|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM EST |
Your premise is flawed. That we need to get rid of semi-
automatics to remove
the likelihood of a repeat of the
school killings.
I on the other hand
believe that people who target children
as murder victims can kill regardless
of the availability of
semi-automatics.
A couple of revolvers and 4 or 5 speed
loaders
will still kill 25-30 kids in the same amount
of time.
Another problem is
that a deranged person with a machete or
a samurai sword could kill 5-10 people
in 10 minutes. More
if they are children. Those that would point out the fact
that less would be killed should answer the question" How
many dead school
kids are we willing to say is an acceptable
number?". For me, 1 is to
many.
If on the other hand you want to actually protect the
children
in the school instead of pushing laws to make you
feel safe start asking whats
the best way to
protect even 1 kid getting killed. That only happens by
guarding the schools better. The best way to do that IMHO is
at
least 1 armed police officer
stationed in each and
every school.
Because no matter what you think of to ban and
take away a person that wants to
kill kids will find a way
to kill if the schools are easy
targets.
Those that complain it will cost to much to guard the
schools, how much do you
think you would be willing to pay if you knew the
child that
was going to be killed was yours?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 11:28 PM EST |
Anyway constitutions can be
changed. The
right to bear arms is
an "amendment" after all.
Stupid question: Why was that amendment
brought in in the first place?
ie why was there a need to have the right to
bear arms? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
