Guest 123234 ... I never stated my intelligence was superior. I simply laid out an intelligent argument for the implementation of safer laws governing killing machines. You also jumped the "gun" by assuming when I stated that removing assault weapons from civilians was a start implying my next intention would be to restrict the ownership of other firearms. Which is a completely wrong observation. I feel before we can tackle the other obstacles plaguing our society we must first remove available assault rifles from the equation. Also we should limit the amount of ammunition an individual may purchase over a certain timeframe i.e.., month, quarter, or year. Also all guns should be registered, and when sold in the secondary market i.e.., for sale by owner there should be proper paperwork, and background checks performed such as when an individual purchases a boat, trailer, vehicle. Guns should not be allowed to change ownership without the proper authorities being notified, and background screenings preformed. The start I was referring to is that once we have implemented a logical agenda to remove these war machines from our communities, and have placed safe guards to ensure the safe tracking and evaluation of secondary market sales we can then focus on other items such as mental health, and effects of desensitizing stimulating visual effects. We first must remove the easy access to weapons which were designed to kill in large quantities in small increments of time. Once we limit access, we greatly diminish the threat of mass murders. If we focus on a common sense approach to restrict availability coupled with mental health reform paired with an updated culturally accepted gun application process that my friend is a start. With that being said I understand the feeling to defend ones home, and protect ones family... but my friend if you can not do that with a 12 gauge shotgun, and a small caliber handgun you are already out of luck.
More information about formatting options