posted
A lot of time people will say that even if guns were (mostly) outlawed, you could still always get them from the black market, if you wanted to kill someone.
I'm sure this is true for criminals - They have the means and connections to acquire an illegal gun.
But for people with no criminal connections, it would be much harder. And that would include most of these mass shooters - They are typically people with no notable criminal records, or criminal connections.
Most wannabe mass killers wouldn't have any idea where to find professional, illegal gun-dealers. Where do you start? Ask from random thugs on the bad part of the town? Trust their word? Follow them to a back alley with 1500 dollars in your wallet, to make a deal?
Most people have no idea how to deal with professional criminals. Especially when everyone knows that a lot of low-leverl criminals are very untrustworthy towards outsiders.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't have a clue how to get a black market gun today. Drugs, sure, in a heartbeat.
I assume that would change if the law did, but, I have no idea how. Guns aren't the same thing as drugs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I wouldn't have a clue how to get a black market gun today. Drugs, sure, in a heartbeat."
Classified ads, CraigsList, any gun show, any "right to arms" group, any survivalist group, any "militia" group, the "black helicopter" folks, etc. From the number of gun thefts reported, illegal gun dealing hasta be way up near the top of the blackmarket, cash-wise.
Don't know of any CocaineList or marijuana show.
Besides the point anyways. Of the 62 gun-use mass murders in the US (4-or-more deaths per incident) within the past 30years, over 80% of the weapons were traceable to legal sales to the shooter. Of the rest, a large fraction were legally sold to their family members.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Capax, people regularly lose the right to vote if you commit a crime, a right far more important than the right to bear arms. I don't find your argument convincing.
Also Capax didn't you support the exact same system for voting registration? Which has the exact same difficulties for people of limited means to acquire id to exercise a fundamental right and a universal human right?
I'm not sure what point you're making in the first paragraph but if you replace "argument" with "assessment" it would be much more accurate.
The two proposed ID laws aren't comparable. I was assessing the practicality of Stone_Wolf's proposal and my comment was made specifically, though not explicitly, with regard to the likelihood that the Supreme Court would uphold such a law. We're discussing pragmatic solutions to a perceived problem.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wouldn't have a clue how to get a black market gun today. Drugs, sure, in a heartbeat.
I assume that would change if the law did, but, I have no idea how. Guns aren't the same thing as drugs.
If you go to the people selling drugs, ask how, or if they know someone who would know, I'm willing to conject that I would have at least an okay chance of buying an illegal firearm.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold ...
I didn't think even you would stoop this low...my God man, what the hell?
What the hell what? What did It do, get to the heart of what's going on here?
God forbid Blayne and I discuss anything but what Samp deems important...so much so he must bludgeon us to silence with images of dead toddlers. I've come to grips that Hatrack has (more then?) its fair share of right fighters, but that is this is bullsh*t.
Thread drift is not disrespectful to the victims of this tragedy and implying so is utter crap.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what the heck are you even talking about. how dare we have images of dead toddlers who are real, and very much so dead, because they were murdered by a gun-wielding lunatic. how dare we address what actually happened.
also, thread drift isn't disrespectful to the victims of the tragedy (thanks for shoving words in my mouth broseph) but the derail to american military size is dumb and should be abandoned in favor of talking about guns again thanks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Samprimary, I shoulda gone back to read your original statement. Revise that to: Until we can revive the dead, trying to figure out how to prevent future killings is the only way to meaningfully honor the victims.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You don't get to decide what can and can not talk about,
Take your own advice, tiger. Read your own words and figure out that they say that you, likewise, don't get to decide that I can't comment on how I think a given derail is dumb and that I want people to abandon it and go back to things I think are more relevant.
quote:Sorry, Samprimary, I shoulda gone back to read your original statement. Revise that to: Until we can revive the dead, trying to figure out how to prevent future killings is the only way to meaningfully honor the victims.
posted
"So I think any preventative measure that relies primarily on prediction is seriously flawed. Strapping up all the school teachers takes advantage of the fact that, accurate predictions or not, most teachers aren't psychopaths."
Predictable argument after every mass murder. Better yet, arm the kindergardners.
The guns were owned by the psychopath's mother, who was a teacher at the school; the fact that the gatekeeper recognised the him as the son of a teacher also being why the shooter was buzzed thru the school's locked doors without a second's thought.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The guns were owned by the psychopath's mother, who was a teacher at the school; the fact that the gatekeeper recognised the him as the son of a teacher also being why the shooter was buzzed thru the school's locked doors without a second's thought.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... no amount of gun control legislation--even well enforced--will stop these tragedies from happening.
