Why the same old gun-control answers aren’t comforting
As the father of two small boys, I’m as haunted by last week’s massacre in Newtown, Conn., as anyone who didn’t know personally the victims or their killer.
I have the same fears as all parents anticipating the long, potentially treacherous path ahead of their children in this broken world of ours. My fears are only multiplied by my doubts there are many real options for thwarting future slayings in other unsuspecting towns.
The two primary questions we ask after mass killings are: Why do some people act so heinously? And how can we keep others from doing so?
The first question invariably draws answers like: madness, isolation, social awkwardness or marginalization, familial dysfunction, a craving for fame (or infamy), the prevalence of violence in our popular culture, and evil pure and simple.
The second question typically brings suggestions for treating these mental illnesses and social failures. That, and gun control.
Guns typically don’t make the list of answers to “why,” only to “how.” They are but one means for mass killings — albeit the most common one — not a motivation. Yet, guns become our central focus in times like these.
I understand the impulse. How do we begin to treat the mad, and especially people, such as the Newtown killer, with only mild disorders? As important as it is for us to attempt to rebuild the American family, can we wait the years or perhaps generations such an endeavor might consume, when another mass killing could happen today? How, within the bounds of constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, does one dial back the violence found in our movies, TV shows, video games and even music?
Whatever a killer’s motivation, guns seem to be his means of choice. Better to address that, right?
As keenly interested as I am in preventing the next mass public shooting, I see little reason to find comfort in gun control.
Consider the high school rampage in Columbine, Colo. The year was 1999, amid a decade-long ban on “assault weapons,” those firearms defined by nothing more than the minds of legislators who drafted the ban on them. (Indeed, the main characteristic common to the weapons banned then seems to be the likelihood one might have seen a similar weapon in a shoot-em-up, kill-em-up movie — an implicit nod to the overriding impact of our entertainment culture.)
One of the Columbine killers was armed with a pump-action shotgun (not exactly a semiautomatic weapon) he fired 25 times. He also fired 96 rounds from a 9-mm carbine while using 10-round magazines — the limit of choice for those who say 30-round magazines are the problem.
When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced his ban on sugary soft drinks larger than 16 oz., most observers recognized the folly of limiting the size of one drink when a person could simply buy two or more of them. Does no one else find it similarly illogical to think a person bent on mass murder won’t just carry multiple weapons with smaller mags, or that lives will be saved in the few seconds it would take an experienced gun handler to change magazines?
I raise these objections not to defend specific weapons or magazines with any number of bullets. Neither I nor anyone I know owns an “assault weapon” (as far as I know), and I have no particular affinity for bullets that come in sets of 20 or 30 or 40 rather than 10. While I generally support gun-ownership rights, I’m open to practical suggestions that can reasonably square with the Second Amendment.
Nor do I think the situation is hopeless, or as good as it gets. I do think we can make our communities safer. But I think the most effective solutions will be less comfortable — such as asking when it’s OK to invade the privacy of those who are dangerously mentally ill — and more expensive — such as ensuring there are armed guards or designated weapons-carrying citizens even at schools and other “gun-free zones” — than merely banning particular weapons and ammunition.
The lives of innocents deserve the fullness of our thought and attention, not old ideas that have been sitting on the shelf, waiting for a crisis.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
457 comments Add your comment
md
December 20th, 2012
3:06 pm
“I choose to have a nuclear missile. Why can’t I have one.”
Actually, you can if you really want one……but it will probably come with consequences.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
3:08 pm
Ray – A Sherman would not be the best option. Any government goon with his wits about him would throw a molotov co-cktail on it and would wait until you popped out of your hatch so he could shoot you with his………Bushmaster.
Ray
December 20th, 2012
3:14 pm
ATL Tiger: Ok, good — you acknowledge we need gun control, or severe weapon control, and that we have to draw the line somewhere to “balance between the cost in misery that can be meted out by a weapon and the benefits of having the freedom to possess the weapon.” I agree. And in my view, and I think many/most others, the cost and misery that can be meted out by a Bushmaster assualt rifle with a 30+ round clip far outweighs the benefits of having the freedom to possess the same. In fact, as I started by asking before, I can’t really see any legitimate reason why anyone would need a Bushmaster assault rifle and 30+ round clips.
