Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Well, you try your best, with some you succeed with some you fail! You can't be a winner all the time!
Well, trying desperately to drag this thread back on topic......what kind of reasonable gun control could have stopped this?
Rhetorical question.........nothing in addition to what we have now.......
There are only two possibilities: either the shooter was in illegal possession of the weapon used, in which case the shooter and the weapon were already outside the law, or the shooter was in legal possession of the weapon.
In the first case, shooter and weapon were already outside the control of any law.
In the second, the shooter was already carefully vetted..........and found qualified to own guns.
Rhetorical question.........nothing in addition to what we have now.......
There are only two possibilities: either the shooter was in illegal possession of the weapon used, in which case the shooter and the weapon were already outside the law, or the shooter was in legal possession of the weapon.
In the first case, shooter and weapon were already outside the control of any law.
In the second, the shooter was already carefully vetted..........and found qualified to own guns.
Colpy, your post states or implies two notions that I dismiss.
- The fact that a law might or might not have prevented a single specific incident is no reason to reject it.
- The fact that a law might be broken says nothing against its value (all laws can be broken.)
- The fact that a law might or might not have prevented a single specific incident is no reason to reject it.
- The fact that a law might be broken says nothing against its value (all laws can be broken.)
It's what is known as presumption of innocence until proven guilty and there's literally dozens of ways that can happen. Sometimes the victims are the instigators, other times not!
There are two kinds of people gun control can't stop. Serious criminals who acquire their guns illegally, and people who are vetted who go off the rails, or whose relatives go off the rails, like Adam Lanza.
But your "how could gun control stop this?" smacks of the old "If I can come up with a single incident (or dream up a hypothetical) where gun control failed, that means gun control is worthless."
Which I hope you know is complete bullshit. It's like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because some murderers are never caught.
The NRA approach is that if everyone is armed (kindergarten teachers, too) crime drops off because you'll never know if the other guy is faster than you, are. Road Ragers are going to make the Santa Monica Freeway look like the Somme in 1916. Anyway, you are conducting a grand experiment for the rest of the World to study ... "Can you control anarchy?"
Gun "rights" people are weird.
Kinda like the Texas abortion bill that would treat a woman who gets an abortion as a murderer. Vile as it is, at least it's logically consistent.
As far as guns go, the right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. None of the other rights in the Bill of Rights is limited, except as absolutely necessary, and then the courts are super-strict in scrutinizing limitations.
Freedom of speech? How do lose freedom of speech? The answer is "you don't."
Saying a convicted felon can't own a gun is like saying a convicted felon has no freedom of speech, or religion, or no right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or no right to a fair trial.
Kinda like the Texas abortion bill that would treat a woman who gets an abortion as a murderer. Vile as it is, at least it's logically consistent.
As far as guns go, the right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. None of the other rights in the Bill of Rights is limited, except as absolutely necessary, and then the courts are super-strict in scrutinizing limitations.
Freedom of speech? How do lose freedom of speech? The answer is "you don't."
Saying a convicted felon can't own a gun is like saying a convicted felon has no freedom of speech, or religion, or no right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or no right to a fair trial.
I think we've been here before.
The key word in your argument is "convicted". When found to be acting in violation of law, outside the general regulation of the population, one is brought before a jury of their peers.........and found guilty or not. If guilty, they are punished by loss of the rights accorded to citizens.
Simple as that.
The 'Bill of Rights' with its 'Unlimited right to keep and bear arms' and 'The Courts' being referred to are part of the legal system in the allegedly-United States of America. They have no validity in Canada, no place in our law, and I believe the great majority of Canadians are thankful for that.
"You've got your troubles, I've got mine."
"You've got your troubles, I've got mine."