Well, let's examine this. Of course zero is difficult, you can just look at the world list of homicides by firearms and the countries with a zero in the "Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop" column. There aren't many places at zero, places like Hong Kong and Iceland have reached it but this is of course difficult But you can also see many places like Japan, many places in Europe, and Canada which top out at 0.5 gun homicides per year per 100,000.
The thing to realize is that there is a big gap between these countries and the US at 2.97/100,000. In other words, the thing to do is not to raise your hands and give up saying that the current state of affairs is inevitable, but to realize that the current state of things is a policy choice. For whatever reason, whether the constitution, resistance to a tyrannical government, whatever, Americans have chosen to live with a system that produces more firearm deaths than places like the Gaza+West Bank (2.95), Sierra Leone (2.28), or the Congo (1.56).
Zero? Reasonable people can agree that this is difficult. Lower than pretty disreputable developing countries and near-war zones? Should be reasonable for a country which "[chose] to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be ideal if all schools had a small police station like many (community) colleges, but logistics y'know?
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:A federal law enforcement official said the three guns recovered at the school — Glock and Sig Sauer pistols and an M4 .223-caliber Carbine — were bought legally by the gunman’s mother and registered in her name.
posted
anybody who is standing firm on the idea that it is unrealistic to regulate firearms at least as institutionally well and complete as we regulate cars is selling the old know-nothing tripe.
they may be selling the idea that it is difficult, but it is difficult only because of them. it was not difficult anywhere else and the end result has not been ~tyranny~, it has been not having an insanely unreasonable and indefensible level of gun violence and killings in countries not even half as prosperous as ours.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a free country, eh Sport? So feel free to act out in any way you see fit, proving to yourself your moral superiority by acting like a jerk "for the right reasons" Champ. I'm certain that you get to feel twice as good for it!
quote:It's a free country, eh Sport? So feel free to act out in any way you see fit, proving to yourself your moral superiority by acting like a jerk "for the right reasons" Champ. I'm certain that you get to feel twice as good for it!
you demonstrate it WITH YOUR VERY WORDS.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rubber and your glue, whatever say bounces off of me and stick on to you! Nanny nanny billy goat!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jebus and Mucus, I suggest looking at my post in its full context.
Jebus, I don't blame violence loving media in isolation for creating the Jolene atrocities. I argue that we have a culture which discourages people getting help when they're having problems. I love my Batman comics, and I'm not about to argue we need to stop the production of Batman because they're violent. I'm capable of distinguishing between reality and fiction. Others aren't. And if we don't have a system that can helps people with that problem, what fiction do they have? We glorify our action heroes and do full media exposes on those who commit the atrocities. I'm not saying we need to get rid of the violent media or even saying that the violent media is what causes these people to become violent. I'm saying that when a person struggles with distinguishing fact from fiction, we need to make sure we can identify those folks because the fictions we love most are violent. For those who can tell the difference, I think there's no problem with enjoying violent media.
Mucus, my point is that gun control alone won't stop these mass shootings. My argument is that gun control advocates who argue that gun control is the solution often ignore other contributing factors. (A culture that gives no solution to the mentally ill other than violent entertainment and a media that gives full coverage of the killer).
I support gun control. I support very strong gun control. I think gun control helps decrease homicide. But my point is that gun control debates need to be a broader discussion than just the guns themselves in the wake of mass shootings. When I see the reports of these shootings, my first thought isn't "now's the time to talk about gun control, because gun control would have prevented this."
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder, is it as simple a matter that these people "need help" and didn't get it, and couldn't delineate fact from fantasy.
I mean, I'm not suggesting these are fully functional people who are just evil, but I don't think that they simply needed help, or for that matter, simply anything. I think they are incredibly complicated and troubled, and that we do ourselves no favor by simplifying their motivations into what we, the sane, can grasp.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A common thread I see in these mass shootings is that they came from people who had a long history of troubling behavior that was ignored. Mental illness carries huge stigmas so I understand the hesitation of both seeking help or saying a person needs to get help. Don't be me wrong, I also believe there are genuinely evil people and people who commit heinous acts out of an act of passion. Mental health faculties won't help in those cases.
