CNN: "Is Gun Control The Answer?" Here We Go Again.

reply to post by Kituwa


Christ I'm sick of this stupid argument. "He could have done it with a knife" etc. SHUT. UP.

If a psycho wants to murder as many people as possible, he'll use a firearm, not a knife, because he knows he's got far less chance of a hero tackling him and he's keeping a healthy distance between himself and his prey.

"But he could use a bomb" I hear you say. But if he did that, he wouldn't be there to witness the fun.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Excellent information, Electric Universe! I wish I could watch the videos but I am so rural that my connection takes over half an hour just to watch a 2 or 3 minute video. Unfortunately, there is no way I could manage to watch those.

Another woman, Elke, (from east Germany) has tried to warn people, as well. As I recall, there is another woman from that area of the world who lived through it and who goes around the U.S. lecturing on the subject - a much older woman, I believe - but I can't remember her name.

This is my first attempt to put videos in a post, so I hope I don't mess it up; if I do I'll try to edit and fix.



If one listens to the video all the way through, she is describing everything that we have been told is either in the works already here or are demands (gun control) currently ongoing. Listen, especially, to her talking about the confiscation of guns and neighbors turning her cousin in and also the part about 10% of the population of Russia population being locked up as mentally ill because they were "judged insane for not believing in Communism."

I knew a woman very well for many years who was slightly older than Elke. She was born in eastern Germany and a very few of her family escaped to the west side when she was 6 years old. The horrors she told of were phenomenal. One of the most chilling things she told me was how neighbors and, even worse, family members, would turn one another in, believing that they would somehow win favors with the state by doing so. Of course, they were TOLD they would be rewarded but often the "reward" was a bullet, whether it was right then or at a later, more unexpected, time. Later, when a few were allowed out to visit, her Aunt came to visit. What did her Aunt take home for her family when she had to return home? Photos? Souvenirs? No. She took a suitcase full of toilet tissue. THAT was what they would want most, she said.

There are people here on ATS who, just by reading the content and tone of their posts, one can see would be more than glad to turn their fellow Americans in. I've read posts on other sites where people have come right out and SAID they would turn others in. Then, of course, there's SnapScouts . If that is not indoctrination to accustom children to reporting friends and family, then I don't know what is.

Your stories of Cuba are touching and I hope ya'll are able to continue to help your family members. I wish someone would take the camera away from that disgusting spectacle that is Michael Moore. He's so busy everywhere else, why hasn't he gone to our Reservations and shown what's going on there? He believes everyone should be equal? I don't see his fat @$$ giving up his fortune to "equalize" matters; doesn't look like he's missed any meals. But he exemplifies what Elke speaks of in the first video I posted: it is ONLY those who are NOT members of the elite and government who will suffer. Michael Moore won't suffer. Demi Moore won't suffer, either; nor will Gates or Buffet or any of the others who "pledge" their fortunes or speak out against the "social injustice." "Social injustice" my Injun @$$.

There is no such thing as "social justice." This is the best write up on the phrase that i've ever read: www.firstthings.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Defining Social Justice . The definitive explanation, imho, being "It (social justice) becomes, most often, a term of art whose operational meaning is, “We need a law against that.” In other words, it becomes an instrument of ideological intimidation, for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion." Of course, it was first used in 1840 by a priest who used the word "should" too many times, as can be expected of any dogmatic doctrine.

Congresswoman Watson speaks highly of Cuba here, but there was a more in-depth video of this and now I cannot find it anywhere. She and other members of the CBC visited Cuba and positively RAVED about how wonderful everything there was, including the healthcare, the standard of living, etc.



Unfortunately, all I can find of Representative Maxine Waters' incredible slip is a FOX News clip; that said, FOX didn't put the words into her mouth, they're just reporting on it; so for those who disdain FOX news, forget it's FOX and just listen to the Congresswoman herself:



So. Where does all that leave us? We have history throughout the ages, even HERE, that shows what will happen. We have those who lived it speaking out. We see it encroaching daily. And we are surrounded by those who cling to their intentional, willful ignorance. There will one day be a great "wailing and gnashing of teeth" - and it will be those who discovered they've been lied to.

