GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[HairOfTheDog]

Jimbone:
Even if did become Federal law as it stands, it doesn't mean that state law-making becomes null and void. JMO.

This is a great point, as it shows the complete fallacy of what these laws intend to to do, versus what they actually do.

Had Feinstein's bill become law last year, Mrs. Lanza - being a legal gun owner - would have registered, been fingerprinted, and had her picture taken.

And her son would have still shot her in the head, and then gone and slaughtered 26 innocents.

Yes, states with the severest restrictions and past Federal bans simply haven't achieved their objectives; data proves it.

When I see Sandy Hook and the Webster NY fire fighter ambush used specifically as examples to support a need for more gun-restrictions, I'm left scratching my head. Lanza couldn't have been stopped by any means of gun control; he had access and snagged guns from a qualified owner. Spengler was a convicted felon who was armed with 3 weapons - yet to be confirmed how he got ahold of them (through criminal channels perhaps, but also won't surprise me if it turns out that he too has access via family members who knew he was out of his mind).

I can't say that a home owner or concealed carrier would never be in a position to need semi-automatic firepower to defend him/herself against someone on a mission to kill. I think it's unlikely at home, and more likely in public. In either case, I really just don't know. But, I do know that I'm not in favor of restricting anyone from legally using any means of self defense and/or public protection necessary when he/she encounters a Lanza or Spengler or Holmes ...

Overall, I think this is gonna be a tougher sell for Feinstein and other gun-control advocates than is currently perceived. I think that louder voices of opposition will be heard from at the end of the month (including reps from states that want to loosen current restrictions to include mandatory or voluntary arming of schools), after emotions cool and the holidays pass. At this time, those opposed to more gun restrictions may be holding back in order not to be perceived publicly as a coldhearted villains, which could be counter productive. Some states might also look to the Supreme Court if new restrictive measures pass.

P.s.
While I mostly don't think restricting guns further would be effective and might be counter-productive, I do struggle with the fact that a mad man, no matter how he acquires the guns, is able to take out more people under a ticking clock with certain kinds of guns and ammo. I consider that to be a fact. But then, I don't think it's as difficult as some people believe for obsessed, intelligent anti-social types to get ahold of guns illegally or to simply find/build other weapons that up the body count. This is my greatest area of uncertainty and it applies only to mass murderers, which are still very very rare but leave a lot of carnage in their wake.