eace
No.
Of course I don’t know whether it helped or not. My point was, neither do you. There is no evidence that I have seen which proves or even indicates gun-law changes after VT incident improved the situation.
I never said no new measures were taken after new law (we’re talking about gun law changes after VT incident here, right?) was passed.To say that no new preventative measures was taken after the new law was passed is saying your gun dealers are a little lax on following the law, if by following the new law they have may prevented some crazy person getting a gun and killing innocent people without even knowing it.
Of course that is an assumption, but you have your assumptions I'll have mine.
I have no idea how gun dealers run a background check, but I would guess that it involves a check of law enforcement databases for prior activities of the potential firearm purchaser.Not true IF A GUN DEAER RUNS A BACKGROUND CHECK AND THE BACKGROUND CHECK IS FALSE AND A AR 15 IS SOLD AND A LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE GET SHOT AND KILLED WHERE DOES THE FAULT LIE?
READ THE PATRIOT ACT SOMETIME.
Big deal some gun owners willing to protect America and don't even know what they're protecting.
eace
eace
Just because ten or ten thousand people think something should be done, does not mean that it actually needs to be done. That's all I'm saying here, and there is no assumption involved.Sorry but your answer is an assumption.
Because before the VT KILLINGS,the gun control laws were then after the VT killing a new gun control law was passed.
Not only did somebody think gun control law needed a change it was changed it takes a majority to make any change to any law we both know that.
If in fact you do not know what the "new law" then was or is?
How is it you know that the new law that was passed did not prevent more innocent people from being shot and killed??
Just because some preventitive measures are taken and are successful does not mean they show up on T.V..
I may not know that the new law prevented innocent people from being shot and killed but I remain optomistic that it did.
While you seem to cling to the same statement made years ago "if it bleeds it leads", anything else is unimportant.
Your premise is silly and stupid. Few if anyone would buy a hammer with the intent to kill hundreds of people. No, they buy a gun. doh!
What on earth gave you that idea?
If said person got the gun illegally, then that illegal gun sale is slightly at fault - But if the sale was legal, I don't see how the seller is supposed to know the buyer was planning to commit a crime with the weapon.
Different situation. Weapons-grade nuclear material is (or supposedly is) closely monitored, and treaties govern it's proliferation and use. Even so, the majority of the blame of course lies with the entity who used said weapon, rather than the entity who provided the weapon or the materials to make it.
It's been a few years. Not sure how it bears on this...discussion.You have read the 2nd amendment?
Are the words militia and lawfully contained in the 2nd amendment.
Look up these two words.
Virginia Tech ring any bells? Fort Hood? Colombine? ding, ding, ding....
After, of course. Just like Feinstein trying to sell Freedom Group after the fact. Apparently, he and his board of directors had a round table meeting after the Newtown massacre to decide how to respond. Should they donate money to Newtown and the victims, or should they invest in the mental healthcare system...or should they try to distance themselves and sell Freedom Group? Guess what they decided to do?
Right, you're just an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. The blame should go where it belongs....the gun manufacturers who make billions after every massacre. That's quite an incentive to keep the killings going. So they pay the NRA to absorb the fallout so they don't have to. And the killings just keep on a going and going and going.....
eace
Doesn't matter. The entire population of the world could all think that X should be done, but that only means everyone somehow has the same opinion. It does not necessarily mean that X is necessary.
That is my point.
Sigh.My last line was about history look it up sometime.
eace
Odd , if a kid breaks out a car window and is caught the parent pays, if a kid kills somebody it's the kids fault.
This is 2013 NOT 1776,BUT I'M SURE THE WORD LAWFULLY MEANT THE SAME THEN AS IT DOES NOW.
You have read the 2nd amendment?
eace
I don't not live in the entire population of the world , I live in America, America has laws follow them you won't get into trouble , don't you will. Some may not like these laws some may really like these laws but they are there.
So we are at a draw that is your point , already knew that was wandering if you did , since you did not even know a new law had been passed on gun control or what it is.
History has that effect on some people as for me I like history.
Post 409 check to see who first posted about the NEW LAW passed after the VT KILLINGS.
The next time you accuse me of something at least have the decency to back it up.
Right, I should have said thousands since I was including the annual gun homicide rate. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently, the head of the California teachers pension fund called Steve A. Feinstein personally and asked him if the fund included Freedom Group and shortley after Feinstein puts it up for sale. Until someone buys it, the teachers pension fund still owns shares. But I don't see anyone chomping at the bit to buy the company so...that's where it stands so far.
By his actions or lack thereof.
Well, if you really must know what is in the heart of Steve A. Feinberg, owner of the largest gun manufacturer company, Freedom Group, maker of the Bushmaster AR-15.....
Correct, I am not at all familiar with the details of how a gun store owner runs a background check. What is your point?
Of course not. I never said anything that even hinted at suggesting such. Are you sure you're reading my posts? And stop shouting.
In descending order of guilt: Mainly the fault of the person who shot the now-dead person, secondly the fault of the adult who illegally sold firearms to the child, and last/least the fault of the kid. OR so I would look at it, if such an unlikely situation occurred.
Depends on the circumstances.
I've answered this question already. Do you even read my posts?This is 2013 NOT 1776,BUT I'M SURE THE WORD LAWFULLY MEANT THE SAME THEN AS IT DOES NOW.
You have read the 2nd amendment?
What is the purpose of this sentence?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Accuse you of something? :lamoHistory has that effect on some people as for me I like history.
Post 409 check to see who first posted about the NEW LAW passed after the VT KILLINGS.
The next time you accuse me of something at least have the decency to back it up.