On May 18, 1927, the small town of Bath, Michigan, was forever changed when Andrew Kehoe set off a cache of explosives concealed in the basement of the local school. Thirty-eight children and six adults were dead, among them Kehoe, who had literally blown himself to bits by setting off a dynamite charge in his car. The next day, on Kehoe's farm, what was left of his wife—burned beyond recognition after Kehoe set his property and buildings ablaze—was found tied to a handcart, her skull crushed. With seemingly endless stories of school violence and suicide bombers filling today's headlines, Bath Massacre serves as a reminder that terrorism and large-scale murder are nothing new. http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=283846
thank you! If these anti-gun ppl really cared about saving lives they would be more vocal here. But in reality, these ppl don't really care
Help him see where he is wrong. And honestly, when did it become a prerequisite that you know exactly how something works including every detailed intricacy to believe it needs tighter regulation. It's not the voters job to understand every nuance and every detail over every piece of regulation. We vote on things all the time without knowing the exact details of their implementation, and we elect our officials on vague promises of action. Sure it helps to know what you are talking about when you are arguing whether one specific thing should be banned for a specific reason and another thing should not, but do you really need to know the inner workings of every weapon to know you are for renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban or imposing even stricter control of guns, especially semi-automatic ones?
I hate how this debate is either, the unrestricted sale of guns or the banning of guns entirely. It's as if there isn't a middle ground somewhere in there.
"Mass shootout at the cinema, leads to huge collateral damage, confusion about who is the original shooter, and the original shooter is unaffected because he is wearing tactical armor. In between the crossfire of 8 shooters (?!?) many die."
If you are regulating something, you better know what you are talking about. To say otherwise just seems foolish.
Exactly, heart disease has also killed way more people than crack and meth, asbestos, and AP landmines in the U.S., but no one really cares. They just ban crack, meth, asbestos, and AP landmines and call it a day. If we really cared about saving lives we wouldn't be worrying about these issues and wasting out time banning or regulating them, we'd be focusing on heart disease.
So he has to know the intricacies of all guns to be able to talk about imposing stricter regulations on semi-automatics? Does he also have to know the exact health impact including the chemical pathways by which unsafe pathogens present in beef operate to argue for stronger regulations on the food safety of the cattle industry? Is that about what you are saying here?
Seriously. Try to use a little common sense if you have any. People don't go buy fast cars, pitt bulls, Alcohol, eating fast foods with their intention to kill someone. Guns or firearms on the other hand are mostly own by criminals to be that go out and buy them for a purpose and that is to use it against another person if need be.
Yep guns should be down the list on the ban & regulate triarge wagon it would seem. I would also appreciate that anti-gunners make it known it isn't just guns. The goal is to save lives right? - so you shouldn't stop there. Ban & regulate everything. Then and only then can this movement become legend ...
Should pro-lifers have to renounce war, take up animal rights, adapt climate change regulation, and stop toxic waste dumping from occurring in Somalia? After all, the goal should be to save lives. I'm including animal lives as well, because why the f**k not.
Maybe not most but criminals, psycho, and mental people have easy access to them if they have a clean record. The harder for these type of clowns have access to firearms the less problem there will be. Sure there will still be problem with these clowns but on a lesser scale with out these ammo.
So, you want him to be able to specify the exact implementation of his proposed regulation to cut down on say, the availability of semi-automatic weapons? If his position is that we need to make it harder to attain semi-automatic weapons, that's not enough. What you seem to be demanding seems preposterous, the level of detail you seem to be envisioning is better left up to legislators. It would prevent us from discussing any legislation at all. We want to talk about banning the use of drones, no - we can't say that drones need to be banned or more strictly regulated unless we are intimately familiar with the way drones work both mechanically and at the operational level. We want to get out of Iraq, no, we can't even propose that unless we have a concrete plan on how we will withdraw every single troop while adequately representing our future interests both in the region and in the country itself. Really?
