Ken Bruce and the SF Gun Law
My original rant was about the ban on military recruiters and the gun control laws in San Francisco... and as I wrote I found the (logical, not internet) link to the tragic shooting in Campbell County Tennessee and decided to change the focus to guns and violence from my conservative point of view.
RINGO: A CHARACTER IN PULP FICTION notes (paraphrase) "I avoid Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."
Ban guns: Guns Bad: stop guns. How many gun crimes are committed by law abiding citizens with no previous criminal record? Let's see how this touchy-feely approach of a law to ban guns in San Francisco (as linked in my title) for protection works out. You know, every criminal with a handgun is going to run to the cops and turn it in. I think it's a wonderful idea. In a total absence of logic moronic-anti-constitutional sort of way. Last I heard things still aren't all that safe in DC and Chicago where the gun ban has already been put in place.
Jee, that Chicago gun law has been around since at least 2002 and how many did the police confiscate in 2004? According to PBS Newshour with Jim Lerher:10,000 .
That figure makes me think of all the arguments to make pot legal...and how those arguments can be equally applied to guns... but I digress.
Then we have the tragedy this week from my home state...
Tennessee Local news: Vice principal Ken Bruce killed by student with a handgun.
KEN BRUCE
One editorial opinion article from theAtlanta Journal
says:"As usual, the Tennessee high school shooting is prompting calls for metal detectors. But the truth is, most students can find a way around a metal detector if they choose, and it certainly can't prevent them from bringing weapons to school parking lots, basketball courts or parks."
Very well and true. Then again, the existing laws did not prevent the student from bringing the gun onto school grounds either, did they? Exactly how effective were those gun laws against carrying on school property? What may horrify a liberal needs to be asked: IF Mr. Bruce had been REQUIRED TO BE ARMED while on school property as a responsible administrator would that child have brought the gun to kill him? Would that have prevented the tragedy?
Does having a responsible, trained, law abiding citizen carry a gun make for a more dangerous situation or less dangerous? Airline pilots, school administrators and teachers, and bank tellers should be required to be armed. Period.
Does a guaranteed unarmed victim make a situation more attractive to a person intent on violating the law? If so, is the converse equally true: does a guaranteed armed victim make a person re-think their intent?
Which law prevents this tragedy: gun ban or required carry by responsible citizens?
Interesting Links:
Open Fire on Chicago's Gun Law
Deterring Gun Carrying in High-Crime Hotspot Areas
UChicago Gun Study
Criminals circumventing the Chicago gun ban
RINGO: A CHARACTER IN PULP FICTION notes (paraphrase) "I avoid Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."
Ban guns: Guns Bad: stop guns. How many gun crimes are committed by law abiding citizens with no previous criminal record? Let's see how this touchy-feely approach of a law to ban guns in San Francisco (as linked in my title) for protection works out. You know, every criminal with a handgun is going to run to the cops and turn it in. I think it's a wonderful idea. In a total absence of logic moronic-anti-constitutional sort of way. Last I heard things still aren't all that safe in DC and Chicago where the gun ban has already been put in place.
Jee, that Chicago gun law has been around since at least 2002 and how many did the police confiscate in 2004? According to PBS Newshour with Jim Lerher:
That figure makes me think of all the arguments to make pot legal...and how those arguments can be equally applied to guns... but I digress.
Then we have the tragedy this week from my home state...
Tennessee Local news: Vice principal Ken Bruce killed by student with a handgun.
KEN BRUCE
One editorial opinion article from the
says:"As usual, the Tennessee high school shooting is prompting calls for metal detectors. But the truth is, most students can find a way around a metal detector if they choose, and it certainly can't prevent them from bringing weapons to school parking lots, basketball courts or parks."
Very well and true. Then again, the existing laws did not prevent the student from bringing the gun onto school grounds either, did they? Exactly how effective were those gun laws against carrying on school property? What may horrify a liberal needs to be asked: IF Mr. Bruce had been REQUIRED TO BE ARMED while on school property as a responsible administrator would that child have brought the gun to kill him? Would that have prevented the tragedy?
Does having a responsible, trained, law abiding citizen carry a gun make for a more dangerous situation or less dangerous? Airline pilots, school administrators and teachers, and bank tellers should be required to be armed. Period.
Does a guaranteed unarmed victim make a situation more attractive to a person intent on violating the law? If so, is the converse equally true: does a guaranteed armed victim make a person re-think their intent?
Which law prevents this tragedy: gun ban or required carry by responsible citizens?
Interesting Links:
posted by Possum at 14:55
<< Home