But when we have a mass shooting, if we only talk about gun control I believe the opponents to gun control legislation are correct in saying that we advocates are simply politicizing a tragedy. We need the discussion to be extensive and also cover mental health and other factors that contribute to these mass killings.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They deserve both our hatred and our compassion, and were responsible for dealing out plenty of both. This was a crime that seems to come out of spontaneity, and I think someone could have saved him by providing him better guidance, empathy, and awareness. This guy wanted to kill someone, and whether he succeeds or not, that's something we should have protected him from. We failed.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: But when we have a mass shooting, if we only talk about gun control I believe the opponents to gun control legislation are correct in saying that we advocates are simply politicizing a tragedy. We need the discussion to be extensive and also cover mental health and other factors that contribute to these mass killings.
When phrased like that it makes perfect sense. Well said.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... (A culture that gives no solution to the mentally ill other than violent entertainment and a media that gives full coverage of the killer).
I think you overstate the influence of media.
Cross-referencing something like movie body counts and the previous statistics, you can quickly see that Hong Kong's movies are pretty much some of the most violent around in terms of guns. Hard Boiled, A Bullet to the Head, A Better Tomorrow II were all massively popular in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong, as I said is pulling in a zero gun deaths/100,000. You also have Canada which is saturated with American media and news, yet only has 1/6th the rate of gun deaths.
About the only argument in there that carries any weight with me is that universal healthcare may lead to better treatment of mentally ill individuals.
Universal healthcare, well. I'm agreed that you guys should tackle that one too, when is that coming up for debate?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The day before the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre the National Rifle Association celebrated a milestone: It had accumulated 1.7 million fans on Facebook. It even tweeted a joyful graphic.
A day after the killings, however, the NRA's Facebook went missing in action. It cannot be found on the social network.
When I heard President Obama's speech I seriously considered buying stock in any ammunition manufacturing company I could think of. Why? Because while I don't see any possibility of Gun Control legislation getting anywhere, the reactionaries and "Muslim Commie Obama Hussein" crowd will go out and buy up every bullet they can find for fear that the President is about to outlaw them. Yeah, right.
The idea of arming teachers is too dangerous to take seriously. If you have 100 armed teachers in a large school, and someone starts shooting, or even a chair falls onto the floor with a loud bang, guns will come out and people will be looking for a shooter to shoot before getting shot. Basically, it would be Europe in 1912--every country ready to automatically open fire under the slightest pretext. Once a spark is lit friendly fire will kill teachers, and poor gun control will result in many innocent bystanders getting shot, even teachers accidentally shooting themselves. Teachers are not Police Officers. Police Officers go through a lot of training to know whom and how to use their weapons in the safest way possible.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention terrifying the kids. Seriously, probably more a few of us have had nutty teachers. I had one when I was seven who used to tell us stories about how her dad abused her, the terrible things he did and how we all deserved stuff like that to happen to us when we were bad.
I would have been even more scared of her if she'd had a gun.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't speak for Dan, but I don't think he was seriously suggesting that arming teachers was a good idea...more, it's a better idea then outlawing guns.
Correct me if I'm wrong here Dan.
Regardless of Dan, arming teachers is a horrible idea.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The day before the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre the National Rifle Association celebrated a milestone: It had accumulated 1.7 million fans on Facebook. It even tweeted a joyful graphic.
A day after the killings, however, the NRA's Facebook went missing in action. It cannot be found on the social network.
No Responsibility Accepted
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I think that Switzerland is an ideal sample on which to base U.S. policy, but I find it interesting how a country with a strong gun-owning culture can manage to have sensible regulation on said guns, and low instances of gun crime.
posted
I've been watching the back and forth for the last two days. A lot of the arguments devolve into tick-for-tac discussion of details. I'm good with details - my job revolves around them. The argument - moral, political, spiritual (?) - is more fundamental. We need to agree on a change as a society. I think it's necessary. From my Facebook post:
quote: I don't pretend to think that banning guns would stop all such incidents. But we can, as a country, make some practical changes to help limit the damage. We can make some changes to adjust our glorification of weapons and violence.
As a parent, I restrict the "rights" of my children to do certain things: play with knives, cross the street unaided, jump off of the furniture. These restrictions do not hinder their freedom in an unhealthy way. In fact, these restrictions encourage them to pursue avenues that are fruitful and foward-thinking.
As a society, we restrict the "rights" of drivers. Requiring written & physical tests and insurance. We restrict access to certain chemicals - you can construct more dangerous substances from individual components easily available, but we don't make them available wholesale, easily. We restrict a great many things on the basis of practicality and general good sense.
