Okay, for starters:
- Ban on high-capacity magazines & clits.
'
Oh heavens no. Don't ban these!
Okay, for starters:
- Ban on high-capacity magazines & clits.
'
Oh heavens no. Don't ban these!
Okay, you can buy a gun and a half-box of ammo, if you like !!!
That was part of my "Mental Check" -- and so far, LOL, you're the only one who qualified, mentally, to buy a gun.
I do respect that you have a well developed position despite my objections to many aspects of it. One last danger I see with national reporting is that these reports and records will become an attractive target for political groups and criminal groups (if there is a difference between the two). imagine hackers gaining access and posting to the internet a list that shows who has the guns and ammo...and who does not. Depending on the motivation, knowing that you have no guns makes you an easy mark for a home invasion or street level robbery...or knowing you have a substantial quantity of guns and ammo makes you an attractive target for a burglary when you're away...either way I have no faith that such a database will have any crime reducing use that will not result in abuse and a greater danger to law abiding citizens. Unintended consequences.Okay, for starters:
I agree that is reasonable and prudent
- Reasononable restrictions against the sale of weapons and ammunition to the mentally ill or those believed to be mentally unstable.
- National legislation -- so that there can be uniformity of regulation and enforcement of the sale and possession of guns and ammo.
I am reluctant to agree with this because the needs and circumstances of one state, does not necessarily apply to those in another.I dont like seeing rights of a state handed over to the government. The type of gun enforcement needed by a border state like Texas or Arizona is not the same as Vermont (which has one of the most liberal carry laws and similarly one of the lowest murder rates)
I agree, if you cannot pass a routine background check, you should not be allowed to purchase a gun. Automatic weapons, however, have been prohibited since 1934 and require high fees and paperwork approved byt the ATF and the local chief law enforcement agent so we dont really see automatic weapons used very often in crime
- Background checks at the point of sale that includes mental background checks for people wishing to buy handguns and automatic weapons.
High capacity clits may in fact harbor more disease so I try to limit my exposure to them in the real world (though they are easily concealed and sometimes hard to identify)but since we have a thriving film and photo porn industry, I cant in good conscience call for the ban on them lol.
- Ban on high-capacity magazines & clits.
I also cant agree with the ban on high capacity magazines. First of all, I dont believe we can reasonably arrive at a certain number and label everything above that as high capacity. 10 rounds to protect your home from a group of home invaders may not be sufficient. 20 rounds may not be sufficient. Let us not forget that defensive gun use occurs thousands of times a day, and more often than guns are used to commit crimes ...so my desire is that we do not impair the good citizens ability to use the gun defensively in a well intentioned, but ineffective attempt to limit the bad guys access to them.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).
Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns:
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.
Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use (see How often are guns used in self-defense?):
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
I see no evidence anywhere that a certain quantity of ammo correlates with increased risk of a person committing a crime and therefore see no need in ammmo sales being reported. In the case of these mass shootings, a shooter is still limited to the amount of ammo and magazines he can carry...which is measured in hundreds of rounds..a quantity that could be accumulated without raising even the slightest eyebrow. With 27,000,000 rounds of ammo and thousands of guns sold per day, the cost of these reporting meausres that is passed on to the purchaser could adversely affect a poorer persons ability to purchase a gun for protection...while they live in areas where they may have the most need for it. That hurts the good guys, and I cannot support that
- A national reporting system covering the sale of guns and ammo (each time a person purchases a gun or ammo a report is generated to the national clearinghouse. The cost of reporting to be paid by the purchaser, at the place & time of purchase.
Again, I see no stats that show ammo quantity has anything to do with crime...a person who likes to shoot, or who hones their proficiency through lots of practice, now has the appearance of being questionable...though what theyre doing is actually being more responsible. A gun is a tool that projects force over distance...it is incumbent upon a responsible shooter, to hit what he aims for. I see no reason to handicap the good guys when I see no coorelation between ammo count and crime. A bad guy with a six shooter full of 45 pointed at my chest and no ammo at home is just as lethal to me in that moment as a bad guy with a thousand rounds of ammo at home. Actually i would prefer he had 1000 rounds on his person, it would slow him down. AS you know, most gun crime is done with handguns, and these mass shootings with so called assualt rifles are very rare (still tragic) events
- Limitations on the amount of ammunition (tracked through a national clearinghouse (cost to operate the clearinghouse paid for my user-fees collected at the place and point of sale of weapons and ammo).
I disagree with the national reporting, but I do agree that weapon sales should be handled through an authorized dealer and registered at the state level...failure to register at state level could trigger the fines and penalties you speak of.
