Actually he had a concealed carry permit, just not one valid in Oklahoma. But I get your drift. Sure, there's a reason for and against every position. But it's not like they wouldn't have got him. If he was stupid enough to A) commit the crime, and B) drive around in a non-tagged car while C) carrying a weapon he had no (valid) permit for, then chances are he would have made a mistake that got him caught anyway. They had already identified the sketch of Robert Kling to be McVeigh before he was pulled over. In this case, it was sooner than later because of the reason you stated, and that's great. My previous post wasn't meant to say everyone should be able to carry with minimal training and a BS background checks. I'm saying do concealed-type checks and require training at the beginning for ANYONE that wishes to purchase a gun, then let them carry it as they wish to... And again, he didn't use a gun to kill, thus proving my point that making them illegal won't make a difference. People will find a way to kill if they want to.. Guns no more kill people than they do catch bad guys. It's by the person using it, that distinction is made.
id gladly give up my pistols (and any assault rifles if i had any---but not my shotgun) if there were a law. i have never needed them for protection and have never known anyone that has needed them. have known many that have had them stolen though. i believe that stronger gun control would lead to a drop in deaths.
That is the problem. The right will not accept any regulation at all and the left wishes to regulate everything. So the sensible regulations that almost everyone could agree on never get addressed. This bullheaded refusal to be pragmatic and practical and find a common ground is just like every other political issue in this country. With no compromise and collaboration, progress cannot be made.
In that instance, they are very convenient. But that's something that perhaps we can give up a bit of in order to help the police cope with gangs armed with 30 and 40 round magazines. But it gives time for bystanders and police to intervene. I might argue that a target shooter could easily use multiple low-capacity mags and it doesn't endanger any policemen. It doesn't take long to drop one and slam another one in. This is the kind of paranoia that the NRA expounds. There is no movement to eliminate gun ownership in America. It is something that is simply not going to happen in this country. But the NRA insists that any sensible control will inevitably lead to this. It's absurd.
what does "progress" mean? red gets his way? i dont see what needs to be improved. some people want more guns, others want less, i am okay with it either way. i dunno what is a better situation or what should be considered progress.
Negotiations require compromise and in a successful negotiation, both sides are unhappy. I'm biased of course, but I think the NRA would be amenable to compromise if the gun control advocates were amenable to allowing private ownership of hunting, defensive and recreational firearms. Unfortunately, in their minds, a gun is a gun is a gun.
I'm all for gun ownership, there just needs to be a way to make sure that guns stay out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them. Harsher penalties for those caught with firearms illegally. Harsher penalties for people caught selling guns to people illegally. This Arizona dude, I think he should be put to death in public, in the most cruel way possible. Maybe that would act as a deterrent if we started doing that.
in the context of gun control, what is progress, and why? why are we not already at a nice state of moderateness or whatever. you need to understand some basic premises of political science. let me educate you. procedural reform is never neutral. changes benefit one side and not another. so when you favor "progress" you are favoring something that is bad for some and good for others. you cant just claim "progress" and have it mean it benefits everyone.
