For John, BLUF: Banning guns doesn't prevent criminals using guns. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Earlier today we talked about a home invasion, out in Fairborn, Ohio. Now we skip across the Pacific to the Philippines, where the President, Mr Benigno Aquino, III, is concerned about armed robberies, even though guns have been banned.
President Aquino is alarmed by the spate of armed robberies in shopping malls and other high-profile crimes in Metro Manila despite a nationwide gun ban, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas said Wednesday.But they have a "nationwide gun ban."
Of course the President is concerned.
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
What part of criminals have guns even though it is a crime to have one. It's one of the reasons that they are criminals. When you ban guns, the only people who have to comply with the ban are law abiding citizens who very quickly become not just law abiding citizens but VICTIMS.
People kill people...and they do it with whatever they prefer and can get and use. If America wants to eliminate gun violence, have the Media stop "glorifying" it by non-stop, breathless coverage. THAT is precisely what the perp wants......a few minutes of unforgettable fame. If we want to pass a law banning something, it should be banning any news story involving the use of a gun to commit a crime. The logic is impeccable. If nobody knows that some dirtball killed someone....nobody will care.
Beyond that, arm the citizenry and teach them how to use their weapons defensively. Bad guys don't like good guys who shoot them. A quick verifying question. How many people who are armed are murdered by a gun toting whack job? Read the press reports. The answer is "None."
But then, gun control is not about controlling guns. It is simply about control by a class of citizens who demand as a right that they can control everyone around them. When I was growing up, we called them nosy, neighborhood busy-bodies.
If a criminal can't buy a gun, the only way to get one is by paying a law abiding capitalist a premium.
I'm not much for infringing on rights. But, it is comical to listen to two sides argue. One side says, 'We got a problem.' The other side blurts, 'Yes! And the best solution is MORE of the problem.'
When I NEED a gun, I will have one. Maybe several, if the unlucky slob in my way is a gun fetishist.
Please, do go on, folks.
Re the first sentence in Jack's retort, I don't see how a citizen can be law abiding and selling a gun to someone not authorized to buy a gun.
As for the problem, I am not sure how the problem should be characterized. It would appear the mayors of NYC, Boston and Lowell are characterizing it as too many guns, when maybe the problem is too many people with a bad attitude and access to guns. Those are two different things. If all the guns in the US magically disappeared, we would still have homicides and suicides. So, what IS the problem?
Regards — Cliff
If any and all gun transactions don't require a waiting period and a backgraound check, then the Seller has plausible deniability.
That said, I don't support such measures, unequivocally. I'm walking out the logic. Hopefully, logic helps shape the policy.
And I concur with Cliff. We should not spray gasoline on a fire, regardless of how it started.
Post a Comment