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.
Honestly, I fully support the freedom to own guns but I simply cannot comprehend this type of reasoning.
In order for laws to "work," they do NOT have to lead to a complete eradication of an issue. It is NOT possible to argue that a law does not work simply because there continues to be gun-related violence.
Doing so is equal to arguing that we should get rid of all speeding laws because, obviously, there are still people who speed. Thus, the law is pointless.
We should also not prohibit drunk driving because, clearly, there are still people out there who drink and drive. Thus, the law is pointless.
Honestly, I fully support the freedom to own guns but I simply cannot comprehend this type of reasoning.
In order for laws to "work," they do NOT have to lead to a complete eradication of an issue. It is NOT possible to argue that a law does not work simply because there continues to be gun-related violence.
Doing so is equal to arguing that we should get rid of all speeding laws because, obviously, there are still people who speed. Thus, the law is pointless.
We should also not prohibit drunk driving because, clearly, there are still people out there who drink and drive. Thus, the law is pointless.
The gun fetishists would have us take away the laws against murder, because "murderers don't follow them anyway."
The gun fetishists would have us take away the laws against murder, because "murderers don't follow them anyway."
So who wanted murder to be legal? I would love a direct link, unless your just making stuff up again.
And we have been living crime free here in California for the last 12 years since we have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Though NY and Connecticut will be trying for number 1. All the gun grabbers can feel free to take long walk in Stockton or Richmond late at night because all the "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines have been illegal for more than a decade.
The gun fetishists would have us take away the laws against murder, because "murderers don't follow them anyway."
Actually, we want the people who commit the murder to be punished (executed).
I know over a hundred people who own guns, Ted Kennedy has killed more people
with his car than all of them.
Traffic laws, drunk driving laws, and murder laws, don't limit the ability for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, nor do those laws step on the constitution of the U. S.
Honestly, I fully support the freedom to own guns but I simply cannot comprehend this type of reasoning.
In order for laws to "work," they do NOT have to lead to a complete eradication of an issue. It is NOT possible to argue that a law does not work simply because there continues to be gun-related violence.
Doing so is equal to arguing that we should get rid of all speeding laws because, obviously, there are still people who speed. Thus, the law is pointless.
We should also not prohibit drunk driving because, clearly, there are still people out there who drink and drive. Thus, the law is pointless.
Your reasoning is sound except for gun laws. The problem with "gun laws" such as what CT passed is that there is no evidence they will be effective.
Eliminating large magazine sales? What do you think will actually be the outcome of this change?
Adding more weapons to the banned list? What will happen?
Requiring citizens to register their large capacity magazines? Do you think many actually will tell CT they have a 9mm handgun with a 15 round magazine?
Enhanced background checks WILL prevent retail and gunshow sales of firearms to a few people.
Who knew that simply banning high capacity magazines and certain weapons would end gun violence!?
Can we expect zero gun crime now?
Nope.
When it does nothing they'll whine and point at Wyoming or West Virginia or Texas, claiming the criminals are getting their weapons from there. Then when nationwide bans happen and nothing changes they will point at Mexico or Cuba and claim all the illegal weapons are comming from there (nevermind that ALL guns are banned in those places).
A legislature posturing for the camera is the main beneficiary of the new laws.
Zero effect on criminals and their weaponry.
In fact, disarming the law abiding does not deter those predators who are ruthless and strong enough not to need guns in the first place. But it makes things more difficult for the weak and timid.
Perhaps they should change the motto to : government of the sheeple, by the predators, and for the predators.
People ignore speed limits, so maybe we should repeal speed limit laws.
People are able to pick locks, so why have locks?
It's been shown that people can jump over cars, so why not do away with cross walks & just tell pedestrians to jump over the cars.
No, gun legislation is not going to eliminate all crimes by guns, but it will most likely cut down on gun crimes as it will be more difficult for those who shouldn't have a gun to get one. Remember. 40% of gun sales are done with NO background checks.
I own a few firearms and am not worried that they will be confiscated. Gun owners should relax & stop listening to the NRA whose sole mission is to promote more gun sales in order to further enrich to gun manufacturers.
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.
