What “expanded” or “universal” background check applies to stolen handguns? Maybe, maybe, you could find something that would have prevented Miller, who is 18, from possessing a gun, but it was Mays, with his stolen firearm, who began shooting first. So, where are we now?
Well I’m not really a gun control guy in the normal sense but this seems like a deliberately obtuse question. By obtuse I mean stupid. If there were less guns laying around everwhichywhere then there’d be less guns for the stealing. That doesn’t seem so hard to grasp, but apparently some are mystified.
It seems the argument here is that crime and violence cannot be legislated out of existence. This is like saying (and I’m not sure if this is a strawman,): All desease can’t be cured, therefore doctors are useless!" What I mean to say is that it’s a stupid all-or-nothing argument. There’s no possibility of reducing death and violence, there’s no room for compromise. But that’s American politics these days, don’t compromise on nothing, never.
I am probably in the minority, but I don’t think the issue should be framed as either/ or.
That isn’t what the author states. The author is asking what laws would have stopped this? Since the left always wants more laws, what law would have helped ?
I think it’s inaccurate to say the left always wants more laws.
I wonder. Can we imagine any kind of legislation that does not conflict with the second amendment but reduces tragic senseless loss of life in America?
Well Joe Biden helped pass a law in the 90’s that seemed to work….
But the left is against more cops, funding the police and strong punishment.
We know the assault rifle ban was a bust. Studies have shown in did nothing.
All joking aside. Have you read freakanomics? They say the decline was roe vs wade. It’s one reason I support abortion rights.
Well I’m not really a gun control guy in the normal sense but this seems like a deliberately obtuse question. By obtuse I mean stupid. If there were less guns laying around everwhichywhere then there’d be less guns for the stealing. That doesn’t seem so hard to grasp, but apparently some are mystified.
It seems the argument here is that crime and violence cannot be legislated out of existence. This is like saying (and I’m not sure if this is a strawman,): All desease can’t be cured, therefore doctors are useless!" What I mean to say is that it’s a stupid all-or-nothing argument. There’s no possibility of reducing death and violence, there’s no room for compromise. But that’s American politics these days, don’t compromise on nothing, never.
I am probably in the minority, but I don’t think the issue should be framed as either/ or.
Not sure where you came to that conclusion. After a shooting the left always screams we need more laws.
As such, the question is what law would have stopped this? It’s logical step from we need more to which laws are you suggesting.
I come to that conclusion because after a shooting the right always insists there’s nothing wrong here, everything is as it should be.
That isn’t what the author states. The author is asking what laws would have stopped this? Since the left always wants more laws, what law would have helped ?
I think it’s inaccurate to say the left always wants more laws.
I wonder. Can we imagine any kind of legislation that does not conflict with the second amendment but reduces tragic senseless loss of life in America?
Well Joe Biden helped pass a law in the 90’s that seemed to work…. But the left is against more cops, funding the police and strong punishment. We know the assault rifle ban was a bust. Studies have shown in did nothing.
All joking aside. Have you read freakanomics? They say the decline was roe vs wade. It’s one reason I support abortion rights.