...and shoot.... and kill, while other officers of the
state show up empty-handed for days at disaster
scenes, clearly in violation of the Geneva
Conventions. In this context it makes no sense to
remove firearms from the city. ("Such as this;" what
does that mean? "a disaster area with black people?")
On the contrary, situations like this are precisely
what the 2nd ammendment is intended for.
--adx
What nonsense. I didn't suggest any such thing. "Such as this" means a place with no provisions for the basics necessary for sustaining life. Food, clean water, basic sanitation. It's the height of bad faith to suggest I meant "a disaster area with black people". I have never in my years here ever written anything that would suggest that I feel this way. If you disagree with the idea that removing guns from this situation is preferred to increasing the number of them in circulation go right ahead. The baseless accusation me of me holding my position because of racism is utter nonsense. An apology is definitely in order.
Removing guns from gun shops keeps them from falling into the hands of people who would most likely use them to rob and/or extort what provisions that could from other people. This is a fairly repeatable pattern. If you think it is more likely Mrs. Jones is going to go to the gun shop and break in so she can arm herself and protect her children against 18 to 25 year olds looking to to steal what provisions they can rather than the 18 to 25 year olds arming themselves with these weapons to gain power you are not grounded in reality. Look at anyplace that has experienced something like this. A small number of individuals with weapons use those weapons to steal from others much more than people use them to repel such groups. Removing the guns from shops won't stop this from happening but leaving them there just might make the situation worse.
John Thornton