Let us be clear: guns are a destructive tool. You can hunt with them, but you destroy the animal's life. You can defend yourself with them, but you destroy the attacker's life. These events are sometimes necessary, but they are not a good argument for legalization of instruments for extreme use of force.
We don't need to ban all guns. We don't need to lock up everyone with a mental illness. We certainly do not need to - should not - arm all teachers or employees of public settings. We can and SHOULD limit access to assault weapons, make mental healthcare readily available, work to remove the stigma of asking for help for those who need counseling, and put other practical and reasonable ideas into action.
Accidents and intentional violence will never be eradicated by laws or even good intentions. But I want my children to grow up appreciating tools of creation more than tools of destruction.
posted
Why are people so mad for "assault weapons"? Any modern firearm is potentially deadly on the same scale, but the buzz word of "assault weapon" just makes people think that these are inherently different (and more dangerous) then other guns.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why are people so mad for "assault weapons"? Any modern firearm is potentially deadly on the same scale, but the buzz word of "assault weapon" just makes people think that these are inherently different (and more dangerous) then other guns.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
I'm not a "gun person" in the same way I'm not a "car person" so I'm welcome to correction and instruction in the area, but this definition (from Wikipedia) fits what I am referring to: firearms designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range. I guess I would add I wouldn't be for a general ban on handguns even if they're automatic. But I think a clear line can be drawn between rifles with clips that can hold what? 50, 60 rounds and a handgun that can hold less than a dozen.
But this is a detail. I'll use a term I recently heard in another discussion on another board: there are "bright lines." I'll let those who know more about guns work out that detail. I see a bright line between a "standard" gun and one that is built to sustain a hail of fire. And I think that is a purely reasonable place to put some restrictions.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Certain assault weapons, fire a kind of rounds that shatter on impact on most surfaces and have limited stopping power. Which is ideal for living spaces where the risk of accidentily shooting a flatmate or neighbour is high and generally survivable.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why are people so mad for "assault weapons"? Any modern firearm is potentially deadly on the same scale, but the buzz word of "assault weapon" just makes people think that these are inherently different (and more dangerous) then other guns.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
I'm not a "gun person" in the same way I'm not a "car person" so I'm welcome to correction and instruction in the area, but this definition (from Wikipedia) fits what I am referring to: firearms designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range. I guess I would add I wouldn't be for a general ban on handguns even if they're automatic. But I think a clear line can be drawn between rifles with clips that can hold what? 50, 60 rounds and a handgun that can hold less than a dozen.
But this is a detail. I'll use a term I recently heard in another discussion on another board: there are "bright lines." I'll let those who know more about guns work out that detail. I see a bright line between a "standard" gun and one that is built to sustain a hail of fire. And I think that is a purely reasonable place to put some restrictions.
Well, in many situations-mass shootings or regular individual homicides-there are plenty of variables that might have more impact than the type of firearm-even some where having a larger, more powerful weapon would be a liability. Many more where it wouldn't be an issue because the would be killer couldn't get one into the area he wanted to.
But 'assault weapons' (which does cast a wide net) are more powerful, with larger capacity for ammunition, and they fire more rapidly. The powerful bit is important since it means the bullet can pierce through obstacles many wouldn't consider-such as an inner wall in a house across the street, or through the bed of a room in the floor above, so on and so forth.
I think you're right to perceive a bright line-there's a reason that SWAT goes to a job with something other than a pistol as their primary weapon.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so you know, an "assault weapon" is a political term and has nothing to do with...anything.
It's utter crap.
quote:...the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher.
(also from wikipedia)
Any semi-automatic rifle that can take a box magazine (most) is exactly as dangerous as an "assault weapon".
Telescopic stocks and pistol grips are just to make the gun more ergonomic, flash suppressors are basically useless outside of night combat (blinding the shooter and easily identifying their location), a bayonet mount is for adding a knife on the end of your gun, and grenades are -very had to come by-. None of this stuff makes a lick of difference.
Not. One. Bit.
Most modern semi auto rifles magazines hold 30 rounds. Most pistols hold about 15. Both can be quickly reloaded and pose a genuine threat to groups of people if used as a tool for mass murder.
Banning assault weapons accomplished nothing.
Re-banning them will accomplish...nothing.
And even if we did have my proposed idea about requiring a psychological/safety testing, it would have done -nothing- to prevent this tragedy, as he didn't buy them, he just took them from his mother.
Unless she had had a safe, which he could not have accessed that is. Although it seems reasonable to have your adult children knowing the combo to your gun safe.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I would argue any effort to make it LESS EASY to kill people is a good step in the right direction.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you're right to perceive a bright line-there's a reason that SWAT goes to a job with something other than a pistol as their primary weapon.
