Assuming the validity of your assertion, I have no doubt that you accounted for all of the other variables between and among the various states and cities to arrive at your tacit cause-effect conclusion.
"Are those Democrats or Republicans out there?"
- Thread starter Arnie
- Start date
Warning: Reading any posts written by Scataphagos can be hazardous to your IQ. Proceed with caution.This shooting is just another example of the fact, "THE LEFT TOTALLY INTENDS UPON WINNING"! Whatever it takes. Nothing is beyond the pale for them.
The Left will not back off; their believers/followers are brainwashed. They will do everything politically possibly (like they're trying to do right now)... they'll also lie, steal, and murder. When that doesn't work, they take to mass murder, shooting up innocents at the baseball field. I hope it doesn't end in an armed conflict civil war, but I wouldn't be surprised.
The players in the dugout would have had their guns at their side. And their reaction would have been far quicker than the Capital Police who were in the parking lot. Yes, the gunman would have gotten off the first shots, but the immediate people returning fire would have ended the situation more quickly. And if the shooter knew his victims were armed and would return fire then he probably would have passed on committing the crime.
I will agree that this individual who had multiple previous arrests & convictions should have not been allowed to purchase a firearm.
Does agreeing with Comrade Tony make me a commie?
A guy with a violent criminal background should not be able to legally purchase a weapon. Criminals will still find a way. Armed politicians won't stop much either, but it could make for some entertaining campaign commercials.That would probably have precluded the need for your first paragraph.
Undoubtedly the studies that were primarily performed by universities took into account many of the variables. The cause-effect conclusion is obvious when the other variables are taken into account. Similar sized cities with similar populations and wealth levels only varying in regards to gun laws demonstrate the premise in example after example without exception.
I am not some type of hard-core "everyone must own guns" type. I believe that those who have been convicted of crimes, are on medication for mental illness, or have been deemed mentally ill by doctors should not be allowed to purchase guns. This includes private sales of guns. Several on this board will disagree with me on this, and ask me how will you track it, etc.
However the bottom line is that I believe that city and/or state laws that ban gun ownership or carry permits for decent citizens only serve to increase crime. It is time that courts struck down these type of broad restrictions. It is OK to require permits, etc. but broad restrictions on everyone are absurd.
This is true.
It wouldn't have made any difference regardless. No one plays softball with a firearm on their hip. No one would keep firearms in a dugout when someone else can get a hold of them. I carry concealed most of the time, but there are activities I am a part of that I don't because it just isn't practical. Even if I were carrying, and someone attacked me they would likely get a shot or two off before my reaction unless I was aware of my surroundings. No one is aware of their surroundings all the time, and even less folks actually train for returning fire. That takes a lot of practice.
The NRA does not condone providing firearms to convicted felons.
Even if you put in place a law to stop private gun sales (your Walmart example), it wouldn't stop a determined criminal from getting a gun. The problem is simple: There are just too many guns out there, and no policy you put in place will stop it. The only workable deterrent is to allow people to defend themselves.
Does agreeing with Comrade Tony make me a commie?
A convicted felon is not allowed to buy a firearm. This is a standing law.