|
I again state that I do not have the answer, Stephen. Nor do I think "more laws" are the answer.It seems to me,however,that such "pigeonholing" statements as you have made are quite deliberately polarizing, and furthermore miss my point; which it seems I have to restate .. constantly.I'm cheered, however, that in your last posting there is near-acknowledgement of the existence of a problem. here it is again:
1) I support absolutely your right to firearms.
2) gun injuries are by leaps&bounds more morbid and/or fatal than other weapons.
3)semi- automatic weapons increase numbers of injuries by their very nature.And have no application to the average citizen's sporting/home defense/ safety whatsoever.
4) frequently the victims are not criminals( please spare me the circular argument that the gun user who uses the weapon unwisely was never supposed to use it in the first place,unwisely; therefore thats not the problem.)
5)most of you have never seen the human results of gun violence;I have, in spades( cause that used to be my part of my job.);see it up close + personal before commenting on acceptable injury and loss.
6) I vote yes for enforcing existing laws. Problem is, political wrangling and money issues get in the way( would you pay up lots extra in taxes to enforce these laws???...a whole other ugly argument in the offing!!)Meanwhile, death in the streets continues.
7) there are weapons that the US public just cant get...why??Arent they regulated also?If so, is there a line there or not?
I boil it down to this. Simple answer;please:
How much carnage is acceptable in this country?
If your answer is in fact "any amount"( for whatever reason you may have, Constitutional or otherwise), then I respect you for coming out and saying so.I think then we can agree to disagree, without siding in camps& calling names.
But none of you have said it, exactly.And I find that hypocritical.
|