A federal grand jury indicted Mark Adams Prieto on charges of firearms trafficking, transfer of a firearm for use in a hate crime and possession of an unregistered firearm.
That’s not going to solve the problem. Guns are not like cars, a necessary evil in some places. The purpose of a gun is to kill or maim something. Target practice is practicing putting a hole in something living. Handguns should be banned and all sales of long guns should be regulated for hunting purposes.
If guns were all about “target practice” and “self defense”, there would be a ton of pellet guns and rubber bullets sold. No attacker is going to double check whether you’re holding a pellet gun or a real one. They’re going to run tf away.
Kevon: “Handguns should be banned… long guns should be regulated…”
You: “and let him have access to guns again?”
I’m pretty sure that’s not what ‘banned’ means
I think you’re misreading their disagreement with you by assuming your statement is a binary of “this person has guns or not”. They’re addressing the dimension of “why do we have harmful weapons designed to kill people as part of the fabric of society”.
Whether or not this particular person should have access to guns is not the only interesting question.
Can he just go away for a very long time? And never have access to guns? That would be good, too.
That’s not going to solve the problem. Guns are not like cars, a necessary evil in some places. The purpose of a gun is to kill or maim something. Target practice is practicing putting a hole in something living. Handguns should be banned and all sales of long guns should be regulated for hunting purposes.
If guns were all about “target practice” and “self defense”, there would be a ton of pellet guns and rubber bullets sold. No attacker is going to double check whether you’re holding a pellet gun or a real one. They’re going to run tf away.
You think we should not incarcerate this guy, and let him have access to guns again?
I can only think/ hope you misread my post.
Kevon: “Handguns should be banned… long guns should be regulated…”
You: “and let him have access to guns again?”
I’m pretty sure that’s not what ‘banned’ means
I think you’re misreading their disagreement with you by assuming your statement is a binary of “this person has guns or not”. They’re addressing the dimension of “why do we have harmful weapons designed to kill people as part of the fabric of society”.
Whether or not this particular person should have access to guns is not the only interesting question.