- Prohibit the sale of weapons and ammunition (by individuals or entities) except through an authorized and licensed gun and ammo dealer which must purchase a bond to insure the dealer's compliance with law. The licensed/bonded dealer must report to a national clearinghouse, under penalty of law, the violation of which, whether by individuals or entites, is punishable as a felony including a lofty fine that is recoverable through the bond. An individual or non-authorized entity desiring to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm or ammo would be required to go through an authorized and licensed gun/ammo dealer so that reports are generated and fees collected.
I see no benefit in this. We have approx 2 million gun thefts reported a year, even registered guns can simply be reported as stolen and sold on the black market...I see no good being accomplished by a national registry, especially if history teaches us what happens to countries when a government has the ability to track down and take away guns
- Mandatory registration of ALL guns through the national clearinghouse. New gun sales to be registered immediately and grace period for existing guns to be registered. Registration accomplished through a licensed gun and ammo dealer. Fees for registration collected at the point and place of registration.
"But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.
In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.
Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless. "
Is the history of our great country so beyond reproach that you would imagine that such things(as happened to our people and native americans) couldnt happen here again...
Yes, if the registry is at the state level. Residents of Vermont and Alaska and others might object to its need given their loose gun control laws and their lack of crime..so state level control is important to me
- Public possession (possession beyond the immediate perimeter of the holders property) of an unregistered gun = a felony punishable by time (including a mandatory minimum) and a lofty fine.
Would you like for me to draft the legislation ? ? ?
lol at least if you drafted it, despite my opposition, we wouldnt have hundreds of earmarks and sneaky little additions added in that no one notices until its too late
'
- National legislation -- so that there can be uniformity of regulation and enforcement of the sale and possession of guns and ammo.
I am reluctant to agree with this because the needs and circumstances of one state, does not necessarily apply to those in another.I dont like seeing rights of a state handed over to the government. The type of gun enforcement needed by a border state like Texas or Arizona is not the same as Vermont (which has one of the most liberal carry laws and similarly one of the lowest murder rates)
- Background checks at the point of sale that includes mental background checks for people wishing to buy handguns and automatic weapons.
I agree, if you cannot pass a routine background check, you should not be allowed to purchase a gun.
- Ban on high-capacity magazines & clits.
High capacity clits may in fact harbor more disease so I try to limit my exposure to them in the real world (though they are easily concealed and sometimes hard to identify)but since we have a thriving film and photo porn industry, I cant in good conscience call for the ban on them lol.
I also cant agree with the ban on high capacity magazines. First of all, I dont believe we can reasonably arrive at a certain number and label everything above that as high capacity. 10 rounds to protect your home from a group of home invaders may not be sufficient. 20 rounds may not be sufficient. Let us not forget that defensive gun use occurs thousands of times a day, and more often than guns are used to commit crimes ...so my desire is that we do not impair the good citizens ability to use the gun defensively in a well intentioned, but ineffective attempt to limit the bad guys access to them.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).
I disagree with the national reporting, but I do agree that weapon sales should be handled through an authorized dealer and registered at the state level...failure to register at state level could trigger the fines and penalties you speak of.
If all guns must be registered, then the possession of any unregistered gun would be illegal -- therefore, it wouldn't matter whether the possessor came into possession of the gun, legally or illegally. The goal is merely to reduce the number of guns, especially illegal ones. You're objecting to that ???We have approx 2 million gun thefts reported a year, even registered guns can simply be reported as stolen and sold on the black market...
I see no good being accomplished by a national registry, especially if history teaches us what happens to countries when a government has the ability to track down and take away guns
"But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.
In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.
Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless. "
Is the history of our great country so beyond reproach that you would imagine that such things(as happened to our people and native americans) couldnt happen here again..
And to show how none of us are here talking about banning of handguns at all, no one has even mentioned the latest act of domestic terrorism at the Sikh temple last week.
Yet another life lost at the hands of a man gone mad. Truly sad & depressing.
I understand & sympathize with those who advocate for "stricter gun control." For those of you do, what specifically do you want the federal gun law(s) to be or change from & into?
I respect all serious answers. If you're inclined to start name calling, I'd prefer if you just didn't respond. Thanks.
what specifically do you want the federal gun law(s) to be or change from & into?
Since you tend to pop on to this board when you think you have an issue that favors your world view, I will do a slight recap. All of your concerns have been answered earlier in this thread. Please read this thread from the beginning so you won't be redundant.
NYC, over 8 million people. 10 people shot, 2 dead. This event is definitely an outlier in NYC. During the same time period in Chicago, a city of 2.7 million, 19 people shot. This behavior is not atypical in the Windy city. A city that recently loosen it's gun laws due to a Supreme Court Case. I know you are not suggesting that gun crimes should be totally eliminated in NYC with more stringent gun laws.
