I think he was right. No matter how many guns someone has, if he or she has to pay thousands of dollars per bullet, a majority of gun purchasers will think a bit before buying available bullets.
The government needs to put heavy taxes on all of it. Also our government needs to put a computer chip in every part of every gun, and in every bullet sold. Alarms should go off when any one of those parts gets within yards of a school entrance unless is belongs law enforcement parts or tools.
We cannot stop murder, but we have to spend what it costs to begin to destroy gun murders.
While we try to shrink our government, instead we should be trying to shrink our murder rate, because it's
getting much more deadly than our government.
We used government to curb highway death.
We used government to curb tobacco-related illness and death.
We can use it to curb gun-related death.
We don't need enough guns to assault the government in the way 2nd Amendment enthusiasts believe we do.
Our government has drones, smart guns, detector robots, (Could schools use specialized robots? The kids might like them.) and many groups of armed forces. Our government has atomic power. No one in the world
has or will have enough guns to out-gun the U.S. armed forces.
Besides, if your gun is not out and cocked, how can it protect you? Mrs. Lanza had an arsenal of guns. Her son had no guns. Who got shot first?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your post will be published after the author has reviewed.