… before the United States bans assault weapons? We’re up to fifty killed in – what? – sixty minutes? Probably less time than that. (“It was done very quickly also.“)
UD bets we’ll need at least 300 killings – say roughly the contents of an airliner – in thirty minutes before something begins to happen.
I mean, multiple events with that body count/time frame, of course.
***************
There are those who refuse to wager.
“Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, tweeted in June of last year. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”
June 13th, 2016 at 4:36PM
Anti-gun folks in the States ought to muster their best arguments for confiscatory or abolitionist gun policies. I’m okay with a generous interpretation of the Second Amendment. Haven’t owned a firearm in 30-plus years. Don’t expect to own a handgun anytime soon. After a potential home invasion maybe two years ago, I want the option of buying a handgun with as little hassle as possible. That won’t happen.
UD’s opinions on firearms are okay, and they deserve good treatment and criticism as warranted.
June 14th, 2016 at 1:04AM
Below is an extract from a Senate vote, last year I believe. I don’t wish to expose my ignorance in these matters (I’m a stiff arsed Brit.) but what’s not to like about the Statement of Purpose and why would 54 Republicans vote against it? I tip my hat to the ONE Republican who voted in favour.
Statement of Purpose: To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
Vote Counts: YEAs 45
NAYs 54
Not Voting 1
June 14th, 2016 at 8:50AM
John, you have a lot more confidence in my government’s capacity to do good than I do, that’s for sure.:) I’m thinking how a young assistant AG will interpret “increase public safety”, “known”, “suspected”, or “dangerous”.