Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
I've already offered my opinion in multiple threads, that you even responded to, about what I thought might be some actual solutions. Feel free to check on those.
|
When I asked how ......it was a rhetorical question, not really expecting a realistic answer. I've read your (expert) opinions and found them lacking in realism....in my opinion. Apparently, realistic solutions are disqualified immediately by those that are anti-gun. The point that has been made over and over again is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun on a killing rampage is a good guy with a gun. Another person commented (tongue in cheek) that someone call a social worker to talk to the bad guy. Of course, that solution was suggested seriously by some idiotic leaders in our country.
By the way, just because a CCW is no longer required for a gun owner to carry does not mean that they are not familiar with firearms or that they do not understand the defensive use laws. Precluding the requirement of gun safety classes before carrying a firearms does not mean that a gun owner is stupid, ignorant of laws or careless. I would guesstimate that most gun owners are or have been hunters or former military, with experience in handling firearms. Personally, I received gun safety instruction/class in junior high/middle school and have owned firearms since I was in my early teens.
By the way, the reason you cannot prevent a bad guy from possessing a firearm is because you cannot deem a person a bad guy UNTIL he/she/it commits a bad (unlawful) action. Unless you incarcerate bad guys, you will never be able to prevent them from obtaining a firearm if they wish to possess one. Mutual assured destruction, in the case of the threat of anyone possibly carrying a concealed weapon may have the effect of lowering violent threats. It may not, but it is a more reasonable idea for a solution than attempting to rid firearms in the hands of the "bad guy."