Originally posted by Troofseeker
reply to post by Kituwa

 

Christ I'm sick of this stupid argument. "He could have done it with a knife" etc. SHUT. UP.

If a psycho wants to murder as many people as possible, he'll use a firearm, not a knife, because he knows he's got far less chance of a hero tackling him and he's keeping a healthy distance between himself and his prey.

"But he could use a bomb" I hear you say. But if he did that, he wouldn't be there to witness the fun.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

I noticed your post just as my recent response to this discussion posted.

May I suggest that if you are "sick of it," you refrain from reading or participating in anything about it. Screaming at another member to "shut up" seems a violation of the T&C to me. At best, you were inappropriately and unnecessarily rude.

Neither you nor anyone else knows what a 'psycho' will do or use. Experts have proven it cannot be predicted. Your posts, though, reads as though you've put a little *too* much thought into the matter. ".... witness the fun?" Perhaps we should all be wary of YOU?

I noticed that Surefire 100's and C-Mags are out of stock on just about every online retailers website today and those that do have them are charging at least 20% over what they were going for last week.

Under the '94 AWB $200 C-Mags were going for $700 or more.

Investment opportunity on the horizon?

Two things are always guaranteed when something like this happens. Tyrants will try to seize control and the sales of everything they hate spike astronomically.

Something the tyrants should keep in mind. Every time they go on TV saying things like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" people who already buy stuff like that buy more and people who wouldnt normally buy stuff like that rush out to buy all they can afford.

Case in point, I have had no desire to drop hundreds on these huge magazines that I wouldnt even use in 3-gun competitions but now I feel like I have to stock up.

So while the talking heads complain about these things being out there I and many like me are putting even more on the street.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
See... people keep saying... "Guns don't kill people, people do".... This is not really correct.... it is a combination of the two that makes the action happen.... but that's beside the point really...

Did you miss the entire thread? That IS the point.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
I understand what people are saying... that lots of sane people own guns, and that if someone wants to kill you they will, whether guns are controlled or not... but my argument is this.... you are right, it is the person in control of the gun that initiates the action and makes the deed happen, however, some people are just not responsible or intelligent enough to be given such immense power... the power of life and death.

No, I don't think you understand the subject at all. Just as some people are not responsible enough or intelligent enough to know not to text while driving or use an electric powered devise while standing in water. In those actions, too, reside the power of life and death.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
All these people arguing that we should control cars, because they also kill people are missing the point.... a car is not designed to kill, it is not it's prime reason for being made.... therefore the argument is foolish....

Read the whole thread. It is you who has missed the point. The point exemplifies the irresponsibility of some people who drive. More are killed by cars every year than by guns. Accidents happen with cars due to irresponsibility and plan ol' stupidity.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly]
...can you give me some valid reasons for a normal everyday person to own an assault rifle such as an AK47... I cannot think of any.. and it is the proliferation of these type of weapons that makes these mass shootings easier to perpetrate.

This one I'll answer in a second reply.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
You are quite right, it is the person the commits the act...... so, by that logic, gun control is a good thing, because some people just should not be given the option of owning weapons of any kind... they are not intelligent or responsbile enough...we all know people like this.....

Again, it is proven that gun control is never a good thing. Myself and others have posted that you have gun control in the U.K., however your crime rate is nearly triple that of the U.S. People kill. Inanimate objects do not randomly jump up and kill of their own accord.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
In a society where ANYONE can get their hands on large ammounts of military grade weapons and ammunition... a proliferation of mass shootings is inevitable.... You see, it is these people that have a bad day, that have an argument with their spouse, the crimes that are committed on a whim...

Please list (and source) the "proliferation" of mass shootings we've had over here. Please look up the definition of "proliferation" prior to doing so. While you're looking things up, look up "the knock out game;" look up a Chicago newspaper and read though the archives on violent crime; look up "flash robs;" it will take the wind right out of your "whim" theory.

See info on Switzerland.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly..... so we could argue that is something to do with the American culture....something inherently wrong with the people of the nation themselves....

