No, not good work. That is a terrible argument that assumes the average person is a good shot at 1000m which they most certainly are not. I say average person, because the most common gun related crime happens involving a few individuals and is nowhere near the scale of these mass shootings. Once you add up all those small scale cases you have a huge number which needs to be addressed. It also only applies to instances where AR's are the weapon of choice, which most gun crime does not involve. Pro-gun types are great at postulating wild scenario's which do not directly translate to real life so well, your's is a perfect example of this.
And all of this explains what exactly? That guns and hammers are not one in the same, so stop calling a gun "just a tool". A tool it is yes, but the nature of its utility means it should not be so casually compared to something you use to build your house. And before you even say it, a nail gun is not a firearm. We're discussing firearms specifically.
There are, and have they worked? Nope, you even admit that. So what now, do we simply say "fuck it we tried" or do we continue trying to find a solution. Your stance of saying we already have enough laws tells me you're content with giving up and accepting that wacko's will always exist. I'm of the opinion that not having these types of weapons available so commonly will significantly curtail any individuals from using a weapon in a crime, and that prevalence of all firearms simply makes it too easy for someone with bad intentions to act on them. If everyone owned an M1 Abrams and they were used commonly in everyday crime, would you blame the individual driving or would you accept that hey, maybe it's fucking nuts to allow everyone to buy a tank at 18? You're justifying war time weaponry, simply on a smaller scale.
You may claim that people with bad intentions will always find a way, and to some extent that is true. But real world findings show that in fact fewer guns does not result in more crime, it does not mean that the same number of people will pick up a knife and stab someone they'd otherwise shoot. Other countries have shown that guns are not necessary, yet you seem to prefer to assume the worst and keep on with this culture of living in fear and justifying adding to the problem.
And all of this explains what exactly? That guns and hammers are not one in the same, so stop calling a gun "just a tool". A tool it is yes, but the nature of its utility means it should not be so casually compared to something you use to build your house. And before you even say it, a nail gun is not a firearm. We're discussing firearms specifically.
There were plenty of laws in place to prevent nearly all the media frenzy events in the past 15 years, but those pesky laws didnt stop them now did they. I fully endorse ENFORCING the laws we have, we have plenty of them especially in places like CT, we dont need more.
You may claim that people with bad intentions will always find a way, and to some extent that is true. But real world findings show that in fact fewer guns does not result in more crime, it does not mean that the same number of people will pick up a knife and stab someone they'd otherwise shoot. Other countries have shown that guns are not necessary, yet you seem to prefer to assume the worst and keep on with this culture of living in fear and justifying adding to the problem.
Comment