Nine myths of the gun-control debate
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:46 am
India's largest guns, shooting & outdoors community!
https://indiansforguns.com/
The NRA's tactic is to gin up paranoia among gun owners that President Barack Obama is going to confiscate their legally owned weapons.
http://americablog.com/2013/01/obama-fl ... lloon.htmlThe White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers (already exists), track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database (gun registration - proven to not help solve crimes, ask Canada), strengthen mental health checks (provision in the law already exists; mental health records are communicated to NICS- didn't stop shootings), and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors (stiff penalties already exist and that hasn't stopped school shootings), the sources said.
Another one? When every "stumbling block" (there are something like 20,000 gun laws on the books already) is cheerfully ignored by criminals, the only people whose access to firearms is actually being restricted are law abiding citizens.A semi-smart criminal, or a high-functioning deranged person, would still most likely find his way to a gun. But it would be beneficial to place more stumbling blocks in his path.
If you're really serious about that, banning McDonalds and other fast food restaurants, Smoking, Suicide, Cars, ladders, Poisons, etc. should be your number one priority. How do you think that will go over? Why not make Heart Disease eradication and a cure for cancers a national priority? Gun Control fans will tell you that these deaths are not being caused by these other implements but they are.Again, it may be beneficial to ban large-capacity magazines and other exceptionally deadly implements.
Correct. The last assault weapons ban did nothing to stop mass killings. What did Einstein say the definition of insanity was?But we shouldn't be under the illusion that this will stop mass killings.
It is already illegal for a FFL holder to sell without the benefit of a background check.Closing the so-called gun-show loophole — which allows many guns to be sold without benefit of a federal background check — would make it at least marginally more difficult for unqualified buyers, such as felons and the mentally ill, to get weapons
if they wouldn't stop mass killings, then why are we even talking about banning them. The Columbine massacre occurred during the last AW ban. The law limiting mags to ten rounds didn't do squat for those people. As far as ensuring the safety of those students, this law did nothing but it prevented thousands of law abiding citizens from buying mags with capacities over 10 rounds. The logic of his argument escapes me.Again, it may be beneficial to ban large-capacity magazines and other exceptionally deadly implements. But we shouldn't be under the illusion that this will stop mass killings.
He does this to make LaPierre look like an uninformed idiot. I watched the video of the speech. That is not all Mr Lapierre said but they choose to ignore the rest of it so they can attribute this to him.Blaming video-game makers alone for such complicated and incomprehensible crimes is a cop-out.
What "morality of the second Amendment"? What national Debate? Everytime there has been a "National Debate" about this, gun owners have lost and have had another bill shoved down their throats.What do all these misconceptions add up to? Simply that we aren't even close to having a serious conversation about protecting ourselves from death by gun. I wouldn't mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century. But we're not even having a serious debate on the margins.
Why not?Oggie wrote:So what's the solution, learned friends ? And please don't tell me that arming teachers is !