Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
The risistance is backed by fact. Banning might make you feel better but history shows that it will not work and I will argue might promote a black market that could result more deaths
Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?
Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ???
This isn't directed at you in particular ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
"The risistance is backed by fact"
Funny that you didn't provide any of those facts which you claim support the resistance. As far as I know, there has never been an 'assault weapons ban' that had any teeth to it. The last one had 900 exceptions, so of course it accomplished nothing. Therefore, I can't see how there can be facts to dispute what I'm saying, because it hasn't been tried yet.
I agree 100% that banning guns entirely from places like Chicago and DC has made things worse. But that violence is typical street crime and domestic violence, not random mass murders. These random mass murders don't usually happen in urban areas. It's an entirely different problem than urban street crime. These random mass murders are a relatively new phenomenon. and cannot be lumped into more common acts of street crime.
"Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?"
For the same reason that I wouldn't welcome Planned Parenthood with open arms if they want to teach my kids how to use condoms. Many people (not me) are opposed to gun ownership, and showing that to kids in a public school undermines what the parents are trying to teach their kids. I'm not someone opposed to the NRA by the way. If my kids are interested in guns, I'll help teach them the right way. But I can see why someone would not want it in a public school.
"Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ??? "
I assume by your use of multiple question marks that you suppose that you 'got me' with something? I don't think so.
What people like me are proposing has never been tried as far as I know, therefore there can't be any data to refute it. You cannot counter my argument by saying that "broad gun bans don't reduce gun deaths as a whole", because these random mass murders are a very small percentage of gun deaths.
I agree 100% that broad gun bans didn't help places like Chicago or DC. That's not even remotely close to what I'm talking about.
It's easier to kill large numbers of people with 'assault weapons' (for lack of a better term) than it is with a handgun. Therefore, it seems reasonable that if we make it harder for would-be mass murderers to get these weapons, we might lower the future body count.
I'll say it again, any impact of gun control would be minimal at best. More lives can be saved if we talk about re-instilling better values, but the liberal wing of the Democratic party has no interest in that.