As far as your “if you ban assault rifles, only criminals will have assault rifles” argument goes, I would note that the shooters in at least five of the notorious mass public shootings that I can think of off the top of my head — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Colorado movie theatre, Gabby Giffords, and now Newtown, CT — were all young males with no criminal records. And I would submit that none of the shooters in these five incidents would have had or obtained the guns they used if they had been illegal — these were not kids/young men who were going to buy guns out of a back alley or the trunk of a car. They only had access to their weapons of destruction because it was legal to do so. I think that’s what a lot of people are starting to get — it’s not some gangbanger with an assault weapon I’m worried about for the safety of me an my family, it’s the nerdy, slightly off kid down the street living in his parents’ basement.
Del
December 20th, 2012
3:14 pm
Off Topic but still relates to guns.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/20/letter-from-mexican-ambassador-dampens-hope-for-early-release-jon-hammar/
Where’s our feckless president? Why isn’t he publicly demanding release of this American. Mexico needs to be slapped down more than just a little bit.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
3:18 pm
“I’m from the Netherlands and I’ve been to Japan.”
———————-
We really don’t care how you do things in the Netherlands or in Japan. If we wanted to be like the Netherlands and Japan, we’d just toss our Constitution and copy whatever y’all have. We’re Americans and we are who we are because we do things the way we think best. That’s not being “ugly” that’s being true to what made us the strongest, most prosperous, most generous, most democracy-defending nation on earth.
ATL Tiger
December 20th, 2012
3:19 pm
Actually Ray, the shooters of Columbine and Newtown did not obtain the guns they used legally. The Columbine kids did not purchase their guns, someone else did because they legally could not. The Newtown shooter did not purchase the guns he used legally.
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
3:20 pm
carlosgvv;
“So, if it’s guns, I talk about the phallic challenged.
Reading between the lines, I suspect a good look in the mirror will tell us who is the phallic obsessed one here. (hint – it’s not me)
As for women, have you never read Freud? Have you never heard of pen*s envy?”
Is THAT why you keep making comments about pen*ses? You’re envious of those that have one?
Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion besides your highly educated and credentialed opinion that all gun owners have small pen*ses? Don’t get me wrong, it’s so original and I’ve never ever heard any other genius like yourself apply that obviously logical reasoning to the gun control debate. Originality and cleverness aside, do you have any of your own thoughts that aren’t veiled insults or inflammatory rhetoric to contribute or are you purely a troll?
Van Jones
December 20th, 2012
3:21 pm
Ray, it seems reasonable that once the nerdy, slightly off kid down the street with no criminal record determines that murder is OK, he probably isn’t going to flinch at stealing or buying a stolen gun. You think?
ATL Tiger
December 20th, 2012
3:21 pm
“it’s not some gangbanger with an assault weapon I’m worried about for the safety of me an my family, it’s the nerdy, slightly off kid down the street living in his parents’ basement”
Don’t you think that person you’re worried about in the basement is going to still going to carry out their wishes whether or not its with a firearm?
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
3:26 pm
Ray;
“As far as your “if you ban assault rifles, only criminals will have assault rifles” argument goes, I would note that the shooters in at least five of the notorious mass public shootings that I can think of off the top of my head — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Colorado movie theatre, Gabby Giffords, and now Newtown, CT — were all young males with no criminal records. And I would submit that none of the shooters in these five incidents would have had or obtained the guns they used if they had been illegal — these were not kids/young men who were going to buy guns out of a back alley or the trunk of a car.”
What is your point? Is your point to ban “assault rifles”? Out of the incidents you mentioned an assault rifle was used in two of the five. The other three had no “assault rifle”. So are you proposing ban “assault rifles” or just get rid of the Second Amendment completely? What are you actually proposing?
CC
December 20th, 2012
3:27 pm
“Originality and cleverness aside, do you have any of your own thoughts that aren’t veiled insults or inflammatory rhetoric to contribute or are you purely a troll?”
After reading many of his posts, I think (if he answers honestly) he will have to answer that he has nothing of substance to contribute and that, in fact, he is a troll.
