Abrignac wrote:The problem is your premise is deeply flawed. No amount of gun regulations are gonna keep a gun out of someone's hands who desires to possess one no matter what you do short of a global confiscation of every firearm on the planet. One has to be very naive to think such is possible. The success of such has about as much a chance of occurring as the War on Drugs has been successful in stemming the flow of illicit drugs. Since the dawn of man there has been an underground market for "illegal" merchandise. As long as the items exist consumers will purchase them. The more the supply dwindles, the higher the price and thus the incentive to acquire through whatever means possible will inch upward.
Actually it was only some tongue in cheek sarcasm, not so much a premise.
However, the idea that laws and regulations cannot reduce gun violence is fallacious. Dynamite is rather heavily regulated and few people commit crimes with it. But dynamite is not the point.
You're a LEO, do you feel we are all safer if, as today, most any one can be armed?
Should the gun show loop hole that permits felons to buy guns be closed?
Should court rooms be disallowed from being gun free zones because the people, jurors and magistrate are safer knowing the general assembly is armed?
Self protection is a good thing. But too much of anything is not a good thing. People who are armed should have a valid reason, be properly background checked, and not permitted to carry them anywhere.
I don't want anyone to take your gun. You're a pro.
It is the amateurs that worry me....
