Panzerkamfwagen
Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
The words mean much the same today as they did then. Society has changed, though, so the specifics of those regulations have changed.
Got an interesting article about it.
If all gun sales and transfers are subject to a background check, then access most definitely should be available somehow.
But yet, as far as I'm aware, no one is proposing to make it available. But yet they don't want to restrict the private sale of guns. Hmm.
Well, that would be effective, certainly.
It would, indeed.
I'm sorry, was that my job?
Well, you feel it's information we all need to know. So, certainly. At least come up with something.
You seem to have missed the part where I said that guns are more dangerous than cars. That would necessitate they be better regulated.
You also missed the point: it's not unreasonable to regulate things...especially if they are dangerous, like weapons.
Are guns more dangerous than cars?
There's somewhere between 257-300 million firearms in the United States. There's 32,000 firearms related deaths.
There's 250 million or so cars in the United States. There were 32,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents.
In terms of accidental deaths, cars are far more dangerous than guns.
There's a reason why "slippery slope" is a fallacy.
What's fallacious about the historical fact that gun laws generally have followed a historical trend of becoming more and more restrictive? Every gun law that is proposed is generally more restrictive than the last one that was passed.
Not enough to have stopped Adam Lanza from mowing down classrooms of children.
So how would another law have stopped him? He didn't follow a plethora of other laws.
To try and prevent more tragedies like Newtown.
So there is no guarantee that it will work? If it fails will the government repeal it, or will they pass something else that doesn't work, too?
Um, if their goal is to ban all guns, as you characterize them, then background checks for all gun sales IS a compromise. Since, y'know, guns aren't being banned.
In any event, its a lot more compromise than the NRA has ever demonstrated.
Dianne Feinstein said it, not me. So, it's a perfectly accurate characterization.
If guns were just inanimate metal, no one would have a problem with them. The problem is people who shouldn't be anywhere near them can get them and kill with them.
Guns are pretty much inanimate metal. And wood. And polymer.
I'm sure you're well aware of how many people who commit murder have a prior criminal history. It's something like 90%. Perhaps the solution isn't to ban inanimate hunks of metal. Perhaps the solution is removing career criminals from society?
He had access to legally obtained assault weapons, that would not have been the case had the assault weapon ban not been allowed to expire.
Connecticut had an assault weapons ban before Newtown.
Uh, that's kinda the point. He's exactly the sort of person who should not have been able to get his hands on a weapon of any sort.
So how would a law stop a suicidal maniac?
Under that logic, why have any laws at all, if people can break them anyway?
Laws criminalizing possession of inanimate pieces of metal are just dumb. What benefit does society get from that? Here's a piece of steel. You can have it. Here's a CNC machine. You can have it. But...use the CNC machine to perform a few machining operations on the piece of steel, and you can't have it? What kind of sense does that make?
But you seem to have missed the point: this proposed law would make it harder for people like Adam Lanza to have access to assault weapons that can kill more children in less time.
Was he a convicted felon? Was he the subject of a protection order? Had he been adjudicated mentally defective? If not, then it wouldn't have kept him from buying a gun, unless the gun store said, "No."
Because they are not as dangerous as assault weapons, and they also have uses that aren't dangerous.
Precursor chemicals to create weapons of mass destruction aren't as dangerous as a rifle?
They can also be used to clean clothes and spice up recipes.
Guns can't be used for any other purpose but to propel a projectile at speeds sufficient to kill whatever lies in its path.
They're still subject to misuse, so shouldn't they be more heavily regulated. There's a whole government program dedicated to regulating the transfer of fertilizer. Wouldn't you want them to watch precursor chemicals, too?
Please reread my statement, as you seem to have misunderstood it.
Well, guns accidentally kill far fewer people than cars.
They can also be used to clean clothes and spice up recipes.
Guns can't be used for any other purpose but to propel a projectile at speeds sufficient to kill whatever lies in its path.
Some people need killing.
Upvote
0