Not a solution
Ummm. Right. So, people might get stabbed, so let's ban knives? People die in car accidents, so let's ban cars? Rights. Same logic. Some **FACTS** for you:
There were 8855 gun homicides in the US in 2012. There were about 270,000,000 guns in the US (middle estimate). So, for every gun used in a murder, there were 30490 guns that were NOT used in a murder. Yes, over THIRTY THOUSAND. Wow. we really need to crack down on those 30,000.
Do you have an authoritative reference that shows the "point of law is to indicate what's OK and not OK"??
Wow. The fail is strong with this one. That is pretty much the definition of a law. Check out the very first sentance of the Wikipedia article about law:
"Law is a system of rules enforced by governments to govern behaviour."
So, yes, that means that laws define what is OK and not OK. Please take your trolling elsewhere.
The people who inhale the paper dust? The people whose peace is shattered by the gun shot?
Wow. You are REALLY reaching for this one. When you run out of facts, it is amusing to see what you try to present.
On the basis of the example given - no one. There's an assertion that the gun will protect the woman. The false logic that a gun is an equaliser. Another assertion that the "ex-husband" is "crazy". Yet another unsubstantiated assertion that somehow being "crazy" means the ex-wife is at risk from something that only a gun can protect her. Emotive, speculative, logically flawed, and totally irrelevant to the legislation that was speculatively proposed.
Ha. If a crazy ex-husband breaks in and finds a gun pointed at him, you think that will NOT be a deterrent? I am also sure that you personally know every single ex-husband in the US and can personally vouch for the gentleness and sanity of each and every one of them? More epic fail here.
Check out the Wikipedia article that states:
"Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU (defensive gun use) incidents in the United States."
Yes, guns are used approximately a MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR to deter or prevent crime. Amazing what you learn when you use facts. And only around 8,000 gun murders. Sounds like they are doing FAR more good than bad (hint: 1,000,000 is much greater than 8,000).
Maybe to you, but real life not so much. If you removed all the gun laws tomorrow it'd still be an offence to shoot someone (assault).
Exactly. If murder is already illegal, assault is still illegal, do we really need to make it "extra-illegal" to shoot somebody?
Gun laws are there to keep voters happy as a measure designed to reduce the risk that someone might do "something bad" with a gun.
Somebody might do "something bad" with a penis! WIth 83,425 forcible rapes in 2011, and approximately 153,000 penises in the country, there are 18,380 "good" penises for every "bad" one that commits a rape. To compare this to guns your penis (assuming that you are male) is 60% more likely to commit a rape than my gun is to commit a murder. Sounds like you need to get castrated to me.
As to keeping voters happy, that lead to the Patriot Act to "keep us safe." That lead to taking your shoes off in the airport and no liquids. Giving up freedom for the appearance of security. It is call "security theater." As long as people FEEL safe, who cares what the reality is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Bullshit. I'm relatively honest - how does the "cracking down on ownership" negatively affect me? It doesn't unreasonably affect me. (I'm assuming that part of your problem is the inability to differentiate between "law-abiding" and "honest". "Honesty" doesn't mean you obey the law - it just means you'll admit breaking it if asked.)
Well, if you own guns, and the government says "hand them it," then YES it does affect you. And stupid laws DO affect honest people. Read this and tell me how this situation makes anybody any safer: http://www.philly.com/philly/n...
Or how about this one where a man is arrested for a FLINTLOCK -- the sort of weapon common when the Constitution was written: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02...
(you can save your libertarian self-protection bullshit for the Congo or somewhere else you shouldn't reasonably expect your taxes to pay for police to actually do their jobs).
So, the police are there to protect you? Does your area have a guaranteed service time? There in two minutes or your next arrest is free? Sorry, the courts have rules that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. They do their best, but if the closes cop is 10 minutes away, there is nothing they can do. Their primary job (aside from writing tickets to make money) is to catch criminals after the fact. If somebody intends me harm, I do not want to be an "after the fact." The fact that you are OK with this is fine by me, but don't tell me how to live my life.
Anyways, enough time wasted on you. Come back when you have facts.