The only way it would have is if that boyfriend hadn't had a gun as a result of such laws. I've come around on this issue, though. A stupid incident like this one can't justify disarming the populace, and neither would it be practical to even attempt that.
How about instead of giving away more of our Constitutional Rights, we make our government give back the ones we've already lost thanks to the NSA, among others?
1968 GCA arbitarily bans firearms based on "sporting pursose". 1986 NFA bans the sale of possession of automatic weapons made after 1986. 1989 Import ban arbitrarily bans sporting firearms. 1994 Crime Bill arbitrarily banned sporting firearms. The new wave of stupidity, gun confiscations, gun confiscations bills, arbitrary restricts on firearms, magazine, and proposals to hold gun owners criminally and civilly responsible for the criminal misuse of stolen firearms. Do not pretend to be an authority on the subject.
I fail to see how Gun Control would have stopped that guy from mistaking his girlfriend for an intruder and shooting her. He's not going to think twice about shooting at what he believes to be an intruder just because you made it harder for hi to get the gun. I fail to see how Gun Control would have stopped any of the mass shootings. The shooters either attained the guns legally, stole them or got them on the black market. If one option is closed down, they will move to the next. Shutting down all would literally require the confiscation of every gun in not just the United States, but every country in the Americas. I fail to see how Gun Control would stop any crime. Criminals don't follow laws. Gun Control would literally do nothing to achieve anything in reducing crimes and accidents.
87% of all gunshot wounds are self inflicted. Our goal should be to get that number up to 100%. Helpful reminder: When it comes to firearms the temple is just as effective as the mouth.
I was not aware we had ever stopped talking abut gun grabbing. It is what the left does. I am reminded of the great comment about gay rights.... 1. The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't shut up Robertson Davies quotes (Canadian Journalist and Author. 1913-1995)
Let's take a look at this... "the process for acquiring a firearm is already the same as the current process for owning a gun..." Genius, a firearm is a gun. That's like saying "the process for acquiring an automobile is the same as the process for getting a car." Duh. Presumably you were attempting to claim that the process for obtaining a firearm is identical to the process for obtaining a vehicle? If so, you are wrong. Using the below link, you'll find a host of requirements for car buyers that do not apply to gun buyers - not the least of which pertain to registration, insurance and training/licensing. http://www.dmv.org/buy-sell/state-regulations.php Slippery Slope Fallacy much? Are you aware that saying laws will be "draconian" implies that laws will be excessively harsh or severe...? Are you also aware that, in a democracy, laws should determined by "We the People"...? Given this, and the fact that the vast majority of "We the People" believe that universal background checks should be in place for ALL gun purchases (http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/), can you point out how implementing that would be "draconian"? You repeating a statement doesn't make it fact. I find it ironic that you make such a statement (without providing a source), and claim it's my responsibility to validate your claim. That's referred to as an onus probandi fallacy. Despite this, I did look it up: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf Now that only one of us has been able to provide sources for their rational position (hint: that's me), which one of us is it that needs to "face facts"?
I believe each of the laws do a little more than just ban firearms, although some of them also include that. That's why I was fairly specific about which parts of the laws I agreed with after reading them. The fact that you prefer to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by making misrepresentations - and I chose to actually read the law before making such assumptions - does not make me "an authority", it just makes me more rational in my decision making.
That depends on what you think "gun control" consists of. If it includes safety training and knowing how to identify your target before firing blindly at the boogeyman, this situation could have been avoided. How do you think guns get from the point of manufacture to the "black market"? The easier a crime is to commit, the more people will commit that crime. Guns make crime easy. If crime wasn't so easy, fewer people would need to protect themselves in the first place. Once again, that depends on what type of gun control is put in place. Mandatory safe storage and safety training could also be considered forms of gun control, and would certainly achieve something in this regard.
