I've not seen one suggested piece of legislation that would have stopped most, if not all, of the recent mass shootings. I understand that when something like Sandy Hook happens that people feel helpless and want to do something but that happened in a state with already very restrictive gun laws. So why continue to argue points that wouldn't have mattered? Why ignore facts and vote emotion? Why push for laws that only effect good, decent, law abiding folks? Do they honestly believe that someone willing to commit the heinous crime of murder cares about breaking a gun law?
Before someone says "clip size" please understand that the only thing a smaller magazine would have done is made the shooter reload more often. In a "gun free zone" nobody can do anything in the short time it takes someone to change one out.
Making ammo more expensive is one that really pisses me off. The idea that a criminal set on killing would be deterred because he had to spend more money to get ammo is stupid. So the one that gets hurt is the recreational shooter that likes to go to the range. It's already incredibly expensive to shoot. Less practice then means more people with legal guns that have less experience using them. Smart.
Anyway I could go on and on but I won't. I just don't get it.
Interestingly the 2 biggest mass murders in our country were not even comitted with firearms and no punitive legislation followed :
Originally Posted by achiro
The World Trade Center
Originally Posted by Golddogs
WHAT?!! I would have to disagree with this. Ever heard of the Patriot Act?
Which is a wide ranging act.
Originally Posted by HPL
I am refering more to legislation tied directly to a specific : i.e. we really added nothing but a bit more or tighter security in airports and you have to sign for fertilizer now but no additional taxes or punitive restrictions were added. Might take a bit longer to clear security at the airport, but I find it not much different than pre 911.
They did not restrict how often you could fly or where.