Thats was very true of Scotland's case.The first guns to go are of course the legal ones.
Gun ownership is up, actually. In major cities where concealed carry and/or gun ownership is allowed, violent crime is down (significantly) when compared to those cities who have banned it. It's a right that most citizens defend both openly and strongly. I am 100% for the 2nd Amendment. An old partner of mine was actually saved because someone had been carrying a pistol with him when an armed suspect pulled his rifle on my partner.Just seen on the news here that the Batman Premier in Denver Colorado got shot up by a gun totting madman.
I haven't checked in a while, but what is the general mood on the 2nd Amendment these days in America.
I'm not in America but I hope I can be excused...
The shooting is tragic, and I'm sure many voices will blame the gun as well as the gunman. But I don't think the right answer is to limit the freedom to carry arms.
After the 7/22 attacks in Norway last year, our prime minister's response was "more democracy, more openness and more humanity", not more control limiting our rights and freedom. We don't have a 2nd amendment and our handgun control is super tight, but getting license for rifles (which the terrorist used) and shotguns are easy.
I have a few questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer:
1) How many guns do you need to remove from your society before the risk of such shootings decrease significantly?
2) Is such a reduction in guns even feasible?
The first guns to go are of course the legal ones. Don't think illegal/unregistered guns will be the first ones to be turned in. I hear that the gunman in Denver had no criminal record, but I don't think that can be said about the large majority of killers.
Do you have cities where an amendment to your constitution isn't valid?Gun ownership is up, actually. In major cities where concealed carry and/or gun ownership is allowed, violent crime is down (significantly) when compared to those cities who have banned it.
Public Execution...Then how do we go about limiting stupidity ?
You can't. There's no way to monitor what everyone in the world is doing and where. All you can do its hope for the best.Then how do we go about limiting stupidity ?
You can't. There's no way to monitor what everyone in the world is doing and where. All you can do its hope for the best.
That's how life is. Cruel, unexplainable, and unpredictable.
Public Execution...
Good...I was worried people would think I was kidding...
Just isn't my style...
Now we're talking.
The shooting is tragic, and I'm sure many voices will blame the gun as well as the gunman. But I don't think the right answer is to limit the freedom to carry arms.
After the 7/22 attacks in Norway last year, our prime minister's acclaimed response was: "[....] more democracy, more openness and more humanity. But never naivety". –Not more control limiting our rights and freedom.
We don't have a 2nd amendment and our handgun control is super tight, but getting license for rifles (which the terrorist used) and shotguns are easy.
I have a few questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer:
1) How many guns do you need to remove from your society before the risk of such shootings decrease significantly?
2) Is such a reduction in guns even feasible?