"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand
I am simply amazed.
Is ANYONE really stupid enough to belive that someone such as the individual in question would simply have abandoned his plans if he couldnt get a firearm? Has there been ANYTHING written that implies a magazine capacity ban would prevent this particular unstable individual from executing his rampage?
This is pathetic and typical. Tragedy occurs...seize it and use it to advance your own political agenda.
Should we deny a drivers license based on the same grounds? Should there be a national data base to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing sharp objects? Spray paint? Should we allow landlords access to that same database to be more selctive with who the rent to? EMployers to ensure they dont hire this type of individual and put their own employees at risk? Where does it stop? Or do you want those changes in law to ONLY apply to your particular political bent?
The bodies arent even cold yet. Hell...they hadnt stopped bleeding before people started using it for political attacks...maybe you should give it a few days before you whore out the dead for your causes.
You're over simplifying the issue again, we both know guns can work either way for example look at Somalia or Mexico. We also know you are specifically talking about legal guns, not just guns in general. If it were just guns that deterred crime in general, it wouldn't matter if they were acquired legally or illegally. However a central pillar of your argument is that criminals will get guns one way or another, and its the availability of guns to the responsible population that really matters. Its these qualifiers and explanations of your positions you constantly leave out."I don't know what the answer is, but I know you're not right." That's what I'm hearing here. Guns are a proven crime deterrent. This is not an opinion. This is not up for debate.
I was simply trying to show there were other solutions to gun crime, something you refused to admit because of politics. If I'm simply trying to show there is not only one of something, I only need to demonstrate and show there's just one other. A second example wasn't necessary but Germany still works perfect as a case where stricter gun laws and stricter control has led to less gun crime. Germany Reevaluates Gun Laws After School Shooting | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 23.11.2006"So... communism is a great model for what we should do in the United States? We should give up the majority of our freedoms for the illusion of safety. Got it. Btw, I notice you don't list Germany as an example any more, after I called you on their failed attempt at gun control last time you tried that example.
Also, for the I don't know how many-ith time, I'm not advocating any form of policy and I'm certainly not saying we should adopt a Chinese style system. I am, again explaining this after I dunno many how times, simply trying to show its foolish to simply state no additional or changed gun law will work, especially considering you're clear lack of demonstrated knowledge on Arizona gun law.
How many times do I have to say I'm not pushing policy? Listen to me carefully, I'm from Arizona, I own a weapon, and I love my state's gun laws. We suffer low crime in part due to them and much of our crime comes from other sources such as south of the border, but its deterred in places like Phoenix due to people owning weapons. I don't disagree with any of that, I just think its silly to suggest that ANY change and ANY additional gun laws will hurt people.Cry me a river. Our views are clearly nothing alike. If you don't wish to take personal responsibility for your safety, that's fine, but don't force your misguided moral code on me and my family.
The point is the improbability that any gun laws of any kind would have stopped this individual from doing what he did.
If he were unable to buy a gun legally from a licensed dealer, he could have bebopped down to his local drug dealer and got hooked up with a gun within 24 hours. Not a problem.
Most mass-shootings have taken place in areas where it was already a crime to be in possession of a gun. Those "gun free zones" have never stopped a single shooter.
It just isn't likely that there's any legislative solution that would have prevented this crime, short of turning our society into a draconian police-state.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
And you're right an individual can acquire a gun illegal through different means, its not impossible by no means. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws which govern guns. Just like how people will always speed doesn't mean we just shouldnt bother with speed limits. The capacity and ability of people to commit a crime, for example an illegal sale or purchase of a firearm, doesn't mean there should be no or less laws governing the legal sale of firearms.
Want to change the law? Contact the ACLU and tell them to stop their campaign that puts more importance on the privacy rights of mentally incompetent people than the safety of other citizens.
Personally, I'm ambivalent on the subject. I tend to think that mentally incompetent people like this character shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but I also have a problem agreeing with the ACLU on anything.
Last edited by Gill; 01-10-11 at 08:48 AM.
Last edited by EnigmaO01; 01-10-11 at 08:59 AM.