But people simply don't do that as often as shoot people. It is far more unlikely. And regardless of whether it makes sense to me and you, from the article in this thread it appears that there is real scientific evidence that the country as a whole is better served by calling 911 rather than have a gun in the house their entire lives. If there was such evidence, would you change your mind?
It depends on the state and the type of gun. In California you have to pass a handgun safety test to get a handgun. The test is super easy, and just about anyone could pass it without studying at all. But there is a test.
Exactly which shootings would have been prevented by this rule? It certainly wouldn't have an effect on the Arizona dude. Nor would it have done anything for the Columbine murderers. And the VA Tech shooter would have been fine, too. I don't really understand what problem you are addressing with this remedy.
I'm not saying it is a remedy. I hate that when I want to buy a set of matched pistols I can't unless one can be put on reserve because I have to wait 30 days. I don't like the rule. It was put in place to stop gun running and smuggling. I was just talking about the facts that you don't have to take a test in CA for the handgun but not the shotgun or rifles. So in one day I could buy (still have the 10 day waiting period) a shotgun and a rifle and one handgun (if I'd passed the test) but would have to wait another 30 days to get a second handgun. I was merely speaking of the laws that exist not offering an opinion one way or the other about them. Actually I thought the fact that I inferred that handguns fell prey to the regulation that would get the idea across that I didn't like it.
because legally driving a car is not related to driving one into crowd of people. The real comparison would be owning a car or ability to buy/rent one. It is also subjective.
It is unlikely in the USA. My friend who did patrols in Iraq and often ran checkpoints from 2005-2007 would tell you it is pretty freaking likely in other places.
And shooting clay pigeons isn't the same as shooting people. When we talk about gun control we are talking about the legal restrictions on owning guns and ammo which is why I pointed out that it seems like there are fewer legal restrictions on owning guns than there are driving. Driving a car is the legal prerequisite as owning a gun since if you can own a gun it goes hand and hand with use. These restrictions aren't subjective as gun laws and driving laws are facts.
Exactly. This is why different countries will have different laws. Also why the US, IMO, needs to put a permanent or temporary ban on guns.
Why Government Cannot “Make Us Safe” by Mandating Security By RonPaul.com on January 16, 2011 http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-01-16/ron-paul-why-government-cannot-make-us-safe-by-mandating-security/ <object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cl-y9wUrKXQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cl-y9wUrKXQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object> The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable. We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, Internet and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else’s political rhetoric. Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House Floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech. Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated. Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws and for government to do something to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee-jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the Congressional galleries only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. Remember, liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty. We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed they at least have a chance against armed criminals. Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day. Since police cannot be everywhere all the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves. Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risk or violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.
The Southern Avenger keeps kicking leftist, big-government butt. <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oeInjJ97kmU?fs=1&hl=en_US&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oeInjJ97kmU?fs=1&hl=en_US&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
Hence my assertion that radicals dominate the debate on gun control and it ain't coming from the left.
We need a REAL conservative and champion of the free market to ensure that we are free with freedom and liberty to be free! And this REAL conservative needs a song about being free in the land where freedom is enjoyed by all who are free to participate in the free market of freedom! <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UhMepzqJvIw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UhMepzqJvIw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
RTSY, I'll address both the Ron Paul post and the Southern Avenger post at one time. They are both based on false premises. While people on the left have called for a more civil tone, nobody on the left has called for govt. to enforce that and restrict free speech. Paul is arguing against something that isn't being proposed. The Southern Avenger talks about how more control could have probably resulted in more people being killed because a gun wielding citizen had the courage to help tackle the shooter. We know the opposite is true. If the assault weapons ban had never expired the shooter would not have had extended clips would have only been able to fire 10 rounds before having to reload instead of 30. That alone would have saved lives. We also know that innocents were nearly killed because armed citizens came close to shooting other innocent citizens. Thankfully that didn't happen. Had Zamudio started shooting in the crowd and chaos it's likely that more people would have died not less. Thankfully the man who did act heroically didn't do this. I'm sure you won't reply, because you seldom seem to want to engage in debate about a topic, but merely post other's words that presumably get across your view, and leave it at that.
