Did you notice where this happened? Chicago has far more strict gun laws than you have said you support for the federal level. They have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Illinois is the only state in the nation that completely bans concealed carry and also mostly bans open carry.

To purchase any gun (including hunting guns like shotguns and rifles) or any ammunition you have to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card which are issued directly by the police department after an extensive background check that takes 30 days. Then when you purchase a firearm the seller is required to call the police department to verify that the FOID card is authentic and then you have to wait for 24 hours to take possession of a rifle or shotgun or 72 hours for a handgun. (In fact, until recently it was illegal to even drive through the state as a non-resident with a gun cased in your trunk without a FOID, that law was voided in People vs. Holmes (2011) by the Supreme Court.) The FOID has to be renewed every 10 years. 

The city of Chicago takes it a step further and requires registration which includes another background check, fingerprinting, firearms safety course, permission from the police and $100 which then has to be renewed every 3 years to get a "Chicago Firearms Permit" (this is in addition to the state permit). All magazines larger than 12 rounds are illegal as well as everything that will be banned under any of the currently proposed federal "assault weapons" bans.  

Other laws that Illinois has include a requirement that all guns sold come with a trigger lock, gun owners can be found liable if a minor gets access to their gun and use it in a crime and even airguns larger than .18 caliber are regulated as firearms. 

Chicago is gun control advocates wet dream. It is virtually impossible to legally own a gun in Chicago, yet it has become one of the most violent and dangerous cities in our country. 

So exactly what law do you propose that would have prevented this tragedy? Because they already have laws far more restrictive than anything you have claimed to support on this site. In fact, you have said multiple times that you "do not want to ban all guns" while Chicago has effectively done so to the point that no sane legal gun owner is going to live in the city. 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-08/news/ct-met-gun-lawsuits-20120308_1_gun-rights-gun-control-gun-owners

As of March 2012, Chicago had only issued a little over 15,000 Chicago Firearms Permits, out of a population of 2.7 million. That means roughly 0.5% of people in Chicago have a legal firearm (compared to the national average where 30-40% of people own a legal firearm). I can't find any stats, but do you care to guess how many of those legal guns were used to commit crimes? My bet is near 0. Funny thing about criminals, when you make it hard for law abiding citizens to get guns, the criminals just buy them illegally. Chicago is a perfect example of how the idea of gun control is an absolute failure.  

So how do you solve that problem?

So what do you propose we do about it?

The gun business profits from.... selling guns. Wow, imagine that. You profit from clogging peoples arteries, murderer. 

Actually the statistics indicate that gun nuts like me tend to be people who have relatively high and stable incomes. Guns are not a cheap hobby. Economic stability does decrease crime though, so why are you so focused on the guns? Shouldn't we be more focused on creating economic prosperity?

Ok, so how do you prevent that? I thought you were not for outlawing guns. 

I'm sorry I took you seriously. You think I would learn that reality and facts don't go far with you. Actually, I realize they don't but I think that by providing evidence of reality that some lurkers out there might bother getting educated on the subject before forming opinions.

I will ask you again, exactly what types of laws do you propose as solutions to the problems you say exist? Or are you just whining about a problem and have no serious ideas for a solution?

The babies mother is not a victim, she was involved with a guy she knew was a hardened gang member with a "long criminal history", she was shot in the knee as a result of this gang activity yet remained with him knowingly putting her baby at risk. At the very least she is guilty of negligence. If you know someone is involved with criminal gang activity, as a parent you should keep your children far away from them. The child is the victim here and the problem isn't guns, it is the gangs who probably make their money from drugs and have access to guns whether they are legal or illegal.

So gun manufacturers somehow are engineering our economic instability behind the scenes? Is there some shadow government that they are running with the intent of destroying the economy? Are gun manufactures in league with the Illuminati?

The baby's mother almost certainly had many illegal guns in her house. She is dating a guy who is deeply involved in gang activity. And given what little history we know, she is probably going to stay with him and they will continue having illegal guns and her boyfriend is probably going to go murder someone as soon as he gets out of the hospital.

I will ask you again, do you have any ideas for solutions?  

Economic instability tends to increase all crime and all suicide regardless of what tool is used. So again, why not focus on creating economic prosperity rather than focus on eliminating a particular tool? (Besides, you have claimed you do not support banning all guns, so exactly what do you support?)

I can guarantee that no one involved with gun manufactures voted for the people who have been in political power in Chicago for the last 80+ years. I doubt they were enthusiastic supporters of Obama or our Senate. You know why the economy in Chicago sucks? Because it is a progressives wet dream list of policies and the city is bankrupt. Your economic policies work as well as your gun control policies- not at all. 

So the unstable economy is the fault of "big business"? 

She isn't here. You are. If you can get her here, I will be happy to debate her and tell her exactly what kind of a douche she is leaving her child in the care of a known gang member. I am generally not in favor of government intervention, but in this case I would have a hard time complaining if child protective services took custody of any other children she has and threw her ass in jail for child endangerment; I will tell her that right to her face.

I don't run away from debates in case you have not noticed. Do you have anything substantive to provide, or are you stuck on emotional appeals with no rational thought behind them? Odd that you start a thread and have no interest in discussing the subject. Usually it is impossible to determine who "wins" an internet debate and it might be a bit vain to claim victory but my first response must have really pwned you since you apparently have no response except to tell me to debate someone who as far as we know has never been here. 

So how do you propose we prevent it? Do you have even a single idea? I have many ideas but I already hashed them out in detail. What is your idea? Wail like a baby about the problem and point fingers of blame all while doing nothing to alleviate it? 

for christ's sake, brian, cut the histrionics and answer his fucking question.  how should legislation be changed, particularly in the case of illinois?  everybody's waiting for your constructive ideas, you can quit screaming about "climate" now (which is apparently your new buzz word).

Yep, I am real sneaky asking you if you have any solutions. Is that an admission that you know all the empirical evidence suggests that your solutions will not work? 

Gun manufacturers have a monopoly on lobbying? Is someone preventing pro gun control groups from lobbying? 

If it doesn't work in Illinois, on what basis do you think it would work on a national level?

Start voting libertarian and that would solve a lot of those problems, but let us try to stick to the question of gun control and whether or not we should have it. 

So your solution is universal background checks (already part of the law), banning "assault weapons" (guns that account for less than 1% of all gun deaths), and banning large clips (still completely unclear how that makes any significant difference in crime). Your position is nowhere near extreme enough to make a difference. The most common guns used for crime are cheap guns which are not "assault weapons" under any current definition and tend to have standard magazine sizes. Why do you shy away from banning the weapons that are actually used in such crimes if you believe that banning is the solution? 

Nationally the violent crime rate has been steadily trending down even as the number of guns has been increasing and nationally, gun control laws have been loosening. Oops, I'm sorry, am I dealing with facts again? In Chicago the violent crime rate has been rising. It is quite obvious that Chicago has some problem that is not shared by the rest of the country.