Man, that sucks. Sorry.
Ronzuki wrote:
Hold on a minute a minute.... I thought The Peoples Republic of New York had STRICT gun laws that work so well the saviors of society wish to decree their ways upon the rest of us!?!?
How in the world did good ole' Rashun come to possess a firearm?
yeah, yeah, I know....off topic.
Kudos to the quick acting EMTs. Always like to hear about when good folks selflessly step-up to the plate and act.
I'm a liberal if you couldn't tell by my other posts related to politics however, I don't support gun bans. The reason is simple: they don't work. Cities that have practiced handgun bans have not seen an appreciable decrease in gun crimes. Places like Chicago and Washington, DC have had strict handgun bans, but have not enjoyed a significant decrease in gun crimes. I can tell you firsthand about crime in DC given I work in criminal law in DC. The ban in DC was even challenged and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The sad thing about gun bans in the US is that it's simply too late unlike what happened in Australia. There are more guns than people in the US and guns can be obtained fairly easily by anyone. Guns are easier to obtain that Kizashi parts!
Laws can make guns harder to obtain, but anyone with some determination can get what they want. Let's not forget that even if DC and Maryland have strict gun laws, Virginia doesn't so thugs can get their guns from their hook-ups in VA. Merely hopping the border will get you a gun to bring back to DC.
Bans also punish law abiding citizens. When Adam Lanza killed all those kids in Sandy Hook, it was a tragedy, but a ban wouldn't really stop the next guy from doing the same. Let's not forget the worst school shooting in US history was not Sandy Hook, but Virginia Tech and the shooter did not even use an "assault rifle". He had two pistols. Banning rifles styled like assault rifles would take them away from millions of law abiding citizens. I personally know two guys who own AR-15s. I went to high school with them. One is an active officer in the US Navy and the other is a law abiding gun enthusiast. Neither are criminals nor a threat to society.
While some measures of gun control must be implemented, outright bans are rarely effective and intrude more on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. It's a liberal fallacy to think that banning a certain kind of gun would make crimes with that type of gun suddenly disappear or even diminish significantly. It's also counterproductive as we saw with the anti-AR-15 and anti-extended magazine legislation that was discussed after Sandy Hook. Millions of Americans who feared a ban went out and bought these guns and mags. It merely spurred the
very opposite of what anti-gun liberals wanted to do. Gun makers and their accessory makers made record profits. The mere talk of reducing these guns and mags by liberals spurred the mass proliferation and ownership of them by conservatives and gun nuts. There are now more AR-15s and extended mags in the US than ever! Ironic, huh?
This was really a predictable outcome of one political ideology thinking they had the solution for everyone. The response by the other side merely exacerbated the problem.
Oh well, what's actually new in America anyways?
. How much damage is there- where did the bullet end up?
sold)
