Again, I can't post my thoughts on every post, nor would you want to read them. Mikey's post just summs em up, I'm not picking on him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyC
I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.
|
Said legislation actually does exist... but for some reason, most of the people that are committing crimes don't seem too inclined to follow it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyC
Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions....
|
Amen brother. I would even take it a step further and say that its not "often" that the tools end up in the wrong hands, its "always".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyC
....and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?
|
Food for thought. I've met a lot of people on both sides of fence, people that grew up with guns, people that didn't, etc. 99 times out of 100, the people that are "inexperienced" or "foolish" around guns and then get into accidents are the people that have been relatively sheltered from guns for most of their life.
A firearm is something that must be treated with the utmost in respect at all times, and damned near anyone who shoots often now or grew up shooting when they were younger knows this. People that live in a house that just tries to ignore their existance, those are the majority of the "inexperienced" people that you refer to.
whats my point? my point is, as you limit guns and drive them further away from the common public eye, and make it less socially acceptable for people to be involved with guns, I would argue that you will see an INCREASE in the number of accident related shootings because the number of inexperienced people will be rising.