A 10-year-old Albany girl was shot to death, and the cops say that the fatal weapon was shared among several gang members "... in an attempt to circumvent gun control laws and avoid being caught with a gun that has been tied to a crime."
These particular thugs hid this gun in a trash can because "everyone in the neighborhood uses that gun and that's where we keep it," the suspect told police.
Boston officials have used the same excuse for their failure to eliminate gun crime in spite of some of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation. Whether you believe this or not, it just points out the futility of gun control laws as a practical solution for reducing gun violence, i.e. even when the gun laws "work" and reduce criminals to sharing a single gun amongst themselves, innocent people are still murdered by these hoods. You call that a solution?
With 270,000,000 guns in private hands, and about 11,000 gun homicides annually, what makes more sense, to go after the guns, or to go after the criminals?
Posts
1 comment:
If you go after the criminals, you anger reliable Democratic voters- the criminals' mothers, siblings,k and friends.
Going after the guns just makes Republicans angry, and they aren't going to vote for you already.
Simple, really.
Post a Comment