Gun laws are for celebrities too

50 Cent currently has a restraining order held against him by his ex-girlfriend. This means that he has been ordered (by the court) to surrender all hand guns he owns.

His response from his legal team is that he does not own guns or have access to them.

It sounded like he was a bit offended by the apparent suggestion that he might go out and shoot his ex. But the courts are only holding up the newest federal law about gun control--No person with a restraining order against them is meant to retain access to personally owned guns.

At least 50 can take some comfort in the thought that if he ever has to file a restraining order against a crazed fan, they won't be allowed their guns either.

what's it worth?

I somehow doubt these numbers take into consideration the mass shootings that are becoming part of our society on a daily basis. So far this month there have been 6 mass shootings in the USA that have made international headlines. This isn't a problem with outlaws getting guns. This is a problem of ordinary people buying guns legally and then shooting people with that legal gun. If your sick of it like me, do a bit of research and find your state representative's email address online. Send him/her an email and explain your concerns and what you want to be done. I'm not suggesting an all out ban on guns, i'm talking more mandatory education on gun safety, free counselling clinics in EVERY AREA, or better background checks on gun buyers. Some simple steps would save a lot of lives. Are they worth it?

New Gun Control Regulations for 2008??

With President Bush throwing his support behind the newest Gun Control regulations, its almost enough to think twice about supporting it. Yet, when examined, its pretty amazing that these regulations weren't in practice already. From restrictions on individual ownership of machine guns to prohibiting felons, the mentally ill, and those with restraining orders against them from owning guns, these regulations sound more like common sense rather than radical and new. Still, those against the regulations state that the administration is against individual rights. Sadly, they are probably correct but without actually knowing the intentions of the White House, we can almost assuredly say their motives are suspect if nothing else.

Even with motives that are suspect, i can not see why these regulations aren't being met with dancing in the street. It was only a month ago that there were mass shootings in the states. If December is any sort of example, than it should be clear that when people decide to kill, they aren't getting just one or two deaths in. They are going for as many fatalities as possible. Limiting what sort of fire arms that are available and who they are available to, seems like a great way to prevent these sorts of deaths.

So i am most surprised to find that few in the states seem to be happy about these measures. (Or maybe no one is talking about their support of gun control.) I somehow thought that all these mass deaths related to gun violence would somehow impact the USA in a much bigger way. Yet, in reality it seems that not enough people have died to justify these extreme measures in Gun Control.

If a plane is hijacked and flown into a building, its worth restricting public rights in order to keep more people safe. If a gun is bought and used to open fire in a public place, people feel that they're lives are not at risk, even though the latter scenario is much more common than the former. I am not sure what makes people so sure that it won't happen to them.

If prying the gun out of a gunman's cold dead hand is the only way to limit gun use, than the only way gun violence will drop is by having fewer people around to shoot.