Thanks. This.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Most modern semi auto rifles magazines hold 30 rounds. Most pistols hold about 15. Both can be quickly reloaded and pose a genuine threat to groups of people if used as a tool for mass murder.
Thank you, seriously. Most of what you posted I did not know. I would draw the line then at anything semi-automatic - pistols included.
But I'll requote myself. We need to enact change (through laws if need be):
quote:We can make some changes to adjust our glorification of weapons and violence. Accidents and intentional violence will never be eradicated by laws or even good intentions. We can and SHOULD limit access to assault weapons [automatic or semi-automatic if that's a better definition], make mental healthcare readily available, work to remove the stigma of asking for help for those who need counseling, and put other practical and reasonable ideas into action. I want my children to grow up appreciating tools of creation more than tools of destruction.
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Thank you, seriously. Most of what you posted I did not know.
Welcome.
quote:I would draw the line then at anything semi-automatic - pistols included.
That would be A LOT of guns which are fully legal currently to be rounded up...I don't think that would happen.
quote:Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. They account for about 15 percent of the 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.
So, if this is accurate, that's 37,500,000 semi-automatic weapons in this country. Seems low to me. Heck I own four myself.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would draw the line then at anything semi-automatic - pistols included.
That would be A LOT of guns which are fully legal currently to be rounded up...I don't think that would happen.
Probably not. And I'm not even saying they should. Such a ban should begin with the idea of moving forward: those who own such weapons already have a right to keep them... Maybe institute a re-registration at some point. Future sales would be banned. We need to change the underlying glorification of weapons.
When and how do you use your semi-automatic weapons? What practical purpose do they serve? Would you be so hindered in your freedoms were such weapons only be allowed to be rented and shot at gun ranges?
And don't say you need them for defense. On a basic level, even if you're armed, even if you have training, you can be too slow to react or you can miss - and then what? the other party can kill you anyway. If you bring up the straw man of needing the weapon to defend against your attacker, I can just as easily bring up the straw man of him being a better shot than you. If we need them to defend against the government, we've got a lot bigger issues than gun rights to contend with at that point. But while the US government is big and powerful and oversteps it's boundaries - it's not about to become a tyranny. It can't even stand up to banks.
Like I said, imposing regulations won't solve the problem, but it will help mitigate damage. And hopefully begin to shift some focus from "gun worship."
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:When and how do you use your semi-automatic weapons? What practical purpose do they serve? Would you be so hindered in your freedoms were such weapons only be allowed to be rented and shot at gun ranges?
Well, three are handguns, which sit, unloaded in my large gun safe. And the third is a registered assault weapon, an AR-15. I owned prior to the California state assault weapon ban, so I registered it, paid for the police to take my finger prints, etc, so I can still own it in a state where other's can't. It also sits in my safe unloaded.
I do shoot at the range every now and again. But I like to have them for just in case, riots, end of the world as we know it, kind of things. That sounds pretty silly, I guess, but I lived in L.A. during the Rodney King riots...so it isn't so far fetched to me.
I actually keep a revolver as my home defense gun (different safe), but for because you can leave it loaded and it doesn't hurt the gun (semi-autos have springs in their magazines which shouldn't be left loaded for extended lengths of time, as it will likely cause the spring to over compress and malfunction).
I'm sorry that you think home defense is a straw man. Just last month I heard a shot not a block away from my house (in a very nice neighborhood) and put hands on iron after sending my kids and wife upstairs.
I'm a big proponent of training...I have worked at three shooting ranges as a younger man, teaching people how to shoot, and am myself a marksman. I am also currently registered with the state of California as an armed guard.
Guns are important to have. But they are -very- dangerous and as much as I am a champion of "gun rights" I am more a proponent of gun safety training. People -should- have the right to protect themselves, that is, they should have the right to prove they can handle the responsibility of owning a gun safely. Owning a gun in my mind shouldn't be a right in and of itself. They are far too dangerous in untrained hands.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would be curious why you came to this conclusion. What metric are you using to determine the effects of a ban?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Perhaps more importantly-why was the shot heard in the first place? Was someone with a legally owned and safely stored firearm shooting to repel an intruder, or did that same gun owner get dumped and drunk and decide it was time to settle some scores? Or perhaps a drug dealer firing on a sketchy figure creeping behind some vacant lots, with an illegally owned firearm gotten through the ill-controlled interstate gun trades?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
