Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Proof once again that no matter how many laws exist, terrorists and criminals will break them, even in California, which is one of the states with the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
•The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer).
See Versatile's post. We should support closing firearm transfer loopholes.
What we SHOULD be concentrating on is this asinine concept of political correctness and being worried about getting called a racist or a bigot if you see something suspicious.
Yeah right, if you see something say something. Then will pillory you, and invite the "victim" to the Whitehouse.
See Versatile's post. We should support closing firearm transfer loopholes.
In terms of priority, though, closing that loophole wouldn't even begin to put a dent in reducing gun violence in this country, particularly not mass shootings, where perps often have mental illnesses and can pass background checks and buy from a dealer. Nor would expanding a flawed background checks system stop these incidents. There are so many illegal guns out there already that all many of the gun control proposals I've seen from primarily leftists would do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. The bad guys, and particularly radicals, are going to flout the rules/break the law regardless. Let's not further hamper the ability of the Average Joe and Jane to defend themselves in the process.
I also note that, due to the constitutional and political reality in this country where states maintain significant control over firearm policy, enacting "gun control" piecemeal at the local/state level is even more destructive for the reasons outlined above and given that not every state would go along. And, why should every state go along? Utah has low gun crime rates, despite having some of the loosest gun laws in the country. The same goes for Vermont and other states. Why should these states, whose gun laws and relatively low crime discredit (as far as I'm concerned) cries that more guns equal more violence, change their gun laws?
The point is that there already are laws on the books for what the shooters did.
Reacting to this by creating additional laws that restrict guns for law abiding citizens will do nothing to prevent another attack like this one.
What we SHOULD be concentrating on is this asinine concept of political correctness and being worried about getting called a racist or a bigot if you see something suspicious.
Closing the IRON PIPELNE will NOT RESTRICT law abiding citizens!
Proof once again that no matter how many laws exist, terrorists and criminals will break them, even in California, which is one of the states with the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
•The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer).
•The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines.
This makes me angry (not the post) because virtually all the mass media outlets reported the guns were "legally purchased" when it was very clear they weren't using CA legal weapons.
... and before the blood on the ground had even cooled, Obama was calling for more gun control.
Closing the IRON PIPELINE will start taking thousands of illegal guns off the street and punish the Traffickers.
When they are in prison then they cannot break the law.
Why are you against that?
Closing the pipeline? There are already laws that prohibit these activities! But the law is continuously broken by criminals because they have no regard for the law (just read the headline of this thread!). Unless you're going to be able to confiscate all guns in the US (it ain't happening and you won't even get close, particularly when it comes to criminals and terrorists . . . hell, just look at Paris, where terrorists were able to use automatic weapons despite the strict gun laws in France), all of the proposals I've seen do little more than punish law-abiding citizens.
[quote=prospectheightsresident;42168637]Pretty much. Its really that simple. If I saw a gun control law introduced that would actually serve to limit crime, as opposed to just further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, I would back that law in a heartbeat. Note, I've already offered a proposal for such a law in the forum several times; whether my proposal could pass in Congress/state legislatures is another story. And, note, while I don't expect people to be carrying in their workplaces as a general matter, I ask others how many of these senseless attacks could have been avoided (or the damage lessened) had the law allowed for more people to arm themselves? I think its telling that these attacks are generally occurring in "gun-free" zones. Also, for those hell bent on more gun control, I just say look at Paris: Intensely strict gun control, yet Jihadists were able to do what they just did and law-abiding citizens were at their mercy as a result.[/QUOTE
I wonder how many law abiding citizens just ignore the GUN FREE zone signs? There aren't any metal detectors in about 99% of those paces where those stupid signs are. Were i carrying then i would.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
