I am an avid gun person. I own lotsa guns and enjoy shooting targets
and whatnot.
What happened at VT was a terrible tragedy.
Having guns made it easier for Cho to kill many people. But, it
wasn't the gun that made him do it. Does anyone think that he would
not have acted violently if he had not been able to obtain guns?
If I wanted to kill scores of people I wouldn't use guns. Any number
of poisons and/or bomb making materials are available at Wal*Mart.
People who want "Gun Control" use the opportunities presented by
tragedies like VT to promote their political agenda.
I contend that if guns were "controlled" then only criminals would
have them. I will use Cocaine as an example. There are very few Coca
plants in the US. However, you can obtain Cocaine, product of these
plants, very easily throughout the US. Outlaw guns and then they
become of higher value to criminals and will be imported just like
drugs.
Some gun related quotes:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the state."
Heinrich Himmler.
"Ted Kennedy's cars have killed more people than my guns."
|