Ray
December 20th, 2012
3:27 pm
“Actually Ray, the shooters of Columbine and Newtown did not obtain the guns they used legally. The Columbine kids did not purchase their guns, someone else did because they legally could not. The Newtown shooter did not purchase the guns he used legally”
Yeah, that’s part of my point. If it had been illegal to own Bushmaster assault rifles, then Adam Lanza’s mom would not have had one, and this Newtown tragedy never would have happened.
ATL Tiger
December 20th, 2012
3:27 pm
Here’s the deal, no amount of gun laws that may or may not pass will or could prevent something like this taking place again.
One option you have personally is taking action rather than complaining and leaving in fear. Get educated on firearms, take some safety classes, purchase a firearm, practice at a range, get a concealed weapons permit, and do the same for your family.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
td
December 20th, 2012
3:27 pm
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
2:22 pm
Finn McCool;
“…banning personal ownership of all weapons places law-abiding citizens at the mercy of both criminals and politicians.
And no one is proposing this”
YET. At least until the next time some crazy person does something evil and he doesn’t use an “assault rifle”.
And actually, there are MANY proposing exactly this.
Do not forget that the VA tech shooter used a 9mm pistol with a 9 round clip. The proposed legislation would not even touch this one?
Van Jones
December 20th, 2012
3:29 pm
One more tidbit, Ray, before I have to sign off… “the cost and misery that can be meted out by a Bushmaster assualt rifle with a 30+ round clip” is the same as what could be meted out by just about any other gun with a 10 round clip. You’ve got close-range targets trapped in a classroom and it might take 2-3 seconds to change clips. Same end result.
However, it makes me nauseous to think about it.
ATL Tiger
December 20th, 2012
3:31 pm
“Yeah, that’s part of my point. If it had been illegal to own Bushmaster assault rifles, then Adam Lanza’s mom would not have had one, and this Newtown tragedy never would have happened.”
Guess what Ray, marijuana is illegal (with exception of recent laws in CO a& WA) as is heroin. But guess what? People can still get it if they want it! Just because the politicians and bureaucrats say something is illegal doesn’t mean no one will ever have it.
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
3:33 pm
Ray;
“it’s not some gangbanger with an assault weapon I’m worried about for the safety of me an my family, it’s the nerdy, slightly off kid down the street living in his parents’ basement.”
Ray, you are the perfect example of a hysterical reaction. How many people are killed annually here in the US by the “nerdy, slightly off kid down the street” in mass shootings? Numbers I’ve seen are about 150. Out of over 300,000,000 Americans. That’s a VERY low rate. Are you also afraid of getting hit by lightning or slipping on a banana peel and cracking your head open? You should be, those are more likely to occur.
The ganbangers and other criminals kill MANY more people (with and without guns). However, even this (all violent crime) has been in continuous decline since the 70s to what is now the lowest point in decades, despite (or perhaps because of) very high rates of gun ownership and concealed carry permits as well as some of the most gun-friendly laws we’ve ever had (like Constitutional Carry in four states).
How do you explain that?
You are afraid of the wrong things Ray, and you are being manipulated by the media to be afraid of your own shadow.
td
December 20th, 2012
3:34 pm
Ray
December 20th, 2012
3:27 pm
Please define “assault weapon”? Please do not use the term military use because the AR-15 is the civilian version of a military weapon and is not used by the military.
Ray
December 20th, 2012
3:38 pm
“Ray, it seems reasonable that once the nerdy, slightly off kid down the street with no criminal record determines that murder is OK, he probably isn’t going to flinch at stealing or buying a stolen gun. You think?”
___________
“it’s not some gangbanger with an assault weapon I’m worried about for the safety of me an my family, it’s the nerdy, slightly off kid down the street living in his parents’ basement”
Don’t you think that person you’re worried about in the basement is going to still going to carry out their wishes whether or not its with a firearm?
____________
No, I think that’s where both of you guys are way wrong. I don’t think if it’s illegal to own a Bushmaster assault rifle with a 30+ round clip that Adam Lanza would ever have obtained one — and same for these other shootings I mentioned. Where/how do you think a kid like Adam Lanza would have obtained one if they were illegal? You really think he would have ventured into a bad neighborhood far from home and figured out where he could buy one out of a back alley? I doubt it. And of cource he’s far more likely to carry something out lioke this with an easy to obtian legal assualt rifle. I suppose he could build a bomb, but we’ve had that happen what once (Timothy McVeigh) in the last 20 years, while we’ve had dozens of mass shootings with semi-automatic assault weapons. Ban the assualt weapons, or restrict them heavily, and a lot of these mass killings don’t happen.
