When you get to the bottom of the issue, if a person is going to murder another, any weapon will do. Take away the guns and they'll used knives, baseball bats, ropes, ice picks, axes or whatever they want to commit the crime. Or they may make their own crude gun and use it. Really, all that the removal of guns accomplishes is a series of extra laws that are applied to those who own or use guns when a crime is commited. And just between you and I, with the way the middle east is headed I want to be armed. Unfortunately, I cannot afford a chain gun.


>>>Take a look at the 2 church shootings in Colorado this weekend. This guy killed 2 people
>>>at the first church, then drove to the second church and opened fired there and killed
>>>another person. He was then shot & killed by a private, volunteer security gaurd.
>>>
>>>IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE ONE CITIZEN WAS ARMED WITH A GUN FOR DEFENSE THAT THIS GUY WAS STOPPED
>>
>>But of course, the shootings only happened because another nut was able to get a gun in the first place. That's what we need to prevent.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>I agree. Something needs to be done to prevent sick people from shooting other people.
>
>Now lets put that aside and talk reality. Had there been armed citizens at the mall
>shooting, and had Sean Taylor been armed with a gun, less people would have been killed.
>
>You can never stop someone from getting a gun if that really want to. But by restricting
>law abiding citizens from defending themselves, you only turn them into easy targets.
>
>I'm not going into the 2nd amendment issue, but recent events support this conclusion.