More Laws Not Required
Say Uncle:
Apparently, we’re to now have a “national discussion” on gun control. Again. We already did and you lost. But here you go. This happened in a state with some of the nation’s strictest gun laws.
A 20 year-old had a couple of handguns (illegal). And, depending on the press report, had an assault weapon (illegal), automatic rifle (illegal), or machine gun (illegal). Shot his mom in the face (illegal). Stole his mom’s vehicle (illegal). Transported the gun in the vehicle (illegal) within 1,000 feet of a school (illegal). Carried it onto school property (illegal). Broke and entered (illegal). Carried a gun in a school (illegal). Discharged a firearm (illegal). Shot at people (illegal). Killed some people (illegal). Killed himself (not sure if illegal).
And I’m sure broke other laws I’m not aware of. But, you know, one more gun law ought to do it. Right?All the laws in the world do not stop people who ignore the law.
posted by Dan at 10:40 PM |
3 Comments:
We don't need a discussion about gun laws here in Australia, Dan. We already had one after the Pt Arthur massacre, and the sensible people won.
We don't engage in the same argument for matters like drink driving causes deaths - we look at ways that sensible regulation might decrease the number of times it happens.
There are a heap of sensible suggestions for better or tighter regulation of guns in the US that may make them less readily available for people who are, or will become, mentally ill.
This article in Salon noted many of them.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/held_hostage_by_nra_paranoia/
Instead, the NRA and people like "Uncle"'s approach is "just shut up".
The paranoia that has seen guns not become more widespread in the number of US households, but more concentrated in those households that already have some, is a bad sign that one side of the debate is not capable of being reasonable.
Merle: You are incorrect. The unhinged & uninformed won the discussion post Port Arthur massacre.
Post a Comment
<< Home