Sheriff Joe
DA
How would you know? You don't even like our country.
An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
I do like our country. Our soccer needs work, though.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Maybe, but I will take the trade-off.
So who plays good soccer? What country? Mexico? England? Brazil? There are a bunch of countries that have great players but never do well in the world cup.
Agreed. Germany and Brazil seem to do great year in and year out. France, Italy (as a country I get the impression that Italy is falling apart, though).
Wez
DA
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-down-to-its-last-unconvincing-excuse-w506851
The Gun Lobby Is Down to Its Last, Unconvincing Excuse
Las Vegas rips apart the "good guy with a gun" justification, leaving only a flawed constitutional take to justify the madness
The Gun Lobby Is Down to Its Last, Unconvincing Excuse
Las Vegas rips apart the "good guy with a gun" justification, leaving only a flawed constitutional take to justify the madness
Sheriff Joe
DA
Sheriff Joe
DA
Is Messy still not playing?
from the article:
George W. Bush is a classic example of a politician who had it both ways. He claimed moderate status on the issue by pledging to sign an extension of Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban if it passed Congress. But surprise, surprise, that bill never made it to his desk, and the ban expired in 2004.
As if GWB had anything to do with the bill getting to his desk...??????
Brilliant bit of reasoning by Rolling Stone...
Wez
DA
He has no influence on the process if he wants it done?????
Ignoramus.
Wez
DA
You trying to knock a source is hilarious!
Hüsker Dü
DA
"I've been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my whole life," guitarist Caleb Keeter said in a tweeted statement on Monday. "Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was."
Keeter said that one man — who police identified as Stephen Craig Paddock — "laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power."
He added, "Enough is enough" before adding later, "We need gun control RIGHT. NOW."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...cian-to-call-for-gun-control-enough-is-enough
Keeter said that one man — who police identified as Stephen Craig Paddock — "laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power."
He added, "Enough is enough" before adding later, "We need gun control RIGHT. NOW."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...cian-to-call-for-gun-control-enough-is-enough
That guy needs to lead the charge for sanity. Jason Aldean's guitarist, who was in darkness on this issue and now sees the light.
Sheriff Joe
DA
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._a_pitifully_unarmed_guncontrol_advocate.html
On the surface, Tucker Carlson's takedown of a gun control advocate Tuesday night seemed a bit, well, mean. As Carlson fired off questions, it was pretty obvious that the man, Colby Hall, a mild-mannered writer for Mediaite who argued for gun control in cliched and emotional terms, didn't have much intellectual firepower.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Hall tried to portray himself as a reasonable man, a Kansas person, owner of a gun himself, not a gun grabber. Yet for all that, he wanted gun control.
But in the essay Carlson cited, Hall was also a shrill emotionalist in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, with a very weak grasp of the facts which did not stop him from demanding 'action' on gun ownership with the same dull proposals gun grabbers have been using since the days of Sarah Brady.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Through the interview, Carlson shook out of Hall, point by point, what he was really proposing and in so doing, clarified that gun-control advocates have no answers for problems like the Las Vegas gunman.
Starting his 'change' agenda, Hall said he wanted an end to bump-stocks which enable a semi-automatic gun to shoot like an automatic one. No argument from Carlson, given that he wouldn't want one of those things for his own gun, and the issue was unlikely to be controversial in legislation.
Then Hall said he wanted better background checks. Here Carlson went in for the kill and didn't even use all his own intellectual ammo:
>> Tucker: Repeat it because I’m not sure I get it. Background checks that delay gun purchases for some longer period of time.
>> Deeper background check, get rid of loopholes at secondary gun market and get rid of bum stocks.
>> Tucker: A deeper background check that would look at what? What does that mean?
>> Psychological profiles. Digital footprints.
>> Tucker: That you would have a team of psychiatrists — you brought it up. Assess the person’s mental state?
>> You asked me what I would do and I told you what I would do.
>> Tucker: I’m asking you to describe it.
>> Tucker, you are playing politics with an issue.
>> Tucker: I’m not playing politics! I’m asking you about policy and you haven’t thought about it at all.
>> I have! I just told you three things. Dude, you’re not listening.
