Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bobcpg
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bobcpg
What I don't get is how this shooting happened. I thought they banned guns in Washington D.C.?
sigh
Ditto.
Hey, let's really apply his 'logic'. His logic suggests that any law which merely reduces a problem but does not eliminate it, is a law that's useless and should be repealed.
He makes it sarcastically - 'how can any gun crime occur with gun control? ha ha, get rid of gun control'.
So: how can the shooting have happened? There are murder laws. Get rid of them.
His pathetic irrationality is incapable of recognizing that the law might have prevented other murders from happening, so he posts that tripe.
DC's Gun ban happened in 1976, it has done nothing to curb crime. In fact, the for many years after 1976 crime, especially murders, soared in DC. So when you say it "reduces a problem" I would like to know what problem you are referring to. Otherwise I'll assume the "problem" is allowing people to protect themselves.
I figured one or two righties would fail to understand the point I was making about his logic and post arguments about the merits of gun control.
I'll cut and paste my response to the previous post that did that:
My point was abut *his logic* in his post, not the entire topic of gun control, so stick to the point...
The problem is that you are also going off "point" by claiming that "the law might have prevented other murders" when it clearly has not.