I’m reading on and off line about recent meetings in Texas to do something about school shootings. Never in any of these meetings did they discuss any proposals to keep kids from getting guns in general, or mass murdermachines in specific, that is semiautomatic weapons with removable magazines that can send dozens of rounds downrange in seconds, hundreds in a few minutes.
Instead the conversations are about porn, and too many doors in schools, and psychiatric medications (Point of order, the meds generally come after getting diagnosed with problems, not before). Nothing about keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of children. It’s as if there is nothing that can be done to prevent mass shootings, but with some bandaids we can mitigate the body count.
Well, there is something we can do about it. First and foremost we can ban the manufacture, import, and sale of semiautomatic weapons with removable magazines so that kids can’t get them. I keep hearing that this is impossible, because people will break that law. Well, people break laws all the time, but that’s why we have law enforcement. Now this would not take away guns currently in possession of private owners, they just would not be allowed to sell or give them away. When the owners of these weapons died or got tired of owning them, the guns would be seized and destroyed. Mind you for this to work all these guns would have to be registered, with possession of an unregistered semiauto resulting in a hefty fine and possibly a prison sentence. And it won’t get rid of all the guns, but it will sharply curtail kids and crazies from getting them. And as the supply dwindles the black market prices will skyrocket beyond the resources of kids and crazies, unless they are fabulously wealthy. I mean Koch brothers wealthy, not Powerball winner wealthy.
LEO in Cleveland have been asking (pleading, begging, weeping) for a temporary reprieve from OH’s open carry law because it’s impossible to tell the “good guy with a gun” from the deranged maniac out to shoot up the convention. Not wanting to be accused of being anti-gun I have a suggestion: Keep open carry, and set up free beer stations on every corner. The ones not wanting to shoot up the convention will grab a pint or 12, and get happy. The ones wanting massive mayhem and body counts will eschew the alcohol while continuing to carry.
Obviously I don’t want to see someone shoot up the convention. After all those people have families that love them just like the rest of us. I’m just taking things to their logical conclusion. If more guns make us safer then making sure everyone has one means that everyone is perfectly safe, right? And if local (and Federal) LEO want to prevent open carry on the grounds of safety, how can those two statements be reconciled? I mean it’s almost as if more guns don’t make us safer.
I just want to know in the wake of the Nice terror truck attack when the US will adopt a “No Drive” list. Last report I read stated more than 50 of the 84 victims died from getting hit by the truck, and that most of those shot are expected to survive.This attack puts the Orlando Some Asshole to shame, much higher body count over a much larger area (more than a mile!). I mean seriously, how long will people be able to just walk up and put down a credit card and walk away with a WMD with significant room for explosives when you run out of steam from just running people over? I mean it’s like a 2-for-one murder weapon sale. Run over as many as you can, then detonate the massive shrapnel disperser in the back and go out in a literal blaze of glory destroying as many infidels as remain in the blast radius. Of course you will not be around to personally assess the damage…