Straw purchases aren't legal in my state. Don't know about yours. If they are then maybe you should be writing your state legislators and trying to get that loophole closed?
I may have mangled my words slightly. Giving the guns to someone they weren't registered to is illegal, but the sale itself was legal. It's the legal sale that is the problem.
If we took away the ability to purchase cars I bet that highway fatalities would be close to zero too. And how are you gonna do that anyway? I assume that you are familiar with the 2nd amendment, right?
The second amendment was intended to allow a new country to quickly raise a militia from the populace by allowing them to keep their own weapons, not create a nation where everyone is afraid of everyone else because everyone's armed.
Anyway, it's "Bear arms". You could outlaw guns while keeping swords legal and it'd still be valid.
No, unjustified deadly force is no more acceptable in the eyes of the law with a firearm than it would be with a knife or a baseball bat.
So I'm assuming you'd have preferred a prolonged shootout with innocent people being hit by "law abiding citizens". Because that's what happens.
You're missing the point entirely. If nobody has guns then no-one gets shot by them.
Your argument is flawed in that all guns purchased in both cases were done so legally. As straw purchases, granted, but they were purchased legally.
Without the ability to purchase weapons the likelihood that either incident would have happened is reduced to almost zero.
Making guns "normal" makes the use of deadly force "acceptable".
Slashdot Mirror
Straw purchases aren't legal in my state. Don't know about yours. If they are then maybe you should be writing your state legislators and trying to get that loophole closed?
I may have mangled my words slightly. Giving the guns to someone they weren't registered to is illegal, but the sale itself was legal. It's the legal sale that is the problem.
If we took away the ability to purchase cars I bet that highway fatalities would be close to zero too. And how are you gonna do that anyway? I assume that you are familiar with the 2nd amendment, right?
The second amendment was intended to allow a new country to quickly raise a militia from the populace by allowing them to keep their own weapons, not create a nation where everyone is afraid of everyone else because everyone's armed. Anyway, it's "Bear arms". You could outlaw guns while keeping swords legal and it'd still be valid.
No, unjustified deadly force is no more acceptable in the eyes of the law with a firearm than it would be with a knife or a baseball bat.
So I'm assuming you'd have preferred a prolonged shootout with innocent people being hit by "law abiding citizens". Because that's what happens.
You're missing the point entirely. If nobody has guns then no-one gets shot by them.
Your argument is flawed in that all guns purchased in both cases were done so legally. As straw purchases, granted, but they were purchased legally. Without the ability to purchase weapons the likelihood that either incident would have happened is reduced to almost zero. Making guns "normal" makes the use of deadly force "acceptable".
Hell, I'll take something Frank Miller writes over anything that Stan Lee has had anything to do with...
To set up the camera...