Indeed, we could. Most folks here descended from folks there who brought the violent nature with them - refer back to U.K. crime rate being nearly triple that of the U.S. Your theory holds water.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomolyI am sorry America... but it is not a "right" to own a firearm..... it is a right be speak freely, it is a right to have children, (although that's also up for debate!) it is a right to be able to beleive what you wish..... it is not, and should not, be a "right" to own firearms.... you're just asking for trouble....

Incorrect; it IS a right here. Ya'll gave yours up. Refer again to your crime statistics.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomolyLook at this very recent shooting also mentioned here on ATS... the man that accidently shot his son thinking he was an intruder.... a perfect example to prove my point... if he did not have a handgun in the house...he would more than likely either shout to the intruder "who is it", at which point his son would answer and still be alive, or he would have jumped on him, wrestled a bit, and realised his mistake, and his son would still be alive. This man now has to live with this for the rest of his life...... all thanks to the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude of American citizens... This has to change... and I feel sorry for you if you cannot see this....

That story IS tragic; it's also one in a million or more

The amount of Firearms in the USA is somewhere between 236 and 278 million. Thats civilian owned. Now, how many firearm deaths are there each year? Do the math. Seems like a very minuscule amount in comparison.

Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Oswald, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, John Lennon, Marvin Gaye, just a few famous people that your freedom on guns have robbed the world of, not getting into the conspiracy side as i do think that TPTB were behind several of these murders! However, without the freedom to obtain guns, it would make it so easy to see who is behind these murders! It seems to me to suit the establishment.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly]
...can you give me some valid reasons for a normal everyday person to own an assault rifle such as an AK47... I cannot think of any.. and it is the proliferation of these type of weapons that makes these mass shootings easier to perpetrate.

Thankfully this is ATS where we can postulate any possibility, no matter how farfetched it may seem.

Let's look at China and China's involvement in the U.S. to see what might justify owning an assault rifle such as an AK47. (By the way, the citizens of Switzerland own much larger stuff than that - VERY low crime rate in Switzerland and they've never been invaded, either).

The Hindu reports that in only 8 years, some 20 MILLION Chinese men will not be able to marry. That's information the media WILL report on. Closer to the truth are estimates that the number is somewhere between 50 and 60 million. Imagine that many men who will not only never marry but likely will never even have a girlfriend due to the one child law, infanticide and sex selective abortion. These poor men work on the lower floors of massive warehouses and sleep on the floor of the upper levels. They work for about a dollar or so a day, which they send home to their families after the remainder of their pay is removed for the privilege of sleeping on the floor like a packed sardine. That is their LIFE.

The traitorous Republican Governor of Idaho is helping China to invade Idaho. There were articles online about the "sovereign cities" China plans to build on the massive amounts of acreage they've purchased; however, those seem to have become very hard to find. Still, the article states: "...the Governor is so committed to courting communists that he is ignoring the express wishes of his own party that he “cease further foreign-based corporate development of a ‘Free Trade Zone’ and approximately 60,000 acres in Idaho." (sorry, "ex-text" wouldn't work)

China has purchased a major stake in a 600,000 acre oil lease in South Texas.

And I'm sure even you must know about how much of the U.S. debt China has purchased; we'll assume they want their money back..

There are approximately 1.5 million Americans enlisted in the whole of the U.S. military and only about half of them are on American soil or territories. It is said that China's military is approximately 2.3 million. Many believe it to be larger, but we'll go with that number. 1.5 million vs 2.3 million ~ the U.S. is already outnumbered, but we have some pretty good stuff at our disposal. The unknown is what 'good stuff' does China have at their disposal? We'll never know.

There's our starting point for my hypothesis of why it could be necessary for U.S. citizens to own AK-47s.

Let's say that it is patently obvious that China is conducting a very well orchestrated takeover of the U.S. and its resources and that, for every item we can find about what our government has allowed them to do, there are half a dozen such incidences that Americans do not know about.

China decides it wants it all. It's a very real possible scenario as they are rapidly running out of food and resources; that IS the reason they're buying up parts of the U.S., Africa and other Countries. It is the reason they are now more closely than ever allied with Russia.

