How would the pro-gun lobby react if the Boston bombers had let rip with AK's instead? (illegal, death)

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by GregW

FWIW - an improperly used pressure cooker can be a very dangerous device. I have heard of people jamming the pressure relief vent and being killed by the resulting steam explosion.

So is a knife - improperly used it can be a very dangerous device. Same with a gas grill. Same with a multitude of other common items.

There's always a good-sounding reason to be found for banning of something -- an action that is, actually, the restriction of freedoms and rights. The left is good at coming up with justifications.

[It'sAutomatic]

They'd say that if only guns were given away with no background check and if everyone else there had an assault rifle, freedom would have won.

[Dale Cooper]

One needs to always be situationally aware, or as the idiotic left calls it, 'paranoid'.

The last laugh will be on them.

Boston-type situations will happen again, and the left won't see it coming because they refuse to call it what it is.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

Just think of it.

Two young men with fully loaded AK47's (or similar) + many spare clips.

Could have killed hundreds (as opposed to 3) before being taken down.

Would the gun lobby then be still be so gung-ho about their right to bear arms?

What if they'd had a nuclear bomb in one of those back-packs and killed tens of thousands and the plot was linked back to the socialist utopia of North Korea?

I mean, since this is imagination time at 1:30AM for you......

What if it were pro-abortion demonstrators or black nationalists? Puerto Rican nationalists? KKK?

Hey, what if it was a bunch of Chavistas that believed the US gave him cancer and planted bombs everywhere?

Let the imaginary axe-grinding begin.

[lycos679]

The pro gun people would say it isn't the gun, it is the person using the gun. If they didn't use a gun they would use bombs or a car or anything else they could.

The anti gun people would say they would not use a bomb and that we need to get rid of guns.

[brokensky]

Here's the thing. And it gets to the reality of how impotent background checks are as far as stopping criminals from having weapons.

These two DID have guns -- and no permits.

So if they had used guns, it would have simply emphasized the painfully obvious truth: folks who want to commit crimes with guns can get them -- and DO get them -- without permits. All the screening in the universe is not going to keep a thug from getting a gun.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by anifani821

Here's the thing. And it gets to the reality of how impotent background checks are as far as stopping criminals from having weapons.

These two DID have guns -- and no permits.

So if they had used guns, it would have simply emphasized the painfully obvious truth: folks who want to commit crimes with guns can get them -- and DO get them -- without permits. All the screening in the universe is not going to keep a thug from getting a gun.

That's it right there ^^

[PullMyFinger]

I'm sure there were a few in the gun manufacturing industry damning the luck that they used bombs and not guns. This would have been another sales boost for them.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

Just think of it.

Two young men with fully loaded AK47's (or similar) + many spare clips.

Could have killed hundreds (as opposed to 3) before being taken down.

Would the gun lobby then be still be so gung-ho about their right to bear arms?

Arm all marathon runners.

[Evenstar51]

Originally Posted by burdell

Arm all marathon runners.

And spectators.