Larry Gude
Strung Out
...and mass murder.
No one needs a 20 or 30 round magazine, so goes the argument.
So, back to the AWB 10 rounders which you will note in the second half of the above vid. (actually, it's a 15 so, pretend it was a 10).
Now, obviously, 10 is better than 30 if a bad man is using his gun. However, isn't 9 better than 10? Isn't 5 better than 9? Isn't 1 better than 5?
I don't object to the basic argument, in principle; limits on what kinds of guns and ammo and accessories are generally available. However, at some point, it becomes silly and we're tilting at so many windmills given we are dealing with people who are setting out to BREAK the law in the first place. If you are planning on mass murder, aren't you going to work out the logistics and have whatever tools you think you need, even if you have to break the law to get those tools?
So, what gets me about this stuff is why not put all this energy into the actual problem; the criminal?
Why not take the opportunity and rally together to push and accept laws putting pressure on people like this guy and the Va Tech killer and the Ft. Hood guy, people who had built up records of concern over their statements, attitudes and, in Loughers case, records of actual threats?
There is only so much that can be done politically so, trying 30 different plans, magazine bans, no bayonet lugs, dealing with the whole right to keep and bear, I say concentrate the political energy, take advantage of the crisis and focus on the real problem; the shooters.
When you are making death threats, when your peers and superiors are making note of your instability and anger, promote laws and tools that help take the next step to intervene with this people.
No one needs a 20 or 30 round magazine, so goes the argument.
So, back to the AWB 10 rounders which you will note in the second half of the above vid. (actually, it's a 15 so, pretend it was a 10).
Now, obviously, 10 is better than 30 if a bad man is using his gun. However, isn't 9 better than 10? Isn't 5 better than 9? Isn't 1 better than 5?
I don't object to the basic argument, in principle; limits on what kinds of guns and ammo and accessories are generally available. However, at some point, it becomes silly and we're tilting at so many windmills given we are dealing with people who are setting out to BREAK the law in the first place. If you are planning on mass murder, aren't you going to work out the logistics and have whatever tools you think you need, even if you have to break the law to get those tools?
So, what gets me about this stuff is why not put all this energy into the actual problem; the criminal?
Why not take the opportunity and rally together to push and accept laws putting pressure on people like this guy and the Va Tech killer and the Ft. Hood guy, people who had built up records of concern over their statements, attitudes and, in Loughers case, records of actual threats?
There is only so much that can be done politically so, trying 30 different plans, magazine bans, no bayonet lugs, dealing with the whole right to keep and bear, I say concentrate the political energy, take advantage of the crisis and focus on the real problem; the shooters.
When you are making death threats, when your peers and superiors are making note of your instability and anger, promote laws and tools that help take the next step to intervene with this people.
