Did you notice that every single one of those events that the President Obama listed, every one of those people who were denied their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, every single one, was killed in a Gun-Free Zone.
Let’s do the right thing?
Somehow I doubt that was done today.
Any nut who gets a hold of a gun to inflict their will on everyone else - whether on the black market (where the vast majority of that happens) or by stealing them – goes to the places where they can inflict the most damage without fear of being caught or killed before their act is complete. Period. This isn’t rocket science folks, they call them Gun-Free Zones”. The proper name would be “Fish-In-A-Barrel Zones”.
Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest.
I will say this, at first blush it doesn’t seem that the president’s proposals were all that unreasonable – though the actual language (not just the purposefully vague outline) will have to be examined before any truth can be laid to that statement.
bgddyjim
Maybe it’s just me being British, but I struggle to fathom how a world with guns is a positive thing.
I’m not saying to ban or not to ban in the US as to be honest, it doesn’t really affect me and I don’t live in the states, nor do I vote or pay taxes there.
And of course, making something illegal won’t stop it happening. But if it’s wrong in the eyes of “right and wrong”, then I think governments should do what is right, regardless of whether it’ll stop the issue completely.
In my opinion, guns sure do act as a deterrent, so do knives, grenades and a whole list of other weapons, but it doesn’t mean that we should all be in possession of them. I only mention this as from a host of posts I’ve read online, the protection of home and family seems to be the main reason pro guns.
I’ve kinda rambled here, and it’s not completely to the point of your post. I apologise for that.
I understand your consternation surrounding our issue, but the UK is number 1 in the world for violent crime per capita, with guns banned. The US isn’t even in the top ten.
As well, since the last assault weapon ban lapsed and gun purchases went up by almost double, violent crime dropped 49% in that same period. In other words, more guns have been good to battle crime.
In addition, there is our Constitution. I won’t even bother getting into that because it would take a book, but it says what it says for a reason.
The point of my post was, though, that our violent outbreak crimes happen only where guns are already banned. Banning them further only creates a larger target population for criminals who don’t care that guns are banned and carry/use them anyway. In short, the crooks and vermin are free to have their way.
Finally, last I heard, even with the ban in the UK, there is gun crime, no? In America we are afforded the right to have a fighting chance. In the UK, if someone pulls a gun you can throw a rock at them or die. I don’t like either of those options.
Instead of creating more “Gun Free Zones” maybe we could create “Murder Free Zones” because no criminal would dare commit a crime there!
Right!!! Oh wait, murder is already banned. Ah well, it was a good idea while it lasted.
Well said and I think that is the intent of most gun owners. Was that original by the way? Very well said!
Thanks..z. It was original, I wrote it literally three seconds after he said it.