Carlson asked him what he meant by enhanced background checks and Hall had no idea what he meant by it. In this, Carlson effectively highlighted that more psychiatrists (and government bureaucrats) to stop gun purchases were not the answer to a problem like Stephen Paddock, who had no known psychiatric markers that were actionable, and wouldn't be deterred by government bureaucrats delaying paperwork, given that he began stockpiling his weapons in June and had no problem waiting background checks out. The enhanced background check argument fell apart.
After that, Hall brought up the hackneyed cause of 'loopholes in the secondary market' - the classic gun-control advocacy argument against 'gun shows.'
>> Tucker: But this guy did not go to the secondary gun market that we know of are not changing the argument. Name a mass shooting that would have been stopped by these new background checks you are talking about?
>> I can’t name things that didn’t happen. Theoretically there are lots of shootings that probably didn’t happen because of the effects of gun control. You can’t prove a negative but think if there weren’t background checks.
Again, score, Tucker.
One other thing Carlson won on is Hall's argument that anyone who doesn't favor these useless solutions is in favor of doing nothing. His takedown of Hall ultimately showed that the left means to flip the argument toward those opposed to their 'solutions' as if those solutions would always work if they were tried and only secondary concerns about 'rights' were standing in the way.
>> Tucker: There have been a number of mass shootings, terrible, people died, they are corrosive of American society, I’m as against them as anybody. I’m horrified by them. You are saying there are legislative solutions out there that will prevent future shootings? I want you to name one. I’m trying to have a conversation but I’m not shrugging my shoulders, I invited you one. I’m finding it totally ignorant of the subject.
>> Program people that shrugged her shoulders and have the defeat of attitude that’s extremely nihilistic and is a dystopian future that I don’t want to be a part of.
>> Tucker: What what I find nihilistic is one summer he jumps up and down about how we can make America better and then when asked how to do that has no answers at all.
>> I just told you what I would do.
>> Tucker: We could have some kind of back and check you can’t describe.
>> I’m sorry you’re mad.
Tucker blew him out of the water on that one ... and did a yeoman's job of shutting down the flabby, outdated gun-control arguments in the wake of a shooting that clearly did not respond to gun control.
On the surface, Tucker Carlson's takedown of a gun control advocate Tuesday night seemed a bit, well, mean. As Carlson fired off questions, it was pretty obvious that the man, Colby Hall, a mild-mannered writer for Mediaite who argued for gun control in cliched and emotional terms, didn't have much intellectual firepower.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Hall tried to portray himself as a reasonable man, a Kansas person, owner of a gun himself, not a gun grabber. Yet for all that, he wanted gun control.
But in the essay Carlson cited, Hall was also a shrill emotionalist in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, with a very weak grasp of the facts which did not stop him from demanding 'action' on gun ownership with the same dull proposals gun grabbers have been using since the days of Sarah Brady.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/tucker_carlson_takes_out_a_pitifully_unarmed_guncontrol_advocate.html#ixzz4uY3o1uyO
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
On the surface, Tucker Carlson's takedown of a gun control advocate Tuesday night seemed a bit, well, mean. As Carlson fired off questions, it was pretty obvious that the man, Colby Hall, a mild-mannered writer for Mediaite who argued for gun control in cliched and emotional terms, didn't have much intellectual firepower.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Hall tried to portray himself as a reasonable man, a Kansas person, owner of a gun himself, not a gun grabber. Yet for all that, he wanted gun control.
But in the essay Carlson cited, Hall was also a shrill emotionalist in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, with a very weak grasp of the facts which did not stop him from demanding 'action' on gun ownership with the same dull proposals gun grabbers have been using since the days of Sarah Brady.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Through the interview, Carlson shook out of Hall, point by point, what he was really proposing and in so doing, clarified that gun-control advocates have no answers for problems like the Las Vegas gunman.
Starting his 'change' agenda, Hall said he wanted an end to bump-stocks which enable a semi-automatic gun to shoot like an automatic one. No argument from Carlson, given that he wouldn't want one of those things for his own gun, and the issue was unlikely to be controversial in legislation.
Then Hall said he wanted better background checks. Here Carlson went in for the kill and didn't even use all his own intellectual ammo:
>> Tucker: Repeat it because I’m not sure I get it. Background checks that delay gun purchases for some longer period of time.
>> Deeper background check, get rid of loopholes at secondary gun market and get rid of bum stocks.
