|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM EST |
And he had access to guns. It does not matter that they were not his. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 10:23 PM EST |
Of course, you could choose to treat both. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 09:11 AM EST |
We have had mass attacks with machetes, samurai swords, even cars driven into
bus queues, remind me though, how many people can you kill outside your
immediate reach with those weapons?
If no-one were allowed to posses more than 6 rounds of ammunition at home what
constitutional principle would be violated?
If no-one were allowed to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon the same
question?
And if all owners of guns were required to serve in a well regulated militia
...
Just check the stats for how many Americans die in gun incidents (murder
accident and suicide) against all violent deaths across other western nations.
Guns kill people, that is what they are designed to do, they have other side
benefits, but that's what they are for.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|