So, in my 'what if' scenario, the U.S. is invaded by China - first they set off an EMP to minimize resource damage and then they bring 2 million troops to our party. We have about 900,000 of our own at home but they're handicapped by the EMP - no comm; barely any vehicles, etc.

But what about the 20 MILLION unmarried men living on those factory floors? What if China called for volunteers and the ONLY thing they offered those volunteers was the opportunity to own land and get a wife? Plenty of land and women here. Let's say a VERY conservative HALF volunteered for the chance at a life and a wife.

China now has the ability to invade the U.S. with a force of some 12 MILLION. And we don't even have to learn to speak Chinese because they're required to learn to speak English. Our 900,000 or so troops on our own soil don't have a chance against 12 MILLION.

But the U.S. has approximately 308 MILLION citizens and it's estimated that 100 million of them are either armed or would be willing to take up arms. Even those who THINK they don't like guns would be begging for one.

And if all willing to defend their Country had AK-47s, to use your example, the whole game would change.

Statistically speaking, it is way past time for the Americas, specifically the U.S., to be invaded again.

Rebuttal?

Originally posted by Troofseeker
reply to post by Kituwa

 

Christ I'm sick of this stupid argument. "He could have done it with a knife" etc. SHUT. UP.

If a psycho wants to murder as many people as possible, he'll use a firearm, not a knife, because he knows he's got far less chance of a hero tackling him and he's keeping a healthy distance between himself and his prey.

"But he could use a bomb" I hear you say. But if he did that, he wouldn't be there to witness the fun.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Try asking Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman that question. Oh, that's right, you cant.

Had either of them had a gun, chances are, they would be alive today.

Originally posted by SeesFar

Originally posted by Troofseeker
reply to post by Kituwa

 

Christ I'm sick of this stupid argument. "He could have done it with a knife" etc. SHUT. UP.

If a psycho wants to murder as many people as possible, he'll use a firearm, not a knife, because he knows he's got far less chance of a hero tackling him and he's keeping a healthy distance between himself and his prey.

"But he could use a bomb" I hear you say. But if he did that, he wouldn't be there to witness the fun.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

I noticed your post just as my recent response to this discussion posted.

May I suggest that if you are "sick of it," you refrain from reading or participating in anything about it. Screaming at another member to "shut up" seems a violation of the T&C to me. At best, you were inappropriately and unnecessarily rude.

Neither you nor anyone else knows what a 'psycho' will do or use. Experts have proven it cannot be predicted. Your posts, though, reads as though you've put a little *too* much thought into the matter. ".... witness the fun?" Perhaps we should all be wary of YOU?

Some people dont/wont accept the Troof no matter how much sense you make or facts you present. They are simply blinded and living in a fantasy world.

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Oswald, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, John Lennon, Marvin Gaye, just a few famous people that your freedom on guns have robbed the world of, not getting into the conspiracy side as i do think that TPTB were behind several of these murders! However, without the freedom to obtain guns, it would make it so easy to see who is behind these murders! It seems to me to suit the establishment.

Without the freedom to obtain guns, we would be at the complete power of the very establishment you mention.

Read up on "Fast and Furious" at all? Tragically, Holmes killed 12 and injured 58 .. but no mention of the 46 THOUSAND Mexican citizens the guns of Fast & Furious have killed, not to mention Americans killed with them, including a Border Patrol agent who was armed with bean bags. That's not murder; that's genocide!

Look at the shooter who provided the fodder for this thread. 24 years old; described by ONE source as 'socially awkward,' yet was a sports participant in high school; graduated with honors in a medical field; went on to work on his graduate degree. Nothing "unsavory" in his past that they're found so far except a traffic citation and a claim that he was a member of a rogue offshoot of OWS.

Some sources claim he was involved in an "adult dating website," but I don't believe that's yet been proven. However, if it's true and even if he was a complete sexual deviant, that wouldn't make him murderous - just a deviant.

He was unemployed yet managed to accumulate some $15,000 - $20,000 worth of weapons, ammunition and protective gear over a period of 3-4 months.

