Six dead in mall shooting

OK, you're JFK, right? Riding down Elm Street in Dallas without a care in the world.
Somebody's up in that building with a knife.
Somebody else is over by that fence there with a telescopic rifle.
Who scares you the most?
(Anyone answering, "Oliver Stone" will hear from F_B World HQ.)

 

You think Lee Harvey would have taken his history maker to the cops as soon as he heard that guns were illegal?

 

You forgot the blue sarcasm font.

 

MM, I understand your arguments but we're not talking about an all-or-nothing approach. Any law tightening up gun laws isn't going to be 100 percent effective against those who would commit crimes like this, but as it was mentioned earlier, you can't take the attitude that if we can't get all the guns, we won't get any.

I think it was Idaho who mentioned something legit. Start at one point and it'll likely have a trickle-down effect on others. We've got to start tightening up the laws somewhere.

 

I don't deny any of that, but the discussion in this thread quickly turned to "no more guns", which is an admirable goal that has almost no reasonable chance of working.

 

Would you agree that we could set that as a goal and work toward it, even if we knew we'd never actually reach it? Imagine if a politician unveiled a plan to find a job for every unemployed American. It's probably not possible, but imagine the good that would come from the effort.

 

It depends. If you say "no guns" and it takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but keeps them in the hands of criminals, then it's a net loss, even if it means less total guns.

Before we work towards banning guns, we should work towards making the illegal use of guns a more damning offense in the courts. Maybe an automatic upgrade in charge if a gun is used in the commission of a crime?

 

MM. why do "law-abiding citizens" need guns?
So they can shoot someone?
Then they wouldn't be law-abiding anymore.

 

So would you be in FAVOR of the legalization of all drugs? Because banning them hasn't accomplished much. But it has accomplished something.

I guess the argument is if something is better than nothing.

 

War trauma probably made the guy snap (and THAT war was pretty damn brutal). Who knows if really had anything to do with terrorism.

 

Self-defense is a legal use of guns. Hunting is a legal use of guns.

Put it this way: if you institute a total ban on guns, you're a lot more likely to take away the gun from the person defending his or her house from a robber than you would take it from the robber him/herself. Unless you'd propose the government take on the role of forciably removing guns from EVERYONE's possession, which would almost certainly require an ungodly expense and serious civil liberty issues.