|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Improved gun buyer background checks would impede some mass shootings, Stanford expert says
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Stricter gun laws, especially background checks for buyers who are mentally ill or have engaged in criminal misconduct, could help reduce the frequency of mass shooting tragedies, a Stanford law professor says.
John J. Donohue III, the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law at Stanford, has been conducting empirical research on gun violence and gun control over the last 25 years. He has written on issues such as whether widespread gun ownership makes people safer and how U.S. gun control compares to the rest of the world. Stanford News Service recently interviewed Donohue about the issue. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(1/1/2016)
|
| Expert at what? Destroying the BOR |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/1/2016)
|
All the examples he provided were because the information was not provided to the system. That is the fault of the judiciary and the people managing the instant check system. It is not a failure of the laws that govern the system.
That the system doesn't work as advertised is not because there aren't enough laws.
Another liberal with an agenda. He should stick to a topic he knows something about. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
