...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I am sorry again
Your attitude to fight guns with more guns ......well is does seem, a bit, well WRONG
Here in England we have few guns and less gun crime.
Check your crime stats Brian neither of our country's are that safe. Here a comparison
Brilliant deduction and that my friend is exactly the point.
But you ASSUME that it's the availability of guns and not a cultural difference between Europeans, Canadians, etc., and Americans.
How many people in those countries actually want a gun? Obviously, a lot of Americans do.
Locked up in a gun club? Note to criminals: want to get a lot of guns at once?
I always say that the difference between the gun death rates of the USA and Canada is the difference between Americans and Canadians.
Your problem is that there are actual cultural differences between, for example, a Hawaiian or Rhode Islander and a Louisianan or Alaskan. If there were any interest in gun control laws in Louisiana or Alaska there would be ballot initiatives being passed. I don't think any such initiative has even made it as far as the ballot in either state.
Second Amendment considerations aside, are we now down to forcing gun control on states where there is insufficient interest in it to try to pass laws on their own?
As for Ms. Rand's bumper sticker slogan, it's the job of the Supreme Court to give blind allegiance to the Constitution and not let what's going on in the real world influence their decisions.
It can take your land, your dog, or your car. To keep the government from taking them,.you'll need to add a couple more amendments to the Constitution. Taking guns can only be done if it can be done without violating the Second Amendment.
So Marc, I bothered to check.
The Violence Policy Center is an anti-gun organization.
They do not appear to be connected to the CDC, they merely used some of the CDC's data.
Here are the actual stats collected by the CDC for 2009 in a report titled:
Surveillance for Violent Deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2009.
I hope you like reading.
"If giving up my hobby, would save one child, so be it."
I have always had a hard time getting my head around these type of statements.
How does you giving up your hobby keep another individual from killing a child?
This kind of cognitive disconnect has never worked for me in making a coherent cohesive argument.
And Blaine using certain words for the specific purpose of inflaming emotions is what politicians do, not what rational people do. (word #62)
"Very simple, no gun, no kill with gun."
See we can agree on something.
Alas a "solution" is a long way off as long as the desire is to "disarm & comply" and not to "protect & defend".
The 2nd Amendment doesn't stipulate that any person has to have a personal reason for having a gun. It's there in order to be able to form a "well-regulated militia." The amendment further does not stipulate that the militia needs to exist YET. Yes, I agree it's stupid, but I also don't see the 2nd Amendment being removed from the Bill of Rights anytime soon. We're stuck with it, which is why I don't think gun control can ever be very effective.