how many would not be there if the current suggestion of restrictions had already been enacted, enforced and (most importantly) obeyed? Guesses acceptable.
| Forum Announcement |
Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!
Which is why I find this issue compelling and important. That's a lot of families scarred for life.
It seems to me that accidental deaths by themselves are a compelling argument for stricter rules about guns and their storage. The Canadian Gun Registry was cancelled by the Conservatives, but the regulations for firearms storage and the secure storage of ammunition are still in force, I believe (but I'm not sure). Separate locks and keys. I also don't know what the rules are in England, but do know that France's gun laws are less restrictive than Britain's.
I wonder how many were killed by pistols vs rifles.
I also wonder how many were killed during the commission of crime. It does identify one drive by shooting because a child was killed.
Even if every non-criminal citizen in the US agreed today to eliminate guns, it would be almost impossible for years.
I'm not advocatng that BTW.
take decades, but that's not a reason not to try. The Australian experience is instructive though not easily directly comparable, because gun ownership and gun violence was not nearly so ingrained there nor enshrined in an ill-conceived founding principle. If the Founding Fathers could see what guns have cost the American people in the past 230+ years, I don't think the Second Amendment would be so ambiguous or so absolute. I'm quite sure it would still be there, just worded differently.
Stokely Carmichael (not a preferred source but even an idiot can get one thing right) said "Guns are as American as Apple Pie." While true, Apple Pies are not generally as lethal.
>>>>>>If the Founding Fathers could see what guns have cost the American people in the past 230+ years, I don't think the Second Amendment would be so ambiguous or so absolute>>>>>>>
And if Henry Ford knew how many people would be killed because of his invention, would we still be riding horseback today? BTW........with a speed limit imposed in every state of at most 70 MPH, why is it so important to continue to manufacture automobiles that can go over 100 MPH and nobody says anything about it?
I recently watched an old episode of the "Cisco Kid" and remember the show as a young boy. These guys could shoot a guy at full speed on a horse and he'd be dead before hitting the ground. No horses were ever harmed in these old shows. Pancho (Leo Carillo) was a faithful but somewhat bumbling sidekick of Cisco in that series which, in today's world, would offer a negative stereotype that would cause some to shriek in horror. "How dare anyone air such awful programs!" might be the rant. Yeah...watching that stuff really messed us up. We'd have been better off growing up with today's offerings of non-stop sex and violence.
I thought, perhaps they SHOULD hold pro gun rallies instead.
If anyone was planning to rob JC Penny...he'd be the first person to get shot?
Utah man protests Obama's gun control plan by carrying an assault rifle at J.C. Penney
Does he need a Concealed Carry Permit?
Doesn't his actions make it more probably that a person with ill intent might be able to walk around and not draw suspicion/attention to themselves?
Looks like the Daily News does as well. They chose to use some cell phone photo to advance their cause but without a direct quote or comprehensive statement to support their allegation that the gun was carried as a protest. So while the 2nd amendment is the issue here, it appears that the 1st amendment is working just fine.
So, there is absolutely nothing that you would ever presume unless you heard the person say it, hearsay evidence is also out of the question.
Unless you hear it in person...it didn't happen...you know how they can manipulate video and audio now a days.
Since you don't "presume" anything I guess you would have no feelings or apprehension about a stranger with a loaded weapon sitting next to you in church.
You are so full of it....
Good will that is.
cell phone to snap the photo didn't feel immediately threatened by the man. Apparently, neither did anyone else...at least enough to call police. The gun was said to have been unloaded and legal to carry in that manner. I'd agree that it may have been foolish. Foolishness isn't anything new in making political statements if that's what it was. People on both sides of the issue, IMO, make both sensible and nonsensical remarks. Enjoy the fun and learn when to duck.
because they would be arrested immediately with or without the inauguration because DC and Chicago *until NYC last week* have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have the highest gun crime rates also in the country. Whereas Utah citizens are legally allowed to carry "unloaded" rifles, including a firearm strapped to their bodies, as long as they are in plain sight......no need for a 'concealed weapon' permit. Just as hunters have mounted rifle/gun racks in their pickup trucks along the back windows.
>>>Utah allows for open carry of unloaded firearms without a concealed firearm permit. "Unloaded" as it applies here, means that there is no round in the firing position (or chamber), and the firearm is at least two "mechanical actions" from firing. As carrying the firearm with the chamber empty, but with a full magazine, meets this definition (the handler must chamber a round, and then pull the trigger), this is a common work around for Utah residents who do not wish to acquire a permit. Without the permit, the firearm must be clearly visible.>>>
It is also a "Stand Your Ground" State........and is one of two states that allows for permit holders to enter a K-12 school with the gun.