Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
Yes of course firearms are easier but if they are not on the table there are many other options for those determined to kill people the object people choose to use is not the main problem. Why is there the attitude in the states towards these mass killings it is not something you see anywhere else in the world. They are rare events elsewhere but depressingly common in the states and I think the way to prevent them isn't in trying to control it ban firearms mainly because that's pointless now there are already so many firearms in the states they don't have the means to do it.
I don't agree with ordinary people having assault weaponry but go to any gun range in the states and you'll quickly see an ar15 is one of the least worrying firearms there it is absolutely staggering what weapon system ordinary Americans can own. If your a nutter a sig 226 with aftermarket drum mags will allow you to do as much damage in a short amount of time and chances of getting those controlled in the states is as likely as me winning the lottery just isn't going to happen. They have to start working on the attitude and identifying the cause of that if they are to stop this.
|
The point of banning assault weapons is not all geared at removing the weapons from available use. It is sending a message as well: the message that society does care and society can be responsible in its custody of care of those who are unable to defend themselves.
The (NRA) argument that gun carrying indivuals would stop these massacres is specious: who would be allowed (by gate security) to take a gun into events, parties, shows, etc.