit. If this was the case there should be a clear correlation between gun ownership and homicides. So you now agree that there are other factors that cause homicides and eliminating guns or reducing gun ownership rate may not result in less homicides?

Huh? Did you read the links?

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. "

"the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths."

"In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."

More guns = more deaths

What else would you expect, they are designed to kill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see what Dallas Police Chief thinks about gun control...

"In a dramatic moment, he urged legislators to do their jobs and propose new laws to combat gun violence.

"We're doing ours. We're putting our lives on the line," Brown said. "The other aspects of government need to step up and help us.""

He also addresses open carry laws.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/11/485559307/listen-on-guns-dallas-police-chief-tells-legislators-do-your-job

Select quotes:

"2. He also touched on the problem he sees with open-carry laws, which he said were increasingly challenging for law enforcement. "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting," he said."

So in his mind, only the bad guys should be shooting? He wants innocent people to be powerless to defend themselves against an active shooter because that makes it easier for the police to tell who the bad guys are? Really? Is this what you want, a police that guns only in the hands of criminals and murderers?

The less guns the better - good and bad guys. Let's get rid of them all.

This guy has a lot of experience with bad guys/violence and is trying to keep his community safe. I'll listen to him over some hobby gun nut.

No, there is no evidence that less guns = less bad guys/violence.

Take a look at actual data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun ownership rate has *NO* correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. Just because this guy has a lot of experience does not make him right. Donald Trump has a lot of experience running a business, does not make him a great business man.

You are deluded into thinking guns = safety. It's a shame you care much more about your right to a hobby than to the safety of your community.

I really don't understand why you wasted your time typing this when I very clearly said that gun ownership has no correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. In other words, guns don't cause any more or less murders and gun murders. No correlation. Got that? This is shown by actual data. This is not based on my warm and fuzzy feelings. My preference to own or not own a gun does not factor into this. This is real actual raw data for people to see, examine, and understand. Understand?

But then when you look globally there is a correlation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Did you look at the data you posted? The by country data clearly shows no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicides by guns per 100,000 rate, or the % of homicides by guns rate.

Sorry - should have said "in high-come countries" and you'd have to parse it out.

This is more readable:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Aha!!!! So you are admitting that there are other factors? I thought the argument was that guns cause homicides because it makes them so easy to commit. If this was the case there should be a clear correlation between gun ownership and homicides. So you now agree that there are other factors that cause homicides and eliminating guns or reducing gun ownership rate may not result in less homicides?

Huh? Did you read the links?

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. "

"the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths."

"In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."

More guns = more deaths

What else would you expect, they are designed to kill.

There is no use talking to the intellectually closed. It takes intelligence and intellectual honesty to alter your position if you are proven wrong. Its just as well they are brainless zombies coz they cant see anything with objectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see what Dallas Police Chief thinks about gun control...

"In a dramatic moment, he urged legislators to do their jobs and propose new laws to combat gun violence.

"We're doing ours. We're putting our lives on the line," Brown said. "The other aspects of government need to step up and help us.""

He also addresses open carry laws.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/11/485559307/listen-on-guns-dallas-police-chief-tells-legislators-do-your-job

Select quotes:

"2. He also touched on the problem he sees with open-carry laws, which he said were increasingly challenging for law enforcement. "We don't know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everybody starts shooting," he said."

So in his mind, only the bad guys should be shooting? He wants innocent people to be powerless to defend themselves against an active shooter because that makes it easier for the police to tell who the bad guys are? Really? Is this what you want, a police that guns only in the hands of criminals and murderers?

The less guns the better - good and bad guys. Let's get rid of them all.

This guy has a lot of experience with bad guys/violence and is trying to keep his community safe. I'll listen to him over some hobby gun nut.

No, there is no evidence that less guns = less bad guys/violence.

Take a look at actual data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun ownership rate has *NO* correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. Just because this guy has a lot of experience does not make him right. Donald Trump has a lot of experience running a business, does not make him a great business man.

You are deluded into thinking guns = safety. It's a shame you care much more about your right to a hobby than to the safety of your community.

I really don't understand why you wasted your time typing this when I very clearly said that gun ownership has no correlation to overall rate of murders and gun murders. In other words, guns don't cause any more or less murders and gun murders. No correlation. Got that? This is shown by actual data. This is not based on my warm and fuzzy feelings. My preference to own or not own a gun does not factor into this. This is real actual raw data for people to see, examine, and understand. Understand?

But then when you look globally there is a correlation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Did you look at the data you posted? The by country data clearly shows no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicides by guns per 100,000 rate, or the % of homicides by guns rate.

Sorry - should have said "in high-come countries" and you'd have to parse it out.

This is more readable:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Aha!!!! So you are admitting that there are other factors? I thought the argument was that guns cause homicides because it makes them so easy to commit. If this was the case there should be a clear correlation between gun ownership and homicides. So you now agree that there are other factors that cause homicides and eliminating guns or reducing gun ownership rate may not result in less homicides?

Huh? Did you read the links?

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. "

"the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths."

"In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."

More guns = more deaths

What else would you expect, they are designed to kill.

More guns = more deaths

End of discussion?

[Anonymous]

Dallas mayor is on board for gun control too.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/todd-j-gillman/20130118-dallas-mayor-mike-rawlings-says-hes-all-in-on-president-barack-obamas-gun-control-agenda.ece

Mike Rawlings, mayor of Dallas and gun owner, is endorsing the president’s demand for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. He’s especially keen on universal background checks for gun buyers.

“We already say we can’t own Stinger rockets. So the question is where does the line go? And the line being at semi-automatics is the right place,” Rawlings said Friday over breakfast two blocks from the White House. “The proposals that the president has put on the table are solid, and I support them. … We’re going to have to throw everything against the wall.”

“Which side am I on in this thing? I’m on the side of universal background checks and minimizing these magazines. This is a common sense approach,” he said. “I’m most passionate about magazines. There’s no reason for a 30-round magazine. What the right number is, I don’t know.”

He added: “And I get this from all my friends that are gun owners. They say we don’t need that many” rounds in a magazine.

Texan gun owners pushing gun control. Now we're talking!

[Anonymous]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-dallas-shooting-gun-control-20160711-snap-story.html

"The Democratic-dominated California Legislature — unhindered by Republican pledges of allegiance to the gun lobby — has led the way nationally on guns, preserving 2nd Amendment rights while trying to control firepower and who gets to use it.

Something’s working. Nationally, gun deaths have remained roughly the same. But in California, they have dropped more than 20% since 2000, according to Garen J. Wintemute, a longtime UC Davis gun violence researcher."

[Anonymous]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-police-idUSKCN0SK2RR20151027

Police chiefs from across the United States called on Monday for universal background checks for firearms purchases, saying opinion polls consistently show that most Americans support such restrictions.

The proliferation of firearms is one of the factors behind a rise in homicide rates in many U.S. cities this year, according to senior law enforcement officials at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Chicago.

Acknowledging the power of the gun lobby and the reluctance of Congress to enact stricter gun laws, the police chiefs told a news conference they were not anti-gun but wanted to keep weapons out of the hands of people with criminal backgrounds.

Current rules on background checks apply to licensed dealers, but up to 40 percent of firearms sales involve private parties or gun shows and do not require checks, the chiefs said.

"This is a no-brainer, this is the simplest thing in the world," Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said. "It troubles me all the time."

Not just one police chief. The International Association of Chiefs of Police want more gun control.