they were due to guns were they? inanimate objects killed these people.The random mass killings due to guns are why the debate rages on.
they were due to guns were they? inanimate objects killed these people.The random mass killings due to guns are why the debate rages on.
Here's an idea. Pass a law requiring every purchaser of a firearm be put on a national gun registry.A lot of gun people use cash sales for guns and credit/debit for everything else.
The amount of people they could mortally wound is because of the effective tool they employed in their crime. Fatality rates with other tools are much lower.they were due to guns were they? inanimate objects killed these people.
The amount of people they could mortally wound is because of the effective tool they employed in their crime. Fatality rates with other tools are much lower.
yeah and? there's a lot of face to face gun deals, I know plenty of people who inherent them or pay cash, even with prism they wouldn't know everything.If you used your credit or debit card it's stored somewhere bro.
Circular argument. If they already have all the information, then there's no need for a national registry, or it in fact already exists. Obviously if people want to create one, then they don't have the information already.They may have thought that before, but now that everyone knows that everything about you is stored somewhere, is that really an argument that can be defended in any sensible way?
Knowing you bought it isn't the same as knowing you have it. You could have sold it to someone at a gun show, through a classified ad, or just in a person to person transaction, perhaps without even knowing the name of the person you sold it to, and that is what a lot of people will claim when/if somebody comes to collect their gun.If you used your credit or debit card it's stored somewhere bro.
The issue is that in order for any gun confiscation to be feasible, there has to be some sort of weapons tracking. In other countries, citizens were told that they were doing registrations for various reasons and not to worry, their guns would never be taken away. Then, in the wake of some mass shooting, these registrations were then used to help confiscate guns.I don't see how tracking weapons infringes on anyone's freedom, but I'm not really invested in the debate generally.
What countries?The issue is that in order for any gun confiscation to be feasible, there has to be some sort of weapons tracking. In other countries, citizens were told that they were doing registrations for various reasons and not to worry, their guns would never be taken away. Then, in the wake of some mass shooting, these registrations were then used to help confiscate guns.
You may think that is paranoid but given that gun registration wouldn't do much if anything to stop or limit gun violence, I consider it more than enough reason for me to be against it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ocks-nsa-prismWhen people say stupid shit like this it is just impossible to take them seriously. Yeah, sure, civil war.
In the same year, a report by the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute warned that a series of domestic crises could provoke large-scale civil unrest. The path to "disruptive domestic shock" could include traditional threats such as deployment of WMDs, alongside "catastrophic natural and human disasters" or "pervasive public health emergencies" coinciding with "unforeseen economic collapse." Such crises could lead to "loss of functioning political and legal order" leading to "purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency...
"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."