In most cases you won't. Gun control, even the completely unrealistic elimination of all guns, won't help us know in advance who is going to commit the next crime though. Nor will it prevent criminals from committing crimes. In fact it would IMO encourage crime since now only the criminals will have guns. He won't ever do it again AND if he's executed post-haste it's a lot cheaper on the tax payers as opposed to a decade of appeals or decades in prison. You seem to think murder and even mass murders are a product of firearms and or modern times. They're NOT, man has been mass murdering his fellow man for many centuries. Most of that time LONG before any firearms, let alone rapid fire versions, were even invented. They would simply use some other weapon like they've been doing since the beginning of recorded history and presumably long before that. I don't need a Glock with a 30+ round magazine or even a firearm of any kind to kill 30 former fellow employees. I could fill a car with a homemade bomb using materials bought from a hardware store and the local seed and feed. Or do you propose we also ban cars, hardware stores, fertilizer and diesel fuel along with those "evil" inanimate objects known as firearms? Just imagine how many Iraqis would be alive now if automobiles were not available to make car bombs out of. In fact if I'm not mistaken far more people in Iraq die from car bombs than shootings. Last I checked here in the states roughly the same number of people die in auto crashes as shootings. Where is the outrage to ban automobiles here in the states? How many people die in hospitals every year from medical staff errors, where's the outrage and demand to close hospitals? Lets say you banned all private ownership of firearms. Who is going to collect all the guns currently out there? The same federal and local agencies who have so successfully completely and utterly stopped drug trafficking, drug use, driving under the influence, theft, embezzlement, speeding, email scams, shop lifting, rape, assaults and on and on and on....?
I have not had any weapons in my home since 1971 until recently. The reason for the change. My life was threated twice, with one armed person that felt threatened by my questions and wanted to harm me. The other armed person in an incident 5 months later specifically saying they were going to shoot me and my canine when I was taking my canine for a restroom break. I now have weapons in my home and am willing to use them. I am considering carrying a pistol on my side in a holster...not concealed ...for protection. As peilthetraveler implies détente is a good deterrent...same as during the cold war...both sides had nukes and the capability to deliver.
But the capability to deter or neutralize an attack leads to a race, or a first strike. Which is probably what criminals would do in a more heavily armed and stratified society: shoot first, rob second.
Oh for christs sake. So we need to surrender our firearms/self protection so the criminals won't have to be in a hurry to shoot first then rob their victims? I guess now that I think about it it would be better to reduce criminals stress and allow them to take their time in shooting and robbing. God knows we don't want those poor mistreated criminals suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.
Lucrum... Would you consider yourself a redneck? Bear in mind, not all rednecks are bad people. I would just like to hear your response.
I understand that plenty of reasonable people have very different opinions on this issue. Let's take the reasonable argument that there are crazy people out there and it's better that they don't have access to high cap mags or "assault rifles." I put it in quotes because true assault rifles are capable of full auto fire, not just semi-auto like the AR's and AK's you can buy legally. So we get back to the standard liberal argument, which is that the responsible, law-abiding members of society have to surrender their rights because of the actions of the irresponsible. This argument is getting tired and increasingly unpopular, whether we are talking about high taxes to support welfare, mortgage bailouts, or gun control. You will note that liberals never advance this argument when one of their cherished values is at risk. For example, the Ft. Hood shooter was a muslim fanatic. Should we consider restricting military service for such groups? What about airport security? We know precisely what demographic has been responsible for hijackings and terrorism. In either case, liberals would go nuts if we even suggested increased scrutiny. Take another issue, AIDS. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to restrict immigration for people with AIDS or HIV? We do it with other deadly diseases like TB. Again, liberals prefer to risk public health rather than infringe on the freedom of one of their pet groups. It's the same with illegal immigrants. There was an article in the Washington Post today about a violent MS-13 gang member who had been deported once but came back and raped a young girl. He had been picked up by local police on an unrelated charge a few weeks before but for some reason they let him go. Maybe if there was a law like in Arizona they might have nabbed him. Reasonable? Not to liberals.
I agree we should have strict gun control laws in the US. No domestic federal agency or agent while functioning in an official capacity should be allowed a firearm of ANY sort.
Not entirely, no. But I think the vast majority of us would agree that responsible, law-abiding members of society should nevertheless be barred completely from owning WMDs. Why?