He immediately surrendered to police without aggression and TOLD them his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives.

And all at a time when 2 major things are going on: 1) Our gov't is trying to bury Fast & Furious as fast and furiously as they can; and 2) the UN Small Arms Treaty is back up for ratification.

He's been reported to have been violent now that he's in custody - spitting on officers, etc. Yet he was never violent before AND he willingly gave himself up to LEOs at the time of the incident.

Did you see him in Court yesterday? Drugged out of his mind! Eyes couldn't focus, could barely stand and walk.

And nothing sounds fishy there?

I enjoy reading conspiracy theories, but I don't seem to have the mindset to come up with them. However, the first thing that came to my mind about the whole matter was that "zombie" drug that is being used in South America. Scopolamine: Read up on that!

Something is not right about the whole thing and it stinks of a created situation in which to draw attention away from something else .... or several/a few "something elses," while putting gun control back into the boiling pot. It didn't take the media and the politicians even an HOUR to bring up gun control. Coincidence? *LOL*

Look up what happened when nothing but the Catholic priest scandal was all you heard or read about. (Hint: see Patriot Act). Look up what happened when poor Teri Schaivo was all over the news (Hint: see 2nd part of the Patriot Act). ANY time something huge is taking up every moment of airspace, column space, headlines, conversation, etc., you can nearly bet your life savings that something unsavory is going on in our government and we'll find out about it AFTER the fact.

Fasten your seat belts!

Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. If any of the nation's citizens want to buy firearms, there's only one store where they can do it legally. It's on a military base "Directorate of Arms and Munitions Salesand" run by the army. The shop's existence is unknown to many citizens. They carry Belgian-, German-, Turkish- and U.S.-made handguns and single-shot hunting rifles.

Obtaining a gun in Mexico involves first getting a permit from the army that can take months to get.. Requirements include an official photo ID, proof of residency and employment, a document showing fulfillment of military service and a declaration of a clean criminal record.

Despite Mexico's gun laws, its murder rate of 18 per 100,000 people is more than triple the United States' rate of five per 100,000. Nearly all homicides in Mexico occur with firearms.

Even though Mexico has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world, the country's drug cartels are armed to the teeth with illegal weapons. Simply proves, only the bad guys can get them!

Article dated just yesterday!

The Most Pro-Gun Low-Crime City in the United States

A few excerpts (*arghh!!* anyone have any idea why the 'ex-text' function isn't working for me? I'll bold the quotes from the article to set them apart):

" "I live just a few miles from the most pro-gun city in the United States – Kennesaw Georgia – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.” "

"The city’s website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007."

Look at that! There is proof of that level playing field we've discussed. ONE murder in 27 years except for three (3) murders committed by the same man in 2010 in a gun-free zone (near schools) and the response to that was:

" “Unfortunately experience with actual ‘school safety zones’ in Georgia has proven that the ‘school safety zone’ law approach does not stop violent armed crime, as it disarms only the potential victims of an attack. Criminals seeking to rob, rape, and murder ignore the ‘school safety zone’ as merely one more law they are breaking.” "

Whatta ya know? "...disarms only the potential victims;" in other words, criminals still know where to strike - they strike where citizens are UNarmed. Just as the "knock out game" targets those believed unable or unwilling to fight back ~ the elderly, Asians, and visually effeminate homosexual men. That's why the old man in the previously posted video was able to run the armed punks off - they only *thought* they knew what to do with their gun. Could the punks have used their gun? Sure; punks do it all the time ... but they will run from those who prove they have better ability, such as that wonderful old man did.

The article then provides a couple of examples of what happened to two out-of-state but legally licensed to carry concealed people who politely ASKED where to check their weapons while visiting in New York upon noticing 'no weapons allowed' signs. The article ends with:

"In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1."

Very pertinent article for this conversation, so I hope you read all of it.

reply to post by SeesFar


Good find SeesFar.

Please also note the area with the highest death rate has the strongest gun control laws.

www.statemaster.com...

Originally posted by Kituwa
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Good find SeesFar.

