Friday, October 20, 2017
What's the Answer?
Something "clicked over" on the day of the Columbine
killings and mass shootings increased measurably since. Islamic
terrorism is partly to blame, but not all the mass shooters in
America have been Islamic terrorists. I don't
really
know what started it, and what has caused it to increase so much
except for the "victimization" Dumocrats push to get votes.
Due to disagreement in reporting agencies on the definition of mass
shootings, they list 270 mass shootings in America, just in 2017. But
the problem there is, due to the definition used, many simple crime
shootings have been conflated with the real mass shootings to get
this number. The answer is NOT more gun laws. the ones now in effect
have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent mass shootings. The killer in
Las Vegas, for instance, bought all his guns legally because he had
NO criminal history.
Many
other shooters did likewise, for the same reason. Those who could not
get them legally either bought them ILLEGALLY from another criminal
in a back alley somewhere, or just STOLE them
(the Aurora theater killings).
In any case, you can't just BAN GUNS in America because the
Constitution forbids
it. And you can't just change the Constitution ro eliminate the
Second Amendment.
You would never get 2/3 of the states to ratify it, even if you could
get it through Congress. Even if you could, that would still not do
it because of the thriving black market in guns in this country, and
others. And potential mass shooters are not
concerned with piddling anti-gun laws because they plan a crime much
worse than that--many of them don't even worry about any laws giving
them longer prison sentences for using a gun in a crime where they
have them, and
they mostly don't even enforce them.
They
use
them as "bargaining chips" to get convictions in other
crimes.
And still potential mass shooters will not care about how many laws
they violate in getting their guns since they plan to kill a bunch or
people, and maybe even expect to die themselves as a result.
In most mass shootings, allowing more law-abiding people to be armed
in self defense would do--but not always. In Las Vegas, the shooter
was 32 stories up and mostly inaccessible.
When the cops finally broke into his room, he had killed himself.
Potental
mass shooters usually give off SOME signs as they prepare for their
crime. (The
shooter at Ft. Hood, for instance, did so many ways, but was
ignored). If
we are alert for these signs, maybe we can prevent some of the
shootings. But
not all, because some give no signs, at all. The first sign is when
he begins killing people.
We
need to stop "targeting the guns" and start looking for
ways to spot potential mass shooters BEFORE he carries out his evil
plan--IF that's even possible. It'll need much more of "police
state" than we now have to do that. The only thing I can think
of that will be even partially successful is more law-abiding peole
legally carrying their own guns so they can (in most cases) shoot the
shooter before he can kill as many people as he wishes. But the
anti-gun fools will not hear of that. They think (wrongly) that
law-abiding people being armed in self defense
is a "bad thing, That they will "go crazy" if they
have a gun in their pocket and shoot each other over trifles.
Some illegal gun owners do that, but they are of a different mindset,
being criminals. (ABC 15 Arizona)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment