Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, and in most of US history, gun control has historically had links to both racist and/or classist motives (much in the same way as poll taxes and a number of other issues).

Well said. The immediate example that leapt to my mind was the famed liberal governor* who had no problem with open carry, until the Black Panthers started doing it, and then signed a ban post-haste.

*Actually, it was Ronald Reagan.

 Hordini wrote:

Why should only rich people be able to exercise their second amendment rights?

Sorry, are you seriously asking why people with more money should be able to afford things that poor people can't?


I mean, you could make the same argument about food, or housing, or medical care. Or pretty much anything that costs money. People with more money can buy more things than people with no money.

 insaniak wrote:
Sorry, are you seriously asking why people with more money should be able to afford things that poor people can't?

No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something. And we're asking it in a context where the government in question has an ugly history of using such methods for racist and/or classist reasons.

I mean, you could make the same argument about food, or housing, or medical care. Or pretty much anything that costs money. People with more money can buy more things than people with no money.

The difference is that the government doesn't put a $1000 tax on going to see a doctor because they want to keep medical care out of the hands of poor and/or non-white people.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something. And we're asking it in a context where the government in question has an ugly history of using such methods for racist and/or classist reasons.

Yeah, and so it comes to a pretty simple question;

Do the added safety benefits justify the increased price to the consumer, especially given the price impact will be more acutely felt by lower income earners.


Of course, while the question is pretty simple, the answer is likely very complicated and extremely subjective. Such is life.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something.

Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.


If the requirement is for firearms to be secured, and a cheap safe doesn't provide that security, then clearly a better form of security is required.

It doesn't become any more secure just because poor people can't afford anything better.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something.

Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.

There are three big issues here. First, the enforced requirement of a helmet only applies on public roads. If you're out on someone's private land, say dirtbiking or on a racetrack, a police officer can't roll around and ticket you for not wearing a helmet. Second, the additional cost of a helmet is very slight, it's not going to impact the practical affordability of a motorcycle for anyone. Third, motorcycles aren't covered as a federally protected right.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.

There are three big issues here. First, the enforced requirement of a helmet only applies on public roads. If you're out on someone's private land, say dirtbiking or on a racetrack, a police officer can't roll around and ticket you for not wearing a helmet. Second, the additional cost of a helmet is very slight, it's not going to impact the practical affordability of a motorcycle for anyone. Third, motorcycles aren't covered as a federally protected right.

Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".

 insaniak wrote:
Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.

The difference here, besides the "constitutional right" issue, is that requiring a helmet is a very small cost relative to the price of the motorcycle itself while a high-end gun safe is significantly more expensive than a gun. Requiring the helmet has little or no effect on a person's ability to afford a motorcycle, requiring an expensive gun safe potentially takes gun ownership away from large numbers of people who could afford the gun itself.

It doesn't become any more secure just because poor people can't afford anything better.

No, but in the context of US history and politics we have to very seriously ask whether the requirement to own an expensive gun safe is a legitimate safety issue or simply yet another case of deliberately raising the price of something so that the "wrong" people can't afford it. You simply can not talk about this issue without considering the history of racist/classist politicians doing exactly that.

 sebster wrote:


And again, the big issue is that the helmet massively increases survivability compared to the cost. Is there a similar improved in public safety from better gun safes, trigger locks and all the other features? That's the question that needs to be asked.

Aye. In general, it appears that, at least from what data I can find, that firearm deaths from accidents are about an eighth of what motorcycle deaths are, are with helmets, at between 500 and 600 deaths per year out of over 300 million firearms in curculation, as opposed to ~4000-4800 (depending on source) motorcycle deaths in 2012 out of an estimated mere 9 million motorcycles.

While tragic, this is a very small number of deaths, particularly relative to motorcycles which have a lethal accident rate 200-300 times higher than that of firearms.

 Psienesis wrote:
Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".

While not wanting to take away from the tragedy of any of these incidents, when we're talking a population of over three hundred million people, this is a statistically irrelevant number of deaths, particularly with an effectively equal number of weapons. Looking at a two day sample isn't going to give you the greatest big picture. ~10,000 children die in the US every year as a result of accidental causes. Even if we assume every single accidental firearms death involves a child (and not ol' bubba fergettin' t' unload ol' smokey) they're about 5-6% of accidental child deaths, if we assume that they're not all children, those numbers drop quickly. More children killed by firearms are killed either intentionally or as collateral damage.

 Psienesis wrote:
Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".

If that's the metric we're using, this country is desperately in need of some pool safety regulations. I hate to be that guy, but...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye. In general, it appears that, at least from what data I can find, that firearm deaths from accidents are about an eighth of what motorcycle deaths are, are with helmets, at between 500 and 600 deaths per year out of over 300 million firearms in curculation, as opposed to ~4000-4800 (depending on source) motorcycle deaths in 2012 out of an estimated mere 9 million motorcycles.

While tragic, this is a very small number of deaths, particularly relative to motorcycles which have a lethal accident rate 200-300 times higher than that of firearms.

That isn't the answer though. The death rate from motor cycles is a key stat in determining the level of motor cycle safety that is needed, it's quite irrelevant to deciding what should be done about firearm safety.

The things that matter here are the number of child deaths, the number you could reasonably expect to reduce that by added safety features, the cost of those safety features, and the proportionate effect of that price increase on different parts of society.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?

What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

...

It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.

It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.

It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.

 Ouze wrote:
If that's the metric we're using, this country is desperately in need of some pool safety regulations. I hate to be that guy, but...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".

While not wanting to take away from the tragedy of any of these incidents, when we're talking a population of over three hundred million people, this is a statistically irrelevant number of deaths, particularly with an effectively equal number of weapons. Looking at a two day sample isn't going to give you the greatest big picture. ~10,000 children die in the US every year as a result of accidental causes. Even if we assume every single accidental firearms death involves a child (and not ol' bubba fergettin' t' unload ol' smokey) they're about 5-6% of accidental child deaths, if we assume that they're not all children, those numbers drop quickly. More children killed by firearms are killed either intentionally or as collateral damage.

To take the other side of that argument, I don't think it's just about the numbers though. Laws are an extension of our values and what we find acceptable. We have to accept a certain element of risk in life, kids will be kids and they will have accidents. However, there are also risks that we shouldn't have to accept, where someone else is negligent. I would argue that a child and an unlocked firearm is an entirely preventable situation. It's not a risk we ever need to take, regardless of how infrequently it happens. I don't think the argument that "it would have cost me an extra $100" has ever worked as defense for criminal negligence. If someone insists on owning a gun, then I don't see a problem with society insisting that they accept a certain amount of responsibility with that. You can't have one without the other.

 sebster wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye. In general, it appears that, at least from what data I can find, that firearm deaths from accidents are about an eighth of what motorcycle deaths are, are with helmets, at between 500 and 600 deaths per year out of over 300 million firearms in curculation, as opposed to ~4000-4800 (depending on source) motorcycle deaths in 2012 out of an estimated mere 9 million motorcycles.

While tragic, this is a very small number of deaths, particularly relative to motorcycles which have a lethal accident rate 200-300 times higher than that of firearms.

That isn't the answer though. The death rate from motor cycles is a key stat in determining the level of motor cycle safety that is needed, it's quite irrelevant to deciding what should be done about firearm safety.

The things that matter here are the number of child deaths, the number you could reasonably expect to reduce that by added safety features, the cost of those safety features, and the proportionate effect of that price increase on different parts of society.

The point I was trying to make with the comparison was that the scale of the issue was far several orders of magnitude less and the scale of the regulatory scope is several orders of magnitude larger, and thus the original comparison between the two was flawed.

Either way, the accident rate (as opposed to intentional slayings, collateral damage, or suicides) is relatively negligible.

Even compared with cars, with roughly equal numbers of cars and firearms in the US, the total death rates between both items are about identical, but the rate of accidental deaths with firearms is about 2% what it is with cars.

Given the relatively low absolute number of accidental firearms related deaths, and the even lower per-capita accident rate relative to other devices (which are far more rigorously tracked, regulated, and licensed) which are covered by safety mandates, would seem to indicate that firearm accidents are far below what you would expect to merit sweeping safety mandates. Additionally, without the same sort ability to regulate firearms as there are for motor vehicles, it is unlikely that such regulations could be adequately enforced to anything near the same degree they are on automobiles.

It's the use in homicides and suicides that accounts for 98%+ of firearms related deaths. Accidents, while tragic and headline grabbing, I think are really a tangent, one that could be as large a black hole for money and regulatory effort as one wanted, with a very limited cap on the number of lives to be saved (again, assuming accidents as opposed to homicides or suicides).

 Smacks wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If that's the metric we're using, this country is desperately in need of some pool safety regulations. I hate to be that guy, but...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".

While not wanting to take away from the tragedy of any of these incidents, when we're talking a population of over three hundred million people, this is a statistically irrelevant number of deaths, particularly with an effectively equal number of weapons. Looking at a two day sample isn't going to give you the greatest big picture. ~10,000 children die in the US every year as a result of accidental causes. Even if we assume every single accidental firearms death involves a child (and not ol' bubba fergettin' t' unload ol' smokey) they're about 5-6% of accidental child deaths, if we assume that they're not all children, those numbers drop quickly. More children killed by firearms are killed either intentionally or as collateral damage.

To take the other side of that argument, I don't think it's just about the numbers though. Laws are an extension of our values and what we find acceptable. We have to accept a certain element of risk in life, kids will be kids and they will have accidents. However, there are also risks that we shouldn't have to accept, where someone else is negligent. I would argue that a child and an unlocked firearm is an entirely preventable situation. It's not a risk we ever need to take, regardless of how infrequently it happens. I don't think the argument that "it would have cost me an extra $100" has ever worked as defense for criminal negligence. If someone insists on owning a gun, then I don't see a problem with society insisting that they accept a certain amount of responsibility with that. You can't have one without the other.

To a degree, I agree. That said, I also don't think you need a massive gun safe to prevent a child from doing something bad with a firearm, a trigger/action lock will typically suffice, and, more fundamentally, I think that existing negligence laws typically cover issues where people do irresponsible things rather well (at least in every state I can recall). If you leave a gun where a child could access it and they do something bad with it, you can generally be held criminally liable.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The point I was trying to make with the comparison was that the scale of the issue was far several orders of magnitude less and the scale of the regulatory scope is several orders of magnitude larger, and thus the original comparison between the two was flawed.

Okay, I see your point about scale. I think it's a bit misleading to use another industry though. I mean, I could come back with a stat deaths from guns being many times more than deaths from falling off horses. WOuld that mean we shold never have any safety measures at all for riding horses? Or does it mean everything with many times more deaths than horse riding must have

It would, of course, mean nothing. No comparison to another industry really means anything. If there's an effective way to reduce deaths, and the cost and impact to various sectors of society are small relative to the lives saved, then it becomes a good thing. No matter what might be the case in other industries.

Even compared with cars, with roughly equal numbers of cars and firearms in the US, the total death rates between both items are about identical, but the rate of accidental deaths with firearms is about 2% what it is with cars.

But that's really not a useful indicator of anything. Obviously a product that's used for hours every single day will have a greater accident rate than a product. It doesn't mean there is more we must or can do about cars, and it doesn't mean there's nothing that could be done about firearms.

Given the relatively low absolute number of accidental firearms related deaths, and the even lower per-capita accident rate relative to other devices (which are far more rigorously tracked, regulated, and licensed) which are covered by safety mandates, would seem to indicate that firearm accidents are far below what you would expect to merit sweeping safety mandates. Additionally, without the same sort ability to regulate firearms as there are for motor vehicles, it is unlikely that such regulations could be adequately enforced to anything near the same degree they are on automobiles.

I don't agree that firearms are more regulated than cars. Car manufacturing, sale, purchase and use is massively regulated by all levels of government.

But your point about the difficulty of putting any such complaints in place on guns is a good one.

It's the use in homicides and suicides that accounts for 98%+ of firearms related deaths.

I think this is a really good point. Add in the point you make later about trigger locks being good enough to stop almost all accidents, and it's pretty much a complete opinion on what should be done. Meaning safes can't really be justified for this.

Whether there's a case for safes as a means of preventing theft is another issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To a degree, I agree. That said, I also don't think you need a massive gun safe to prevent a child from doing something bad with a firearm.

I think that's a different argument, I don't know if it's one I'm willing to get in to. I would certainly agree that a "massive" gun safe is not the only solution.

a trigger/action lock will typically suffice

From what I've seen of trigger locks, many guns can still be loaded and cocked with them on, and I've even seen people fire them by pulling backwards on the lock. Some are probably better than others, but a kid could still hold the gun, point the gun, stare down the barrel. I personally wouldn't consider a weapon secure with just a trigger lock on it, and it may actually be more dangerous if it leads people to think a weapon is secure when it isn't.

more fundamentally, I think that existing negligence laws typically cover issues where people do irresponsible things rather well (at least in every state I can recall). If you leave a gun where a child could access it and they do something bad with it, you can generally be held criminally liable.

I think laws can work well as a deterrent for a certain kind of person. Probably the kind of person who "thinks things through", and would act quite responsibly regardless. Unfortunately, there is that other kind of person that we just have to make do with punishing after the fact. For me that's a bit too little too late. No amount of prison time is going to bring back a dead girl. So I think no matter where you stand on the gun control line, everyone should be open to looking at preventative measures first.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?

What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

...

It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.

Good thing we have a Constitutional Republic then.

And it "works" because the moron who came up with it apparently failed to realise the glaring flaw with making an appointment to make sure you're doing something correctly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.

Last I checked my house is not industrially zoned.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.

I find it unreasonable to have to pay taxes to employ people to come round once a year to look at my locked up guns, leaving me free to then leave them all layed out and loaded for the other 364 days if I so choose.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.

Because other first world liberal democracies do not have a strong right to bear arms.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.

So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?

Many industrial inspections are because harmful chemicals are present in these industries. Harmful chemicals, like those found in common cleaning supplies, in homes cause more deaths than firearms. Can we expect that all homeowners will have their domiciles inspected by the government to ensure that their cleaning products are stored safely?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.

It is absolutely unreasonable. The government is coming into your home without probable cause to look for evidence of malpractice to strip you of a constitutional right, or levy criminal sanctions.

I think the idea of the inspections in the UK is just to check that you have a secure area. Obviously, checking that you use it would be beyond the scope of that kind of inspection. The UK also has fewer guns to inspect so the logistics of that system are more "realistic".

I think I would be diametrically opposed to unreasonable searches of any kind. However, I still have people come round and inspect stuff. The building I live in has quite regular gas safety and fire alarm inspections by law, they send me a letter when they are coming. And a guy comes round to read the electricity meter quite frequently (often completely unannounced). He comes in looks at the meter, and then leaves. It's hardly the same as the police busting in and tossing my room.

 insaniak wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:
Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.

Would it?

If a functional safe is impractical for your current living arrangements, surely that's an argument against your current living arrangements being adequate for you to own a firearm, rather than an argument against requiring a functional safe?

Likewise with the cost argument. If you can't afford the equipment needed to lock your guns away, then maybe you need to reconsider whether or not to buy a gun.

So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know. Yea that will last court scrutiny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
With rights come responsibilities. Has always been thus.

Your right to possess a firearm ends where my right to live and not be killed by you or your stupid-ass child while walking down the goddamn street begins.

Actually, when it comes to the Constitution, With rights come...rights. This isn't Spiderman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Why should only rich people be able to exercise their second amendment rights?

Sorry, are you seriously asking why people with more money should be able to afford things that poor people can't?


I mean, you could make the same argument about food, or housing, or medical care. Or pretty much anything that costs money. People with more money can buy more things than people with no money.

These types of maneuvers have had a long history of being struck down by the courts. You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. There are no poll taxes here, and thats a big thing related to voter ID.

 Frazzled wrote:
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.

So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.

 Smacks wrote:
I think I would be diametrically opposed to unreasonable searches of any kind. However, I still have people come round and inspect stuff. The building I live in has quite regular gas safety and fire alarm inspections by law, they send me a letter when they are coming. And a guy comes round to read the electricity meter quite frequently (often completely unannounced). He comes in looks at the meter, and then leaves. It's hardly the same as the police busting in and tossing my room.

Well, this isn't the best analogy, in that the meter reading guy and the gas reading guy are actually checking on their own equipment, which is installed on your (or your landlord's) property per a contractual agreement which includes the occasional reading. If you want to have gas or electric, it's required that you allow them to check their equipment - and if you don't let them, the remedies would be a cessation of your service.

The problem isn't with proposing gun owners be forced to own safes, the problem is how such a law gets enforced - presumably, it's going to be a law enforcement official. The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter. It's a pretty big nose in the tent, I think.

Also as an aside, Frazzled has in fact been in favor of what we'd call "socialized medicine" so probably wouldn't agree with that last idea, actually. Obviously he can speak for himself but per his posting history, no, he's not been OK with the idea that only the wealthy should be able to afford medical insurance.

Why are you losing your time? They will defend their right to own guns, even if it means the world's end. No logic here; just caring about themselves alone.

Sad things like this will keep happening meanwhile. Why would they care? It's not like it was their child who did this/got killed, right?

 Frazzled wrote:
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world.

No, in 'my' world, only people who actually have a valid use for them can own firearms.

That's been working pretty well for the last 20 years.

 Sarouan wrote:
Why are you losing your time?

Ultimately, what's the point about arguing about anything on the OT, really?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?

What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

I think more people are going to fail that test than you realise. Also, it is not there to check that you are storing your guns safely but rather to check that you have the capacity to do so. If an incident later occurs with your firearm due to you not using that capacity then you get prosecuted.

Also, people saying that burglars will not get put off by having to break into a safe. Yes they will. Burglars can get deterred by having a motion sensor light in your back yard, or a sturdy door. Once they're in the house they want to grab as much stuff of value as they can in a short amount of time because the longer they're in a house, the greater the chance of them being caught. Then they also want that stuff to be easy to carry so they don't have to make multiple trips.

Also, I found this article when trying to search for cases in which burglars had successfully broken into a house here and opened the gun safe:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262239/Burglars-target-home-features-controversial-gun-permit-map.html

These people broke in specifically to get the guns. They failed as they couldn't break into the safe.

 Frazzled wrote:
You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. .

It's not discrimination to tell someone that they can't buy something that they can't afford to buy.

It's also not discrimination to tell someone that if they want to buy something that is potentially dangerous, they have to have somewhere safe to store it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Ultimately, what's the point about arguing about anything on the OT, really?

When we run out of internet, the last post wins.

 Ouze wrote:
The problem isn't with proposing gun owners be forced to own safes, the problem is how such a law gets enforced - presumably, it's going to be a law enforcement official. The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter. It's a pretty big nose in the tent, I think.

For what it's worth, I think the whole inspection thing is a pretty terrible idea. I just chimed in because some of the arguments against it were also quite terrible.

Also as an aside, Frazzled has in fact been in favor of what we'd call "socialized medicine" so probably wouldn't agree with that last idea, actually. Obviously he can speak for himself but per his posting history, no, he's not been OK with the idea that only the wealthy should be able to afford medical insurance.

Sorry Frazzled. My comment was aimed in the general direction of the right, which is where you just happened to be standing this time. It's true that guns are the one issue conservatives are very liberal on, and it's funny to see familiar arguments coming the other way.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.

So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.

1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights so your argument is irrelevant.
2. Having said that, Medicare, Medicade, the VA, and Obamacare reflect the belief that your attempted comparison is not accurate.
AS has been noted, I've been in favor of a competent Canadian/Swiss type system for some time, and am hopeful things will evolve that way and quickly. My current hope is that, in their zeal to repeal DA EVILZ OBAMAcare!!!! Congress is forced to shift it to a more workable real system, vs. the insurance scam it really is.

Its not ironic, our government is just incompetent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Why are you losing your time? They will defend their right to own guns, even if it means the world's end. No logic here; just caring about themselves alone.

Sad things like this will keep happening meanwhile. Why would they care? It's not like it was their child who did this/got killed, right?

Exactly. Thats because we're Amerikka. As Jimmy Carter once said: Try and Stop Us! MUAHAHAHAHAH!