"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've said plenty, but you aren't interested in listening.

I have been looking back at your posts and I haven't seen you give one
solution to anything or one thing you think we should do.


There is no need
to have unfettered access to guns. Clearly, the system (whatever is
currently in place) is inadequate, given what happened. I haven't heard
one
peep from you and those like you about any realistic solution nor even a
willingness to look at rational options.

First I never said we should just have completely unfettered access to
guns. I never even implied such a thing. In fact I have said several
times that I think we should put more energy into enforcing the laws
we have instead of adding more laws to the mix. The ones we have are
adequate but not enforced 100%. I also see this as a very exceptional
case that should not spark an over emotional response into doing
something that would hurt more people than it would help. There is no
evidence that banning guns will stop violent crimes. I am not saying
we should just let eveyrone have all the guns they want. I never did
but you just get all emotional and think what you want instead of
actually looking at what people are saying.



You continue to claim that I am in favor of banning guns. I'm not. Please
feel free to repost where I said that.

I am in favor of reducing the number of guns on the streets and of making it
very difficult for their purchase. The current laws do not rise to that
level. The assault rife ban is a case in point. It didn't go far enough, and
as someone else pointed out, was about what the weapon looked like, rather
than what it could actually do.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com