Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....
|
"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."
I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.
"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "
That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.
A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.
I don't see it as a "charade". Maybe what I'm proposing can't have a meaningful impact. But it's worth talking about, that's all I'm saying.
"restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by"
OK. So now you are saying that a ban on anything, has no impact whatsoever on the amount of that something that people own.
Scott, I concede that if you ban something (drugs, guns, booze) you cannot eliminate 100% of the ownership. But likewise, you cannot imply that it has zero impact on ownership either. My point was never "if we ban guns, exactly zero people will therefore own guns". You tried to refute my premise by suggesting that bans are not 100% effective. Many people in this thread have also done exactly that. It's not a valid rebuttal to what I am suggesting, because my point was never "we can eliminate 100% of the guns out there". Amazing.