Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlebear
My answer won't satisfy you.
Go ask the folks in Las Vegas, who were slaughtered by a guy with an "assault rifle" with a bump stock. It's not relevant that we banned gatling guns way back when.
Wat up wit the fuss about limiting magazine size? More than a few mass shootings have been stopped when the perp had to reload, including when Gabby Giffords, a congressional rep was shot.
But all I hear from you gun fans is we have so many gun laws, and they are preventing us from doing so much good.
------------------------------------
Even if we had some 'perfect' gun law today, it wouldn't work for long. The 'criminals' are not going to stop trying to get around laws. New times need new tools.
Stasis doesn't work, ever. Nor does going backwards.
-------------------------------------
I think we agree on a few things, but:
There are many degrees of self defense, deadly force being one. I would like the deadly force option to be less used, less needed, & less available.
Sometimes we see knives being used on the populace, such as in England. Do the deaths from these knife attacks ever reach double figures?
Millions of guns out there, with more being bought with every social scare. Where do the old guns go? Do you think all these citizens are disposing of their guns legally? We could do worse than having a giant buy-back like wot the Aussies did, to get these dangerous items off the streets.
Criminals don't obey laws & you & I speed. IIRC, when NYC upped the penalty for carrying guns, making it a direct trip to jail, the # of guns on the street fell.
Murf
|
You bring up the Vegas shooting and quote assault rifle.... I'm just going to assume you quoted assault rifle because you understand that he did not use an assault weapon. But, whatever you want to call it, it was a senseless act.
Many anti gun folks bring this shooting, as well as Sandy Hook and other schools, up in their argument against guns. Most jump up and say we need more gun laws. Here's your chance, what would you suggest we do to help stop these tragedies.
Loss of life is a terrible thing. And there are other things we could go after to reduce the loss of life. How many people are killed by drunk drivers? Should we close all bars and restaurants? How about just stopping the sale of alcohol all together? Oh wait, we tried that a while back didn't we. How about smoking related deaths? Let's stop the sale of tobacco as well. Cell phones in cars..... sure let's stop them.
Have I mentioned a topic that you don't agree with? Let's go back to that alcohol topic. Why do we need to buy beer in lots of 24 cans. Should we limit it to 4 cans per person?
You do realize the largest (in current history) loss of life in the US (excluding 9/11) was the result of the Oklahoma CIty Bombing. They stole a rental truck, bought 3 barrels of nitromethane and a bunch of fertilizer and made a really big bomb. Should we limit the size of rental trucks? Should we stop the sale of nitromethane, afterall, is there really a need for it? How about fertilizer?
Now, I'm not saying shooting shouldn't be stopped. But going after the tools used isn't the correct answer (at least in a few peoples opinion). There are f'ed up people in this world and given enough time they'll show you how bad they are.
I would like to point out, that most of these mass shooting were carried out by people that have/had mental issues. As I understand it, most of them were on medication to combat their disorders. And most of those meds have some pretty serious side effects.
As was asked earlier, what's your answer? Don't be one of those that just bitch and wine.....
I just saw your reply so I want to say a little more about your post.
I too would like the use of lethal force to be less used. And I think the answer to that is make it
less needed. Why don't you talk to all the bad guys and ask them nicely to stop. In the meantime, if the need arises I will use the force required to keep me and my family safe. It's that simple.
You bring up another of my favorite topics. Buy Back program..... I didn't buy my guns from the government so they would not be buying them back. But let's concede the fact that it's just a shitty name for a stupid idea. The money they would be using to buy them back (yeah, I used your term) is in fact my money that I paid in taxes. So, in fact, they would be offering a program that would allow me to sell my guns to the government with my money. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And you have stats to support your comment on the number of guns on the street fell? I can certainly believe the number of legal guns (read law abiding citizens) declined. But that's not the group we are after is it?