Please also note the area with the highest death rate has the strongest gun control laws.

www.statemaster.com...

Thank you, but credit goes to my elderly father who sent the article to me without any knowledge that I was participating in a discussion on the topic. He's a good mind reader.

Wow! Talk about a great find (yours)! DC has the #1 death by firearm rate in the entire U.S. And they do not allow firearms, do not issue CCW permits (for residents or non-residents), do not honor any other states CCW permits, and "if you stop in DC for any reason while transporting firearms you are no longer covered by Federal Law but fall under D.C. law and can be arrested and your firearms confiscated." AND twice the consequences for having a firearm in a 'gun free zone.' Source

Sounds like all of D.C. is a 'gun free zone,' so how come twice the penalty? And what about the irony of losing all coverage afforded by Federal law while in the Federal capitol?

Now, can ANYone still claim that gun control would work? It's illegal over ALL of D.C. yet they have the highest death by firearm rate in the entire U.S. as proven by Kituwa's source. Is that not proof, beyond any doubt, that criminals have no regard for law? That gun control would do nothing but remove the means of self protection from the law-abiding?

Our National-level politicians are so afraid of firearms that they've banned them for all law-abiding citizens, yet do nothing to remove them from criminals. Is this because they so closely relate to criminals?

Sounds to me like a case of needing to clean up one's own backyard before worrying about the neighbors.

Sounds like all of D.C. is a 'gun free zone,' so how come twice the penalty? And what about the irony of losing all coverage afforded by Federal law while in the Federal capitol?

Given DC has many federal employes, sounds like they are convinced to blindly follow. I suppose someone can find something to the contrary though.

Well, here's a solution! Bloomberg wants the cops to all just quit. By gosh, that'll solve the problem.

Bloomberg On Gun Control: Police Should Strike Until Government Acts On Gun Violence

I don't really care for Huffington Post (or any other right or left leaning publication/site), but the NY Post article on the subject that I found a link to now has a "you can't access" notice on it. Interesting.

Bloomberg's statement: "I don’t understand why the police officers across his country don’t stand up collectively and say, ‘We’re going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe. After all, police officers want to go home to their families and we're doing everything we can to make their jobs more difficult."

Notice to all law-abiding citizens: Your job is to protect the cops; not vice-versa as previously believed. Please do so without weapons.

Notice to all criminals: The Mayor of New York would like you to make jobs easier on our Law Enforcement Officers. Kindly turn in all weapons to your local law enforcement agencies. Criminals in New York should also hand over all sugary drinks.

reply to post by SeesFar


Good. The cops are the thick blue line of stupidity keeping people from taking responsibility for their own security. Drop that veil and maybe people will finally get the reality of the world in which we live.

Let them strike. All except the ones on Bloombergs personal security detail of course.

reply to post by SeesFar


Try this on for size.

Notice to all criminals:

The Mayor of your city has just given you a green light to rob, steal, loot, rape & kill. Cops on vacation until you turn in your guns.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Good. The cops are the thick blue line of stupidity keeping people from taking responsibility for their own security. Drop that veil and maybe people will finally get the reality of the world in which we live.

Let them strike. All except the ones on Bloombergs personal security detail of course.

Well, now that you mention it, I must admit I had not thought about it quite like that. It's an interesting perspective. What *would* the 'no one needs a gun' folks do if there was no one to protect them? Would they quickly change their minds and do whatever was necessary to obtain their own protection? Would they run to those they knew who are armed and expect protection from them? I can't even begin to guess the paradigm shift that would create, but it's certainly thought provoking.

On the other hand, giving criminals carte blanche to do as they please until all law-abiding citizens turned in their guns would create .... what? And is that somewhere we, as a Nation, would want to go?

How many law-abiding citizens *would* turn in their guns in order to stop the carnage? How many would realize that turning in their guns would NOT stop the carnage?

How many innocent people (and I am picturing children and the elderly, especially) would be harmed or killed? How many criminals would law-abiding citizens remove from the spectrum? Does the elimination of one justify the elimination of the other?

If you think about *all* the possible ramifications of your suggestion, how do you see that working out?