>> Tucker: A deeper background check that would look at what? What does that mean?
>> Psychological profiles. Digital footprints.
>> Tucker: That you would have a team of psychiatrists — you brought it up. Assess the person’s mental state?
>> You asked me what I would do and I told you what I would do.
>> Tucker: I’m asking you to describe it.
>> Tucker, you are playing politics with an issue.
>> Tucker: I’m not playing politics! I’m asking you about policy and you haven’t thought about it at all.
>> I have! I just told you three things. Dude, you’re not listening.
Carlson asked him what he meant by enhanced background checks and Hall had no idea what he meant by it. In this, Carlson effectively highlighted that more psychiatrists (and government bureaucrats) to stop gun purchases were not the answer to a problem like Stephen Paddock, who had no known psychiatric markers that were actionable, and wouldn't be deterred by government bureaucrats delaying paperwork, given that he began stockpiling his weapons in June and had no problem waiting background checks out. The enhanced background check argument fell apart.
After that, Hall brought up the hackneyed cause of 'loopholes in the secondary market' - the classic gun-control advocacy argument against 'gun shows.'
>> Tucker: But this guy did not go to the secondary gun market that we know of are not changing the argument. Name a mass shooting that would have been stopped by these new background checks you are talking about?
>> I can’t name things that didn’t happen. Theoretically there are lots of shootings that probably didn’t happen because of the effects of gun control. You can’t prove a negative but think if there weren’t background checks.
Again, score, Tucker.
One other thing Carlson won on is Hall's argument that anyone who doesn't favor these useless solutions is in favor of doing nothing. His takedown of Hall ultimately showed that the left means to flip the argument toward those opposed to their 'solutions' as if those solutions would always work if they were tried and only secondary concerns about 'rights' were standing in the way.
>> Tucker: There have been a number of mass shootings, terrible, people died, they are corrosive of American society, I’m as against them as anybody. I’m horrified by them. You are saying there are legislative solutions out there that will prevent future shootings? I want you to name one. I’m trying to have a conversation but I’m not shrugging my shoulders, I invited you one. I’m finding it totally ignorant of the subject.
>> Program people that shrugged her shoulders and have the defeat of attitude that’s extremely nihilistic and is a dystopian future that I don’t want to be a part of.
>> Tucker: What what I find nihilistic is one summer he jumps up and down about how we can make America better and then when asked how to do that has no answers at all.
>> I just told you what I would do.
>> Tucker: We could have some kind of back and check you can’t describe.
>> I’m sorry you’re mad.
Tucker blew him out of the water on that one ... and did a yeoman's job of shutting down the flabby, outdated gun-control arguments in the wake of a shooting that clearly did not respond to gun control.
On the surface, Tucker Carlson's takedown of a gun control advocate Tuesday night seemed a bit, well, mean. As Carlson fired off questions, it was pretty obvious that the man, Colby Hall, a mild-mannered writer for Mediaite who argued for gun control in cliched and emotional terms, didn't have much intellectual firepower.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Hall tried to portray himself as a reasonable man, a Kansas person, owner of a gun himself, not a gun grabber. Yet for all that, he wanted gun control.
But in the essay Carlson cited, Hall was also a shrill emotionalist in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, with a very weak grasp of the facts which did not stop him from demanding 'action' on gun ownership with the same dull proposals gun grabbers have been using since the days of Sarah Brady.
>> Tucker: Last question, how many semiautomatic weapons are out there would you say right now?
>> Too many.
>> Tucker: Rough guess, how many would you say?
>> I’m going to guess too many.
>> Tucker: [Laughs] I’m going to guess you literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you should write about things that you understand. Not patronize the rest of us. Probably over — that 60 million, actually. If there are 200 million high-capacity tactical magazines magazines.
>> That’s cool.
>> Tucker: I’m not saying it’s cool or not cool, I’m just saying you have to deal with those facts moving forward.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/tucker_carlson_takes_out_a_pitifully_unarmed_guncontrol_advocate.html#ixzz4uY3o1uyO
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Jackass....
Wez
DA
So it should have been a breeze for him to push the bill through if he actually wanted to.
FYI...
Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
The Washington Post
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...-me-otherwise/ar-AAsRR7y?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
The Washington Post
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...-me-otherwise/ar-AAsRR7y?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp