PBS - Gun Control Debate Revisited

[granuale]

Gun Control Debate Revisited on Anniversary of Virginia Tech Shooting

On the second anniversary of the nation's deadliest mass shooting at Virginia Tech University and approaching the tenth anniversary of the Columbine massacre, analysts examine the ongoing public debate over gun control laws.

God I love Bob Levy. I can't think of a better RKBA spokesman out there. Watch him OWN the debate.

[jerkin]

Good find, I haven't seen that posted anywhere yet. He did have the guy from John Hopkins stuttering and stammering, lol.

[TaePo]

Around the point he states that Terrorists should not have WMDs, he states that some people should be regulated from firearms (crazies) and some firearms need to be regulated from use...

That is the only point that worried me. I hope he mispoke on that one or he meant NBC type weaponry.

The above is slightly paraphrased.

[SauerGrapes]

I don't quite understand the statement about people with multiple violent crimes all being pled down to misdemeanors? It seems to me that is probably not common practice and is misleading. IMO
Your right though Mr. levy made more sense to me on the issue. Criminals won't atempt to commit crimes somewhere where they stand a chance of getting their butt shot off by an armed citizen.

[jpavoncello]

aren't most "violent" misdemeanors M1's, thus restricting gun ownership anyway?
I like how the guy from Hopkins says that the statistics about defensive gun use are inaccurate, this coming from people that count every single suicide, accidental discharge, hunting accident and injuries from BB guns at "gun crime."

[Steelblitz]

Levy did a good job. Not many supporters explain correctly how machine guns are regulated, he nailed it in a concise manner.

[GunLawyer001]

Note the careful code phrase "a gun", as in "you have the right to have a gun" or "we're not taking away your right to have a gun". Once you're looking for it, you'll hear it every time the Dems talk about how they have no plans to infringe anybody's gun rights. They will NEVER say that you have the right to own any gun that you choose, or that you can buy new guns of the types currently allowed, or that you can own a dozen guns, or pick up a couple of guns at a gun show on a weekend without waiting 30 days. But you will be able to own "a gun".

They fully intend to ban entire categories of guns, but you can still own a revolver or a pump shotgun. They want to restrict magazine capacities, but you can still fire 6 shots out of your 9mm, at least until they ban all semi-autos, so you can still own "a gun". They use this doubletalk, then accuse us of paranoia for believing that they want to do exactly what they actually plan to do, ban entire classes of guns, expand the category of "prohibited persons" until it includes speeders and people who don't separate their recyclables properly.

In their minds, if you are permitted to pay $500 for your annual gun license, own a single handgun that must be stored at the police station when not in use at an approved range, own no more than 50 rounds at one time for that single gun, and allow random inspections of your home without a warrant, well, you can still own "a gun", right?

[LittleRedToyota]

yep gunlawyer.

the antis aren't very intellectually honest about the meaning of the word infringe.

of course, they don't have to be since the courts aren't either...