Yes I made a mistake. The process for purchasing and owening a gun IS the same for owning a car including the requirements you listed. HYou are wrogn and that is that. I told you already slow one I do not need a source for that last statement it is overhwhelmingly proven fact. BTW we are not a democracy and we do not determine laws by majority desire or vote. The slippery slope is not a fallacy it is absolute fact
Do not pretend to be an authority on the subject, you are not one. Don't kid yourself, you are not the only one to have read the laws.
When I say gun control, I mean government imposed restrictions. Some are reasonable (Such as not allowing people to own Machine Guns). Safety training is gun education, not necessarily gun control. Stolen or attained Legally. As long as those 2 options are open (Which you really can't stop regardless of what you do), the black market will continue. The only choice is whether a criminal is going through the black market or is going directly to getting them legally or stealing them. That is false. If a person is determined to commit the crime, they will find a way to commit it. The only people who would be deterred are people who are not really dedicated to it, meaning that the most brutal and dedicated criminals would continue their work, while the less determined would turn around and leave. Most people who want to commit a crime are determined on some level. Gun Control, when I say it, refers to government imposed restrictions on law abiding citizens getting guns or what they can do with those guns. Mandatory safe storage and safety training is gun control. It may reduce accidents somewhat, however criminals will simply do the training, get their gun and go commit whatever crime(s) they were going to commit.
If the government said that people had to actually know how to use guns safely in order to obtain them, wouldn't you consider that "government imposed restrictions"? So, if there was a requirement for safe storage, are you saying it would not be harder for people to steal guns? How do criminals obtain guns legally, if their obtaining of guns is illegal? Do you lock your front door when you leave home? You understand that someone could still break a window to get in, right? I believe that - even if we only prevented the "less determined" people from committing crimes - that would be a dramatic improvement. Do you believe that the need to pass a driving test prohibits "law abiding citizens" from obtaining cars? Would our society be better if we simply did away with all driver license requirements?
I clearly said I was not an authority on the subject, so how am I "pretending to be one"? So you've read them? Great! You'll have no problem identifying which of the very specific sections I listed related to bans...
You have apparently not read the laws. Do not pretend to be an authority on the subject, you are not one.
Really? Including registration? Didn't think so... You saying something is wrong has nothing to do with fact. No, it's not - as proven by the source I provided: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf Right, we simply elect individuals (by vote) to vote for legislation on our behalf. Wrong again. A slippery slope is a type of logical fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/
Real Americans need guns because they are real Americans. America answer to problems has never been proactive. Americans are generally reactive. That is why you have wars on drugs. Prisons instead of daycares. And oil spill clean ups, instead of regulations. Why aren't Americans proactive/ Because more money is made putting out a burning fire than installing a smoke detector. People who use the 2A to defend their gun ownership are full of shiot. They need their guns to overthrow their corrupt government, but they don't even bother to protect the integrity of the vote.
Apparently I've read enough of them to pick out the parts I do and don't agree with... Which is more than you have illustrated. I clearly said I was not an authority on the subject, so how am I "pretending to be one"?
Yes including registration. Registration, licensing, insurance and all other legal requirements for automobiles are strictly and exclusively for driving on public roads. You may buy and keep any car you wish without any such paperwork as long as it is on private property. And all of the same is true for firearms. The facts prove you wrongnot me saying so. Yes what I stated about gun ownership is proven fact. Yes we are a republic not a democracy look up the difference. A slippery slope argument is a historic truth and quite logical and accurate argument despite your denial of facts.
These are gruesome facts. Gangs in cities and mass killings in colleges... Maher was right calling NRA Assassin Lobby.
Get rid of the "gun free" killing zones!!!!!! - - - Updated - - - If you want gun control, pass laws that have an automatic death penality for killing someone in the commission of a crime.
You picked the parts that you do and don't agree with? That's cute. Too bad the entire law is enforced as one monolithic structure, so I suppose your position is completely irrelevant.
I was asked whether I agree with the laws, and I indicated that I agree with parts of them. The fact that you don't like that response is immaterial.
