Chris Cox OpEd: Gun laws don't deter terrorists w/USA today poll

[R-Cubed]

Apologies if this is a dupe post, but a succinct reasoned retort to the left media's gun hysteria.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/13/gun-laws-deter-terrorists-opposing-view/85844946/

There's a poll too. So far 77% strongly agree.

[GoZoner]

And here is the opposing, special kind of stupid, ban guns view: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ates/85842326/

%79 strongly disagree

[R-Cubed]

A fine example of willful ignorance from USA Today.

"Assault weapons were banned once before, for a decade starting in 1994. Law-abiding citizens were still able to defend themselves. Hunters were still able to hunt. Mass shootings did not end, but two studies suggest that the law helped by gradually reducing the number of assault weapons used in crimes."

Did the percentage drop from 1% to .090%. Two studies actually concluded the impact was to small to quantify.

"Would these bans prevent all mass shootings? Of course not. Are they a substitute for doing everything possible to identify and thwart would-be Islamic terrorists? No. Would the bans save lives and make it harder to carry out mass murder? Yes. And that alone makes them worth doing."

The answer at best is maybe, but most likely no.

The 9/11 hi-jackers used box cutters and airplanes, The Boston marathon terrorists used pressure cooker bombs, Timothy McVeigh used a truck load of fertilizer. The Brussles terrorists also used bombs.

You could make all the guns in the world magically disappear and it wouldn't stop these people.

[Dr.Lou]

A fine example of willful ignorance from USA Today.

"Assault weapons were banned once before, for a decade starting in 1994. Law-abiding citizens were still able to defend themselves. Hunters were still able to hunt. Mass shootings did not end, but two studies suggest that the law helped by gradually reducing the number of assault weapons used in crimes."

Did the percentage drop from 1% to .090%. Two studies actually concluded the impact was to small to quantify.

"Would these bans prevent all mass shootings? Of course not. Are they a substitute for doing everything possible to identify and thwart would-be Islamic terrorists? No. Would the bans save lives and make it harder to carry out mass murder? Yes. And that alone makes them worth doing."

The answer at best is maybe, but most likely no.

The 9/11 hi-jackers used box cutters and airplanes, The Boston marathon terrorists used pressure cooker bombs, Timothy McVeigh used a truck load of fertilizer. The Brussles terrorists also used bombs.

You could make all the guns in the world magically disappear and it wouldn't stop these people.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly!

[Joe Kidd]

I don't understand why bright red lights didn't flash with the FBI after Disney security warned them about the shooter and his girlfriend/wife? making a reconnaissance weeks before the terrorist attack; and after a gun store owner also warned the FBI the shooter tried to buy body armor. One would think that suspicious behavior combined with the prior investigations would get someone on the Terrorist Watch List muy pronto. The FBI can do better than that. And lefties don't care whether the prior assault weapons ban worked or not. I don't think they care whether any gun control law actually reduces gun violence. They're prejudiced against people owning firearms so they keep throwing all their crap against the wall to see which of it sticks.