to tell you the truth, I have no idea what we should do. 1).There's too many guns already on the street to effectively remove them. It would be akin to the idea of removing all the illegal aliens. 2). It wouldn't really be effective to stiffen penalties against people who use guns to commit crimes since in the Sandy Hook situation, he didn't plan on coming out of it alive. 3). Tougher licensing requirements wouldn't have changed Sandy Hook because the mother was probably a fine candidate for guns.
I don't agree that more guns will make us more safe. I have a feeling more bystanders will be injured in the melees that result in Rambo wannabe's trying to save the day. I've seen plenty of people at the gun range who probably shouldn't be trusted to carry it on themselves. In the end, I think it's just going to be one of those things we have to learn to live with. Every day I drive 50 miles each way back and forth to work. There's a good chance I could be involved in a serious wreck. It's a risk I take. It will be the same here. You take a chance every day that you might get shot by a lunatic. It will just be one more reason why the U.S. doesn't have as long of life expectancy of some other countries. On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote: > > So Biden said that the anointed one might enact executive action and > tighten gun control in the U.S. This means no vote in Congress. The AG is > trying to figure out the details of whether or not this can be done, and if > so how to legally go about doing it. And the chosen one is also endorsing a > renewal of the assault weapons ban, improving background checks as well as > restricting the size of high capacity magazines. > > What I find interesting is that he would consider executive action. I > mean, almost 50% of American's own weapons (according to 2010 data from > http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). I imagine that the number is a > little higher now. That's a LOT of potentially pissed off people if this > happens. > > What I also find interesting is that he wants to ban military assault > weapons which is silly since according to another study ( > http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) assault weapons account > for a mere .20% of all violent crimes that involved a gun. To be honest I > don't know what good will come out of an assault weapons ban. I mean, guys > like Tim and I can clear a room just as easily with a Remington .223 Ranch > as we can with an M-4 or M-16. And they fire the same caliber of round. > It's silly to assume that just because Bushmaster .223 rifles were used in > the Washington DC shootings and Newton, that banning these weapons will > stop shootings. What if the shooter in Newton could not get his hands on > this type of a weapon? What if his mother only had lets say a 30.06? I > would imagine that he would have used that one instead. Of course we won't > ever know for sure. > > And of course let's look at a great example of how gun bans/control DON'T > work - Chicago. I do not need to go into all the details since pro-gun > activists are all over this and there are countless stories about this on > the interwebs. And let's not forget Washington D.C. The murder rate there > fell 25% once the gun ban was lifted according to the Washington Times back > in 2010. Oh, and it rose up considerably when the gun ban was enacted. > > I am all for tighter background checks (meaning more thorough). This is > not an issue for law abiding citizens who are allowed to own a weapon. What > I also think should be done is to take a look at the silliness of some of > the restrictions that are in place to allow people to own a firearm who are > in particular situations such as Tim's (apologies if I spoke out of line > Tim). But, I feel that regardless of what laws may come, guns are here to > stay and banning certain weapons and tightening control will not help since > criminals have always found a way to get a gun the same as they were able > to get booze and make millions of dollars during prohibition. And besides, > no criminal ever saw a sign stating that an area was a gun free zone and > decided to move on to where there were guns. When is the last time you read > about a mass shooting at a gun show or firing range? > > And speaking of making certain weapons illegal, I am sure cocaine, meth, > acid, certain mushrooms, ecstasy and the like are still illegal, but yet > tons of the stuff end up across our borders. Making something illegal will > not make it go away. > > The study done on justfacts.com is interesting, especially the part where > it shows how many citizens (not law enforcement and the like) successfully > defended themselves and/or their property with a weapon. I just wish the > prez and others behind him would stop with the knee jerk reactions and > starting talking about things more important, like what's going to happen > to administration officials who are responsible for four American's dying > senselessly four months ago. Or actually passing a budget. Or stop > defunding the military and systematically dismantling it as is always the > case post war. Or reducing our national debt. Or taking care of domestic > issues. LIttle things like that. > > These are just my thoughts. Let the debating and name calling begin. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359819 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
