Multiple deaths, including children, at Connecticut school shooting

Study: More gun control = less gun violence.

www.salon.com/2013/03/07/gun_control_reduces_gun_violence_and_other_studies_that_confirm_the_obvious/

 

Personal study... Salon = crap with a liberal bent.

Chicago is so peaceful these days.

 

The study was conducted by Harvard and the Boston Children's Hospital and appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

Don't let reality get in the way of perception.

 

I wouldn't have known because I would not click on a Salon link if there was a gun, either tightly regulated or black market, pointed at my head.

That being said, I see both sides. Of course taking guns out of the hands of criminals will reduce violent crime. The problem is, if any kind of law takes the gun away from just one law-abiding citizen you will have infringed on that citizen's constitutional rights.

As I have said before, our problem is not as much a gun control issue as it is a mental health issue. Just restricting gun ownership will do nothing to solve the problem of violent crime in this country. I know this sounds like I am contradicting myself, but strict gun laws do not take guns out of the hands of criminals. That's the problem.

 

If I can't own a bazooka or fully automatic weapon, my rights are being infringed.

 

Maybe you can use that bazooka to shoot at your straw man.

 

I'm law abiding. Why can't I legally own a bazooka? Aren't my rights being infringed?

 

It's not a straw man as long as the NRA-type arguments about any restriction being a slippery slope towards the out-right banning of civilian firearms continues to made and followed by elected representitives.

If record checks prior to the purchase of a firearm are 2nd amendment infringements, than so is the banning of a bazooka. The legal definition of a firearm is a device capable of expelling a projectile by the use of an explosion. Which is why BB guns are not firearms, compressed gas is not an explosion, but bazookas are firearms.

Why is the second amendment the only one subject to less exceptions than any other right?

 

Maybe we should just legislate that the only weapon a person can own for his/her defense is a sling-shot? Why do you want to limit us to sling-shots?

 

I'm getting a little tired of hearing that this is a "mental health issue."

In Adam Lanza's case, sure.

In James Holmes's case, sure.

But do you really think the vast majority of non-suicide gun deaths each year are caused by mentally ill persons? No way. They are caused by soldiers in the modern-day equivalent of organized crime.

You know what the fastest way to reduce gun violence in the United States would be, if gun ownership restrictions bother you?

Legalize drugs.

 

Join a militia