04-17-2007, 02:24 AM
[quote chas_m]WHEN is this country going to realise that there is a SIMPLE ANSWER to reduce the number of these sorts of tragedies?
This has very little to do with the political hot potato of "gun control." For the record, I'm not anti-gun but don't own any.
Why can't we simply TIGHTLY REGULATE the SMALL group of guns who's EXCLUSIVE purpose is to kill humans? Not "take away mah gunz," not "outlaw all gunz," just the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage that are inadequate for anything BUT killing large numbers of humans efficiently.
Is that really so out of line? Is that really so wild-eyed, so nuts?
You can still kill humans in a huge variety of ways (including other sorts of guns) if that's what you need to do. But these marauders tend to HUNT humans, and they almost ALWAYS use tools that are designed with ruthless efficiency for that EXACT PURPOSE.
Do you folks (the majority of whom are American) have ANY IDEA how incredibly RARE a tragedy like this outside the US, even in heavily-armed Canada and Russia?
I wonder how many more innocents have to die before this country "gets it."
Correct me if my logic fails here, but, wouldn't it be better in that case to outlaw all guns? Don't statistics show that removing all guns (generally I'm talking about handguns here) from society, that we'd go a long way to preventing gun deaths, as demonstrated by most countries where such is the case?
So barring that, why should we eliminate 'assault weapons' and other such weapons of mass murder? Isn't the purpose of such weapons to keep the 'government in check'? I mean, the insurgents in Iraq wouldn't be able to mount such an effective resistance it all they were had were handguns.
Contrary to what others may have thought about me on this forum, this is one area that I actually side with (and perhaps even go further than) the pro-gun groups.
Ultimately, would it be fair to say this is the price of living in a free society (which by definition includes the freedom from a 'tyrannical government')?
I'm not necessarily convinced 100% in this position. I'm just curious as to what flaw there may be in this logic.
This has very little to do with the political hot potato of "gun control." For the record, I'm not anti-gun but don't own any.
Why can't we simply TIGHTLY REGULATE the SMALL group of guns who's EXCLUSIVE purpose is to kill humans? Not "take away mah gunz," not "outlaw all gunz," just the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage that are inadequate for anything BUT killing large numbers of humans efficiently.
Is that really so out of line? Is that really so wild-eyed, so nuts?
You can still kill humans in a huge variety of ways (including other sorts of guns) if that's what you need to do. But these marauders tend to HUNT humans, and they almost ALWAYS use tools that are designed with ruthless efficiency for that EXACT PURPOSE.
Do you folks (the majority of whom are American) have ANY IDEA how incredibly RARE a tragedy like this outside the US, even in heavily-armed Canada and Russia?
I wonder how many more innocents have to die before this country "gets it."
Correct me if my logic fails here, but, wouldn't it be better in that case to outlaw all guns? Don't statistics show that removing all guns (generally I'm talking about handguns here) from society, that we'd go a long way to preventing gun deaths, as demonstrated by most countries where such is the case?
So barring that, why should we eliminate 'assault weapons' and other such weapons of mass murder? Isn't the purpose of such weapons to keep the 'government in check'? I mean, the insurgents in Iraq wouldn't be able to mount such an effective resistance it all they were had were handguns.
Contrary to what others may have thought about me on this forum, this is one area that I actually side with (and perhaps even go further than) the pro-gun groups.
Ultimately, would it be fair to say this is the price of living in a free society (which by definition includes the freedom from a 'tyrannical government')?
I'm not necessarily convinced 100% in this position. I'm just curious as to what flaw there may be in this logic.