your support is a dozen people, then how much the percentage of crime is, and then an article by some guy showing his belief. That's always how you tend to argue on here, though, so I shouldn't expect anything else. Here's a poor statement, here's a poor unrelated stat. Here's something else unrelated. Here's an article. And then agree to disagree
No, or else you'll be legislated. That was kind of my (poorly worded, incredibly angry) point. Most people see no point to guns at all. If this shit keeps coming up, the "statistical anomaly" argument will be less and less effective until eventually your right to own a gun will be removed. Secure your shit, lock your triggers, and educate your friends, for fuck's sake. That way when one of your nutjob friends tries to steal your AR-15, they won't succeed.
My argument is consistent and simple. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch. Pardon the metaphor. Your argument is that you have the right to trample on the rights of 80,000,000 law abiding people for no good reason. NO GOOD REASON.
Suppose they invented a gun that fired a tiny nuclear bomb. Do you think that would be covered by the Second Amendment? Why or why not? (This is a serious question: remember, when the second amendment was written, all they had was muskets. If the school shooter had a musket, the death toll would probably have been under five.)
Do you feel that your rights are being trampled on because you're not allowed to own a Nuclear Weapon? Can you believe that the rights of 300 MILLION people to own a nuclear weapon are being trampled on? Where's the outrage!!!!??? I mean seriously: wouldn't this be a fucking civil society if everyone had nukes? I know _I_ wouldn't cut someone off in traffic...
Remember, when the 2nd amendment was written that it was fine for people to own firearms and perhaps even more powerful weapons (canons?). If there's a really strong state interest in preventing the private ownership of classes of weapons, then the Supreme Court will allow it (and does). As much as today was a terrible tragedy, the weapons used were not of the mass destruction variety. The State (fed, state govt.) has no compelling interest to deny people the right to own such weapons.
"Anyone that thinks gun laws don't need to be looked at is an idiot" I've already looked at them. Your quoted pronouncement is the very kind of thing I look for when identifying idiots.
You mean I have a second amendment right to own a cannon? Where are the licensed cannon dealers? I demand (a) the right to concealed carry a cannon (b) a fucking huge coat big enough to conceal a cannon. Shit, the NRA has really dropped the (cannon) ball on this one! Because the Supreme Court is always in the right, right? Boy, when it overrules itself your head must explode. Because 20 dead kids doesn't count as "mass destruction". I guess it's "acceptable collateral damage for the greater glory of gun ownership". Maybe it's just me but a whole lot of dead kids kinda seems like "compelling interest."
Why does he have to come up with a solution right this minute? Any hastily-arrived at, one-line solution will be ripped apart precisely because you rushed him... or is that your plan?
Trigger locks, gun safes, education, recognizing your son is troubled (meaning don't give him the keys and combos!). If you can't do these simple fucking things, your hobby should be legislated.
Look at what Canada does. They have a lot of guns and comparable culture and demographics. Follow their lead.
They didn't say YOU should look at them. Sometimes it isn't about you. Besides, haven't you got malls to patrol to protect the unarmed?
