Quote:
Originally Posted by GFED
You're old enough to see how society has changed over the past several decades. It has nothing to do with the availability of firearms. I made no argument but the right to defend myself.
Make guns harder to get? Yes. Make it mandatory to take a safety class? Yes. Limit magazines to six rounds? No. Gun registration? No.
I am not one sided on this issue but I rather stop the bad people from getting guns, not the law abiding citizens. I am against most forms of government control. I should not be punished for another one's actions.
Mental illness is rampant. Toxins are in our food and water. Media lies and uses emotions to brainwash people. Society is deteriating. Banning guns won't fix anything.
I ran across the anarchist's cookbook when I was twelve. I still haven't blown anyone up. You can make a bomb with household ingredients. It's much simpler than buying a firearm.
|
I think the most rational argument here has more to do with banning the weapons that can be easily modified into fully automatic rifles as opposed to banning all guns. I'm sure we can all agree not only would that not help it would be practically impossible given the numbers. But by removing the weapons that shoot at those higher rates it may not stop mass shootings but would limit the numbers of people they can take out if they didn't have access to SUCH large magazines and rounds per minute capabilities. For example if someone tried that same thing here in Canada, the most someone could possibly shoot would be a few dozen rounds tops, with lots of time in between for people to get out of range.
Your anarchist cookbook argument is a false comparison though. It's not 'just as easy' to make a bomb or create poisonous gases, it takes a lot of work with very dangerous materials, planning and some form of fusing. Much more complicated than simply pointing and unloading with a modified fully automatic into a crowd of people.