ATL Tiger
December 20th, 2012
3:49 pm
“You really think he would have ventured into a bad neighborhood far from home and figured out where he could buy one out of a back alley?”
I don’t know, but he killed his mom to get to the guns he used so I guess if we’re going to play the what if/speculation game then yeah he would. BTW I don’t where these illegal dealing go down, but they’re just as likely to go down in an affluent neighborhood as a back alley.
The gun system that is currently in place (especially in CT) worked. He had to kill someone to obtain these guns. Again we come back to the fact that there is evil in this world, and that these sick cowards will not be stopped by laws.
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2012
3:52 pm
This is a suitably thoughtful and thought-provoking piece, and I appreciate you posting it, Kyle.
I just wanted to address one question you asked:
Does no one else find it similarly illogical to think a person bent on mass murder won’t just carry multiple weapons with smaller mags
With all due respect to Hillbilly D’s take on this @ 12.58, I think it’s worth noting that even with ingenuity, smaller clips mean more reloading, or more weapons switching–and more opportunities for people to neutralize the threat.
It is an admittedly *very* small part of a holistic approach I’d favor, which would of course include re-appraising our mental health policy, something that nobody reasonable seems to oppose.
Lastly, just a couple of links. One is an appraisal of who owns guns in America. the other is a listing of gun ownership by country. I found the information in the second link somewhat surprising (who knew Frenchmen are slightly more likely than Canadians to own firearms?), whereas the first one more or less confirms what I’d assumed.
/drive-by
Stephenson Billings
December 20th, 2012
3:53 pm
ObamAusterity…. Forward!
Harry Reid: ‘We Are Not Going to Do Anything’
“Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, made his “fiscal cliff” position clear in a press conference today. “We are not going to do anything,” said Reid.
Reid added, “We are not taking up anything they are working on over there.” ”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-we-are-not-going-do-anything_690795.html
And the libs call the Republican party the party of “no”….
Just Saying..
December 20th, 2012
3:53 pm
Aesop @ 2:56 “If you are licensed and pay the government goons their extortion, you can own a machine gun and probably anything else you’d like.”
Stand by for news on this…
JR
December 20th, 2012
3:54 pm
Again, some of you are ignoring a few key facts:
Columbine happened with AWB compliant weapons(10 round mags!)
Virginia Tech occurred with AWB Compliant weapons(the Walther is only available with 10 round mags, the Glock has both 15 and 10 rounders available)
Connecticut occurred with a AWB compliant rifle paired with 30 round magazines.
Believe it or not the AWB does NOT outlaw posession of these items; just the manufacture and sale of new items to non-gov customers. There are MILLIONS of “Assault Weapons” and magazines on the market and in law-abiding hands. It is utterly impossible to control the supply that is already out there(and grossly unconstitutional). These weapons will be available to those willing to steal and murder for 100 years if the supply was cut off today.
td
December 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
stands for decibels
December 20th, 2012
3:52 pm
Interesting articles. I guess this means a revolution by the right is more likely to succeed then a revolution by the left.
Ray
December 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
ATL Tiger: Are you acknowledging that a Bushmaster assualt rifle with a 30+ round clip does not pass the risk-benefit analysis you endorsed earlier? It sounds like maybe you are, but if not please explain how the Bushmaster passes your own risk-benefit analysis you posted earlier. If the Bushmaster does not pass your risk-benefit analysis, then shouldn’t we start regulating/restricting them?
td
December 20th, 2012
4:06 pm
Ray
December 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
You never answered my question so I will ask it one more time. Please define “Assault weapon”?
