|
BamaD -> RE: "Mass shooting" at Ohio St.leads to calls for tighter gun control. (12/2/2016 8:39:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Clearly you are wiser than I as a mere American could possibly be but you really thing that 1000 people should be deprived of the right to do something because one person does something wrong related to that right? By that logic cars should have been banned decades ago.
Sensible gun laws are those that do not affect legitimate gun owners but stick it to misuse of guns. I always support those. Unfortunately I am yet to see such a law suggested by any democrat.
I'm not wiser than you as an American, I'm wiser than you as an individual... and I promise I am not alone in that. It's not even really such a staggering accomplishment.
And the right to do what, exactly? I haven't said anything about my personal beliefs regarding gun control and you've already jumped to some sort of non-specific conclusion about what I think should be done. By the looks of it, you're already certain I support a total gun ban.
I honestly don't have any idea how to deal with the gun situation in America... but I think the culture in general probably plays a big role in mass shootings and I don't mean the media exclusively. Surely there is some sort of middle ground that would make it more difficult for mass-shooters while merely inconveniencing the legit gun lovers?
At least you admit you don't know something.
All of the so called sensible gun control measure proposed are based on the trickle down theory of crime control, stick it to the legitimate gun owners enough and some day it will trickle down to affect criminals. The background checks provide for preventing sales to the mentally ill, but since entry of information is needed is not mandatory many states refuse to put that and other information into said system. If you want sensible laws wouldn't making that mandatory a good place to start, doesn't inconvenience legitimate owners but it would give the system a chance to work. Two the system is grossly underfunded and undermanned how about fully funding and manning the system, doesn't that make sense? Universal checks can't do any good when they have neither the information, money or manpower to do the job now can it? How about we try enforcing the laws we already have? Did you know that a straw purchase in already illegal. Go to a gun store and buy a gun for someone else and you have committed perjury, says so right on the form which you have to sign. If you look at the gun crimes being committed you will find that the vast majority have guns illegally obtained, (yes I know you can find a case where a legal owner committed a crime but they are the minority) and among those who "legally " owned the firearm it is quite often because some of that information wasn't entered into the system.
Hillary wanted to follow Australia's lead and ban the vast majority of firearms, do you consider that to be a minor inconvenience? DC banned hand guns and made it a felony to have a loaded long gun, do you consider that minor?
Chicago banned handguns, minor. A law takes effect in CA in two years banning firearms that don't use a technology that doesn't exist, minor?
|
|
|
|
