Comments by "Spring Bloom" (@springbloom5940) on "KCAL News" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. +Bored2Death101 Uh, yeah. Been to the best and worst places in the world and you really can take my word for it, when I tell you that taking things away from people, has ZERO effect on their committment and ability to harm others. Whether you realize it or not, you are making the argument that incident X, would not have ocurred, had the perpetrator not had access to their weapon of choice. There is not only no evidence to support such an argument, but countless points in evidence, to contradict it. Take this Vegas shooting, for example; the perpetrator was apparently prepared to use a bomb, but chose the rifle, for whatever reason. So then, for a moment, imagine even a modest, man portable bomb, in such an environment. Deaths may or may not have been greater or less, but the non fatal injuries would have been devastating and the panic greater. The Aurora shooter, was prepared to chain the doors and use fire; how would that have affected the casualty count? There are a plethora of other examples of rampage murderers and or terrorists using alternate and even mundane weapons to create mass casualties, in regions where firearms were difficult to obtain. You can say 'we have to do SOMETHING' and I get that, but just doing 'SOMETHING' without a rational imperative, is both ineffective in solving the problem and abusive to everyone who is not the problem. In the US, we have the inalienable Right to arm ourselves. The well documented intent of that Right, being for Citizens to have parity, with the common soldier. That means civilians have a Right to possess high performance, militarily useful rifles and body armor. The Constitution details an estabilished, legal, tried and true method of changing this condition, but no one has used it.
    1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1