Guns wouldn't need to be home-manufactured; they could be smuggled in. The guns could be easily gotten, but apparently folks in those countries would rather use knives, cars and explosives to commit their crimes -- although some still do use guns, proving they are available.
"because a law is not 100 effective does not mean its 100% ineffective." Golly. Then why are all those illegal murders occurring in gun-free zones down here, often with stolen weapons? All those laws broken, but one more would have solved the problem.
And I notice you didn't give an example of that law criminals would obey.
"I guarantee your family is embarrassed by you when you open you own mouth." As opposed to my opening someone else's? 🤦🏼♀️ No, my family and friends don't think I'm stupid. Then again, they don't say things like "you open you own mouth." 🙄
I live in a state with strong gun laws. A few years ago, around Christmastime, some fellow walked into a crowded local mall and started shooting. A man who'd ignored the "Gun-Free Zone" sign outside whipped out his gun and fired back, wounding the gunman. Seeing that he wasn't going to get by with it, the would-be mass murderer turned his gun on himself. The strong gun laws did nothing. The good man who fired back did. BTW, the would-be mass murderer had an illegal gun, in a gun-free zone, committing attempted homicide. He wouldn't have cared if there was one more law to break -- he'd have done it anyway. We have a mental illness problem. At the latest gun rally we had thousands of armed people and not a single casualty. The problem isn't with the guns, it's with the people.
"lol that's all you got? wow you sad embarrassment. please give up on life. no one will care. your family must be embarrassed by" That's the whole sentence.
You quoted only part of the long list, so that's not "all [I] got." You couldn't answer any of it. If that degree is real, I hope you can get your money back.
reply
share