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
4:10 pm
stands for decibels ;
“I think it’s worth noting that even with ingenuity, smaller clips mean more reloading, or more weapons switching–and more opportunities for people to neutralize the threat. ”
For the sake of argument let’s say you’re correct and that not all of these crazies are that well-practiced or experienced to reload in under 2 seconds. *HOW* would someone neutralize the threat? A school administrator tried to neutralize the threat by rushing Lanza (according to news reports). But she had NO WEAPON to use against him. In other words, she didn’t stand a chance because she was in a gun-free zone as a law-abiding citizen.
Is it possible it makes some sense to give these people a chance by allowing them to have a weapon, even if it’s just the principal with a locked gun safe in his/her office? Doesn’t anyone wonder why most of these mass-shootings are taking place in school, churches, colleges (and a movie theater that explicitly forbids concealed carry) where law-abiding citizens CAN’T have a weapon to defend themselves?
splavistic
December 20th, 2012
4:13 pm
So, in your twisted sense of reasoning… Making certain guns illegal won’t solve the problem of guns, BUT making certain abortions illegal WILL solve the problem of abortion?! AND, making certain guns illegal won’t solve the problems of guns, BUT making gay marriage illegal WILL solve the problem of…whatever problem you have with it?!!!
BAN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE AND HIGH CALIBER, MILITARY-STYLED WEAPONS, NOW!
There, problem solved.
Michael H. Smith
December 20th, 2012
4:13 pm
Your opinoin is very much correct and to the point Kyle. This over focus on a simi-automatig Bushmaster, which is not the military fully automatic assualt version M-16 some people would have us believe, is simply knee-jerk to capitalize on reactionary fears.
As you pointed to the 9 mm out in your example, like this recent shooter possessed, with three 15 round clips, he could have fired about 76 rounds in about 8 minutes. He could have used the Glock 9 instead of the AR -15 type riffle and the result could have been exactly the same. So this so-called assualt riffle BS by these leftwing nut-jobs, is as I said: knee-jerk.
But let them pass some silly Sen. Feinstein crap bill and you can make bets all day on your way to the bank that someone will find a way to get around that usualess legal garbage before the ink dries good on the paper. A former employer of mine made a good living do exactly what I’m talking about by making things that were right on the very edge of legal while still within the letter of the law.
Nah Kyle, we got to address the culture of violence in our society and metal illness in a major way with focus on sensible measures, not emotional knee-jerk reactionary prohibtions as sole solutions.
I think we all know how much good prohibtions have done in this country at stopping drugs and alcohol consumption by use of a “ban”.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
4:14 pm
John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
So why do the libs want to take our guns away?
td
December 20th, 2012
4:14 pm
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
4:10 pm
“Is it possible it makes some sense to give these people a chance by allowing them to have a weapon, even if it’s just the principal with a locked gun safe in his/her office? Doesn’t anyone wonder why most of these mass-shootings are taking place in school, churches, colleges (and a movie theater that explicitly forbids concealed carry) where law-abiding citizens CAN’T have a weapon to defend themselves?”
Excellent questions but I do not think anyone that wants to ban guns will ever answer because to do so would mean that they are admitting that the real problem is not the gun.
Stephenson Billings
December 20th, 2012
4:15 pm
“You never answered my question so I will ask it one more time. Please define “Assault weapon”?”
Guess it’s like that old definition of “pornography”…. can’t be defined, but they know it when they see it.
Ray
December 20th, 2012
4:15 pm
You never answered my question so I will ask it one more time. Please define “Assault weapon”?
I’d say what Adam Lanza used was an assault weapon. I’d leave the definition to those who know more about guns, but weapons that are primarily designed or their basic purpose is to kill a lot of people very quickly would fit.
ATL Tiger
December 20th, 2012
4:16 pm
“ATL Tiger: Are you acknowledging that a Bushmaster assualt rifle with a 30+ round clip does not pass the risk-benefit analysis you endorsed earlier? It sounds like maybe you are, but if not please explain how the Bushmaster passes your own risk-benefit analysis you posted earlier. If the Bushmaster does not pass your risk-benefit analysis, then shouldn’t we start regulating/restricting them?”
It’s not a threat. Every Joe who owns a Bushmaster ‘assault rifle’ is going around shooting people. More people are shot and killed by pistols than this particular semi-auto rifle.
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
4:16 pm
ClydeFr0g – 3:20
I never said ALL gunowners have small pen*ses. I suggested that many are phallic challenged, which can be either physical or psychological.
