Go back to the VTech thread and reread all the arguments there. Then realize it isn't politically possible and worry about other things.
Why stop there? Lets ban everything we "don't need" ,... Alcohol Sports cars Tobacco McDonalds Pit Bulls etc.
Death toll caused by guns is only 80% of death toll caused by traffic accidents. It seems that more guns are needed to protect people.........
Its not politically possible... yet. It also wasn't politically possible for a black man to be president either. Its only a matter of time.
yet people do it regarding terrorism and Islam all the time. Would lives be saved by controlling some aspects? Sure. Cut down on the assault weapons, and extended clip stuff.
This language blanket language is silly when either side uses it, so it should only be used in jest. You cannot be neutral on a moving train and with any opinion you take you are promoting an agenda. If you do not acknowledge tragedies and learn from them and promote an agenda which you believe would at least prevent tragedies from the magnitude from occurring, you are doing nothing to help your fellow man. This same sentiment you are applying would have us never pursue any change when faced with tragedy. Just accept it and move on. Little girls raped by a three time sex-offender, that's too bad - let's not use the tragedy to pursue an agenda. A bunch of Bostonians murdered in the streets by some of the Queen's men - that's too bad, let's move on. Guy built a bomb using some easy to purchase fertilizer - that's interesting, let's not make fertilizer slightly harder to purchase in bulk. Even September 11th - that's too bad, let's not make it harder to get dangerous objects on planes. It is truly conservative viewpoint and, while it has value, the value is limited to helping us avoid brash reactions. However, when deaths are caused by lone gunman over and over again motivated by different ideologies each time, a pattern seems to come into relief and that reaction seems a bit less brash after each tragedy. A dangerous tool made doubly dangerous in dangerous hands. We know we do not have an adequate ability to discern these dangerous individuals, so what are our options? Do we accept it as a cost for having easy access to guns and move on after each very public shooting as the NRA would have us do - maybe it is the price we must pay for easy access to automatic weapons. Or do maybe we think about preventing those individuals from getting the tools they need to engage in the tragedies. So it comes down to is the agenda you are pushing going to help. In this case, more than most, more stringent access to automatic weapons could have possibly helped. The usual reaction of allowing more guns and better guns in more places is likely inadequate for preventing this specific situation in the theater. It would not likely have helped to have another guy trying to return fire when you had a guy in full body armor opening up with an automatic in a dimly lit theater filled with tear gas and shrouded individuals running for their lives. Of course you are right, nothing will be done. In fact, the likely response is that we need more accurate and faster automatic weapons in movie theaters to combat this menace. The NRA has unfortunately won, but I will not applaud the result even as I am forced to accept it to an extent.
Seriously. Does some people even use their brain when they blabber these garbage? The government are afraid of the NRA corruption. Until someone with enough balls to step their foot down on them but it's a little too late. There's nothing Obama can do about it. If he does he's gone. It's like trying to fight a Religious cult group here. But something need to be done.
As shown by this post, those asking for regulations are totally ignorant on any technical information.
One thing that would really, really help many advocates of gun control is if they actually knew a bit about, you know, guns. e.g. the difference b/t semi-automatic and automatic weapons; what a "machine gun" is (looking at you, Larry King); what the current background check system actually checks; etc....
More people would be dead. It was dark and there was smoke plus he was wearing armor. I don't think people are carrying 38s and 45s. However I think guns are fine. It makes this country pretty much unconquerable and government afraid.
You are right, we should probably loosen up the restrictions on other things we don't need while we are at it like: meth, crack, C4, asbestos, agent orange, weapons grade plutonium, AP landmines, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, pentachlorophenol, heptachlor, and arsenic trioxide. All of these things have legitimate uses and people want them, but since we hate freedom and we hate liberty and the choice to buy what others want with the money they have earned by the sweat of their brow, we either outright prohibit them or make them too hard to acquire. There is only one word for it - tyranny.
Please, tell us more. Grace us with your infinite wisdom and nuanced, unbiased expertise on this issue. Or say something, anything. All you have managed to say so far is the equivalent of "hey cut it out," "too bad deal with it," "we are legion, fear us," and "you know nothing John Snow."
Oh OK. FB knows nothing about guns and he wants to regulate them for our safety. How would you feel about that in any other regulation?
