arma virumque cano (et alia)
Very sad. When are people going to realize that gun free zones are dangerous places?More gun control FAIL.
And I've went through my entire stock of candles. It doesn't seem to have done a damn thing.
"Very sad. When are people going to realize that gun free zones are dangerous places?"More gun control FAIL."When are people going to realize that logic free thinking is dangerous?One of the rebuttals that Pro-killing adherents of the NRA like to toss off is something like, "Millions of ULAGO-UTGPABSA*'s in the U.S. and MOST of them didn't kill anyone today."Well, gosh, that can work both ways, can't it.According to this (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84) there are 105,000=/- schools in the USA. Assuming that 5% allow gunz on campus (a generous estimate, I think) that leaves a nice round 100,000 campi--with several millions of teachers, staff and students--who do NOT get shot up, every day. See how that works?"And I've went through my entire stock of candles. It doesn't seem to have done a damn thing."Maybe you're doing it wrong. I think some people believe that lighting them and praying works (I'm not one of those people), as opposed to simply sticking them up your ass as I suspect you do.* Usually Law Abiding Gun Owners-Until They Get Pissed And Blow Somebody Away.
Um, you better check your numbers ... plenty of people carry or use firearms "with malice aforethought" on school campuses all across the U.S.
When are people going to realize that logic free thinking is dangerous?Finally, democommie is realizing what we've been saying. How is it logical to think that simply making a school a gun-free zone would prevent someone from taking a gun to school and shooting people?
News reports are now saying that the shooter in this case had no disqualifying record and bought his handgun legally in California. California has adopted many of the proposals advocated here, and yet, those controls didn't work. How can this be?
California may be number 1 with the Brady's, but I think even they can tighten up a bit. The mental health background check and psyche screening is what's still lacking.
Should they consider the person's aura as well? It is California, after all, and if you're going to impose one questionable test, you might as well go for the whole truckload.But don't you understand that some people who are sane for much of their lives just snap? How would you catch them without disarming everyone?
We can't catch all of them, but some we can. We're not even trying at this point. That's not right.
Are you aware that the Brady Bunch is now admiting that this wasn't a failure of gun laws? Look here:http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_20336362/californias-tough-gun-laws-could-not-prevent-east"I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that." When you can understand that, you'll make more sense. Some actions can't be prevented, no matter how many bandaid laws we apply.
Greg, I think I mentioned it before that you cannot take a specific crime and work backwards like that. The answer is always no, no laws could possible stop every single crime.Better background checks for mental health problems would remove some of these types, though.
You want to take specific crimes and move in the direction of gun control.