It is not surprising to me that gun
legislation is not very effective. Sort of like "Zero Tolerance"
policies. What might be more effective is a social perspective
that guns are rather tacky: before allowing their child to
sleep-over at little Johnny's, the parents would require that
there are no fire arms in Johnny's house - before inviting a
couple over for drinks, or a get-together at a restaurant, the
hosts would confirm that the guests weren't 'carrying'. Namely,
gun-possessors would gradually become pariahs in society. The
ultimate aim being that gun-users would ultimately be limited to
law enforcement officers and violent criminals. Legitimate hunters
would still be able to use their hunting rifles. Gun clubs &
rifle ranges would still exist, but the local police stations
would store the firearms.
On 12/19/2012 6:14 AM, Robert Hansen wrote:
All of the above seems to be simple enough
logically for anyone to understand who has been able to
understand the logic of simple arithmetic, algebra, and the
Well, it didn't work in India, did it? It didn't work in
Chicago. It didn't work in DC. That tells me that it isn't
simple. What would be your next step in India? I mean, since the
gun ban didn't work.