New York City is by far the safest big city in the US and safest among cities in general. In fact the surrounding communities around NYC are among the safest also. Why? The surrounding states have strict gun laws. Contrast that to Illinois, which borders Indiana and Kentucky which have lax gun laws. Therefore, easier to import illegal guns. This is why Washington DC and Baltimore have elevated gun crime rates in contrast to other Northeastern cities. There proximity to Virgina. Almost all of the illegal guns found in these cities can be traced to Virgina, which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the US.
OK, think my points are just opinions? I'll post the facts. You know how I roll!
source: Violence Policy Center
States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
<! -- end headline ------------------------------------------------------------><! --------- Body of the press release is inserted below---------------------------------->
Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada Have Highest Gun Death Rates
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Washington, DC–States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2006 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000 for 2006. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. (See chart below for top and bottom five states. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)
[/FONT]<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=4>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates[/FONT]</TD><TD colSpan=4>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR><TD width="8%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rank[/FONT]</TD><TD width="10%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]State[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Household Gun Ownership[/FONT]</TD><TD width="13%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gun Death Rate per 100,000[/FONT]</TD><TD width="6%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rank[/FONT]</TD><TD width="14%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]State[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Household Gun Ownership[/FONT]</TD><TD width="19%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gun Death Rate per 100,000[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width="8%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1[/FONT]</TD><TD width="10%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Louisiana[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]45.6 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="13%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]19.58[/FONT]</TD><TD width="6%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]50[/FONT]</TD><TD width="14%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hawaii[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9.7 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="19%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2.58[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width="8%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2[/FONT]</TD><TD width="10%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Alabama[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]57.2 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="13%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16.99[/FONT]</TD><TD width="6%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]49[/FONT]</TD><TD width="14%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Massachusetts[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12.8 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="19%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3.28[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width="8%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3 (tie)[/FONT]</TD><TD width="10%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Alaska[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]60.6 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="13%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16.38[/FONT]</TD><TD width="6%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]48[/FONT]</TD><TD width="14%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rhode Island[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13.3 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="19%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4.43[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width="8%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3 (tie)[/FONT]</TD><TD width="10%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mississippi[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]54.3 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="13%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16.38[/FONT]</TD><TD width="6%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]47[/FONT]</TD><TD width="14%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Connecticut[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16.2 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="19%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4.95[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width="8%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5[/FONT]</TD><TD width="10%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nevada[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]31.5 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="13%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16.25[/FONT]</TD><TD width="6%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]46[/FONT]</TD><TD width="14%">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New York[/FONT]</TD><TD width="15%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18.1 percent[/FONT]</TD><TD width="19%" align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5.20[/FONT]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury. It's a simple equation." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The VPC defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive concealed carry laws allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns. States with "strong" gun laws were defined as those that add significant state regulation in addition to federal law, such as restricting access to particularly hazardous types of firearms (for example, assault weapons), setting minimum safety standards for firearms and/or requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, and have restrictive concealed carry laws. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]
How yet another innocent life being taken in a string of random shootings would "favor my worldview", I'll never know. I swear you have issues dude. Even with all I said, you still can't help yourself from being condescending & rude. There should be no wonder why I rarely say anything on this board any longer.
But thanks for the info. That is all I was seeking. I wasn't arguing for or against stricter gun laws at all. Just looking for specifics & you provided some. Thanks. I apologize for not reading the previous posts.
Yet another life lost at the hands of a man gone mad. Truly sad & depressing.
I understand & sympathize with those who advocate for "stricter gun control." For those of you do, what specifically do you want the federal gun law(s) to be or change from & into?
I respect all serious answers. If you're inclined to start name calling, I'd prefer if you just didn't respond. Thanks.
Okla. Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
By MARK GREENBLATT | Good Morning America – Sat, Oct 20, 2012
A government admission; studies show; or your opinion ???The government has no track record it can cite where it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
Man Shot Dead After Confrontation Outside Home
October 18, 2012 6:13 AM
Oh, I'm just using the evidence in this thread provided by people that are for more gun control.
This thread is full of articles of criminals using guns, and barely any having been posted of law-abiding citizens.
Why would you expect people who are pro-gun control to post articles undermining their solution of more government regulations?Cool, but I didn't read any articles stating that the government has no track record it can cite where it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. But, I don't have a problem with articles showing the lawful use of weapons, especially self protection inside of the homeplace.
Who would pay the tax? Criminals buying the bullets on the black market or law-abiding citizens? My guess like most taxes it will be law-abiding citizens. Most of these measures aren't pro-gun control but instead anti-gun.BTW, I read a story yesterday or the day before about this woman wanting to place a tax on bullets to help the injured. As I recall, it appeared the proposed bullet tax was being sold as a way of reducing violence. I didn't think the violence reduction argument had much to do with, reducing violence.