Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="billsin01, post: 485106, member: 837"]
I agree that it is largely about political grandstanding and that statistically you can't round up a bunch of guns and say "GREAT! We're now 2.7% safer!!" To be fair, I'd support banning of guns of any kind but of course that's a pointless position to hold.
 
But this is sort of like the TSA stuff after 9/11 -- are we really "safe" from terrorist attacks on airplanes? Are we "safer"? No, probably not, but it appears that there were at least a few incidents that were foiled. Was it "worth" it? I don't know, but if you can prevent a tragedy even a fraction as devastating as 9/11 you at least have to try.
 
I think that's what we have here -- are assault weapons *the* problem? No, but it can't hurt to at least try and make access to those tougher and access to firearms a bit more involved in general. I mean, it can't hurt. Sure, your neighbors kid might still use paint thinner to make a bomb to take to school or somehow even get himself a gun -- but I don't think you can use those as reasons not to at least try to do something.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?