Here is the answer. Short, to the point, irrefutable:
I saw a comment yesterday in support of stricter gun control laws. The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun. I personally stand by the 2nd amendment but what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?
What does such a person say about gun laws that already exist and are not enforced? What good is another one?
The libs predictably use high-profile shooting cases to get more laws passed, laws which they don't enforce, because they really need the violence to get what they really want: a total ban.
THAT would be enforced, bet on it.
As to Loughner being legally in possession, the laws on background checks don't operate if there is no background. That was because the sheriff didn't do his job, which meant that Loughner's bizarre goings-on were not flagged in the database.
Had the sheriff done his job and arrested Loughner for either the drup offenses or the threats he had made in the past, Loughner would have had a criminal record that would have prohibited him from legally buying the gun.
In the course of prosecuting any of his previous offenses, a court-ordered psych eval would have added to his difficulties in getting the gun.
The Germans outlawed guns in the Warsaw ghetto and killed anyone they found with a gun.
Is that your next step when gun control doesn't work?
“I saw a comment yesterday in support of stricter gun control laws. The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun. I personally stand by the 2nd amendment but what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?”
That while the point is true, it’s a red herring. Say there was a law he broke — or a thousand of them — would that have slowed him down one iota? Nope. So the argument makes a point that has no relation to the situation.
The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun. I personally stand by the 2nd amendment but what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?
Don’t fall for their false logic that if there had been other laws for him to break, that he would have been caught for breaking the laws. For instance, someone who sets out to shoot someone (in, say California) who puts the gun in the coat pocket on the way, in violation of concealed carry prohibitions is unaffected by the law, and no less likely to commit the crime than if the carry mode were legal.
The point is that he broke the law, the most serious law of all. If he was willing to do that what makes them think he would obey any law they would choose to impose? He could have easily purchased a stolen gun or stolen one himself.
If they are really serious about laws to reduce murder ask them if they would support streamlining death penalty executions and holding them in public in the county where they occurred.
Unfortunately, not even that deterrent would have worked in this case in all likelihood.
They said, “that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger”? How about the threats he made that sheriff dipstick didn't deem worthy of action?
Ask them if making death threats are lawful. Ask them if the authorities in the Tucson area should have sought proscution for Loughner making those death threats. Ask them if the authorities should have sought involuntary mental assessment for Loughner as Arizona law allows. Successful exercise of either could have flagged Loughner on his Brady check. Ask the liberals how a Brady check can work if authorities block someone from being held responsible for their actions.
“...I saw a comment yesterday in support of stricter gun control laws...
...what should one say to someone who’s using that argument?...”
-
I usually call them damn fools; but hey, that’s just me.
Tell them they should take it up with Reagan-era liberals who demanded much tighter limits on involuntary confinement of those with psychological problems.
Here is the answer. Short, to the point, irrefutable:
Following the logic of that assertion, then it also would follow that had Loughner been brandishing a knife of some sort, he would not have been committing a crime until he actually sank the blade into the flesh of one of his victims. In this case, the banning of all knives would be the logical parallel to banning all guns for Loughner's shooting. In neither case is "logic" applied logically...
The dude had no respect for life OR for the law. Someone determined to kill is not going to worry about violating other lesser laws.
A person can intentionally drive into a crowd and kill people. While driving to the site they have broken no laws until they intentionally drove into the crowd. So should we ban driving?
They weren't impaired or speeding so why would a cop stop them? Thought crimes?
FReedom aint Free ???
an armed society is a polite society ???
trading FReedom for security only accomplishes losing FReedom ???
'gun FRee zones' are 'target rich environments' ???
is paper bulletproof ???
if he was willing to trade his life, for that of a congresscritter and break murder laws, would another lesser law be a deterrent ???
he couldve driven the family truckster into the crowd and killed maimed just as many or more, AND made a getaway...???
household chemicals could be combined to make a suicide bomber vest, is that a better option for a nutcase that likes to plot & plan ???
etc...etc...etc...
I have read that Loughner had a history of making threats, but the Sheriff failed to act.