Quote:
Originally Posted by bhlloy
Flippant comments aside, this sounds like the poster child situation for somebody who should not have had access to guns. Multiple incidents in which the police were called to incidents with him acting erratically, including at least one in which he had a rifle and threatened somebody. And an officer on record telling his father to lock the guns up until he got help.
|
If i am not mistaken, those guns were even seized/confiscated originally. Logically those guns simply should have not been returned to anybody, not him nor his father. And if that logic isn't supported by law, then it might be worth looking into ways to change it. Worst case, reimburse them if they can produce a receipt of legal purchase ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
Surprised not already in this thread.
Kudos to the resource officer. Also, the kid had a shotgun.
I do think its fair to say its likely, in most situations, an AR-15 can do more damage and quicker than a shotgun but it bears saying that if the AR is outlawed/greatly restricted, there will be other weapons that will be used.
|
That is an absolutely idiotic way of thinking, sorry. And it's been used as an "argument" before ...
Don't restrict anything, because you can't restrict everything ???
Sure, if it makes you feel better. If it's not AR15 it's a shotgun, so no point in limiting risk ? If it's not a shotgun it's a handgun, if no handgun it's a knive, if no knive it's someone cracking skulls on the pavement. Ban humans, i guess ? (and yes, part of the problem obviously is human nature. But that factor is the same pretty much everywhere. The factor unique to the US is the amount of guns and the "grade" of guns available as well as stuff like much to loosely regulated magazine sizes etc).
You can also kill a pedestrian or hurt yourself in an accident driving under 30 miles an hour, yet (far as i can tell for the US) this has been determined as the sensible speed limit in many states for driving in urban areas to reduce chances of any such thing happening, while still not restricting peoples freedom of movement overly much. And nobody really questions the governments decicion to restrict people's freedom to operate any damn vehicle they choose, either (which was the case 150+ years back).
So, why the fuck are people unwilling to accept the same logic for guns ? Yes, a 200+ year old documents determines that part of everyones personal freedom somehow in the 21st century includes guns.
And saying that the route of implementing some (more) restrictions shouldn't be taken because you can't restrict everything ? That just plain whacky, because it is the way the world works in every walk of life in a modern 21st century society. That's the whole point of a civil and democratic society: Weigh personal freedom against the freedom and safety of all citizens, then come up with the best possible compromise.