Others, no doubt, have other shortcomings(so to speak) which gun ownership helps to compensate for. Still others just like to have a gun in the home for protection. Still others just like to hunt etc. etc. etc.
These are my own thoughts. They do not have to be yours. However, ridiculing me will not disprove my assertations and will NOT make them go away.
1776
December 20th, 2012
4:17 pm
To all you collectivist, authoritarian, sheeplized lemmings whining about “rounding up guns”….you’ll make wonderful slaves. The 2nd Amendment was devised to protect citizens from an overly empowered, over-reaching government. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st you sanctimonious, limp wristed bedwetters! Learn your history ! Thomas Jefferson wisely stated…..”When the People fear the government, it is tyranny & when the government fears the people, there is liberty!”.
splavistic
December 20th, 2012
4:17 pm
It’s so ironic you christianists and your belief in a peaceful, loving Jesus. YET, you clutch your guns tighter than your bible (a violent book, indeed), you are pro death sentence (shouldn’t you let God be the judge?) and you are pro- war (just look at you salivate over the Iraq war and the waterboarding, and the death and mayhem).
Stand down, shut up, and let responsible adults make the decisions!
BAN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE AND HIGH CALIBER, MILITARY-STYLED WEAPONS, NOW!
Michael H. Smith
December 20th, 2012
4:19 pm
BAN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE AND HIGH CALIBER, MILITARY-STYLED WEAPONS, NOW!
And before you can shout out another exclaimation point someone will offer a high capacity magizine clip kit for sale over the Internet that will defeat evrything ypou thought you had done.
And if you can stop that little trick then there is another one you will NEVER STOP!
td
December 20th, 2012
4:24 pm
splavistic
December 20th, 2012
4:17 pm
“Stand down, shut up, and let responsible adults make the decisions! ”
I do not call anyone responsible that does not understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
4:25 pm
BAN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE AND HIGH CALIBER, MILITARY-STYLED WEAPONS, NOW!
There, problem solved.
You might want to educate yourself, genius, they are “banned” in Konnektikut.
md
December 20th, 2012
4:27 pm
Those in favor of banning assault type weapons:
How would you propose taking them away from the ones that have them? And how do you go about making sure you have all of them?
I’m not seeing it as only the honest ones that want to give them up will be doing so, and the problem would still exist.
getalife
December 20th, 2012
4:28 pm
When the same thing happened in other countries, they united with government and banned guns.
They passed the moral test.
What will we do?
Don't Tread
December 20th, 2012
4:30 pm
you’ll know the difference between “substantial argument” and “juvenile insults”
(rofl) That’s pretty rich, coming from carlos.
Statists love to ban things…
td
December 20th, 2012
4:30 pm
md
December 20th, 2012
4:27 pm
I consider myself a law abiding citizen but there is no way I am going to give up my semi automatic weapons, ammunition or clips.
JR
December 20th, 2012
4:37 pm
Also an important question: How do you compensate owners for the property you are confiscating?
Hillbilly D
December 20th, 2012
4:38 pm
Let’s face it, if you have the money and you are determined to get it, you can buy damn near anything you want in this world. And if that don’t work, there’s always stealing. None of that is going to change.
Stephenson Billings
December 20th, 2012
4:41 pm
“but weapons that are primarily designed or their basic purpose is to kill a lot of people very quickly would fit.”
So that leaves what? Muzzle loading black power rifles?
md
December 20th, 2012
4:42 pm
“When the same thing happened in other countries, they united with government and banned guns.”
And violent crime in some of those countries is higher now than before. Britain has a gang problem and guns are involved, and everybody else is at their mercy.
Crime went up in Chicago and DC after their bans, and went down after the bans were taken away….explain that one please.
Michael H. Smith
December 20th, 2012
4:44 pm
Let’s face it, if you have the money and you are determined to get it, you can buy damn near anything you want in this world.
Agreed!
And, if you are determined enough you can get around damn near any law that has ever been written to make a lot of money. I seen it done too many times. So let’em ban high capicty clips, like I said the ink will not dry good on the paper before someone is selling a kit or the other LEGAL remedy you cannot stop.
Go ahead Joe Biden, make my day!