|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments.
Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have.
For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer.
|
On December 20 2012 03:16 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? I didn't read all 273 pages but I'm sure this came up several times. But again, <Insert Willy Wonka .gif "Tell me about how criminals obey the law">
On December 19 2012 20:02 Elroi wrote:
One of the stupidest ideas that always comes up when people discuss gun laws is that we should give guns to those who are not killers, not crazy, law abiding citizens etc. What these people don't understand is that just the fact that people have access to guns potentially make them "crazy people". There are at least two or three times in my life where I could have used a gun if i carried one. Luckily I didn't. And I am not even a violent person and I am positive I would easily pass any kind of psychological test and certainly any background check.
|
On December 20 2012 03:22 3Form wrote:
At the end of the day, what it boils down to is if I snap tomorrow, the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train. If I were an American with a gun at home, if I snap tomorrow I can go and shoot up a school.
I don't see how this sort of logic is refutable, really I don't.
The only reason you would be able to shoot up a school is because all the responsible adults there have been disarmed.
Do you understand that? Gun control is what makes them a target for shooting sprees.
Furthermore you are lying when you claim "the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train". I think the fact you have to lie here to make your argument shows on the face of it how wrong you are. You could very easily claim more than one victim by pretty much any means, even your bare hands (assuming you aren't disabled). Even the most frail person could drive a car into a crowd of people.
|
United States24568 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Also, yes, it would have been possible for him to commit a similar atrocity without access to loads of guns, but it certainly does not seem as likely. Making bombs etc is far more difficult (but not impossible) than going into your mom's closet and pulling out a load of guns. Back on topic, to the pro gun posters: What about restricting rifles to bolt action / manual reload only? Would they still not be useable for target shooting, hunting etc? Presumably weapons being used for self defense in the home would more likely be pistols anyway, but feel free to correct me if you feel that a rifle is better indoor protection.
People can argue all day about what is better for indoor protection. A pistol can be kept in a small place or concealed. A 12 gauge pump action shotgun with bird-shot, in my opinion, is the best alternative to a pistol if you want to use a gun to defend yourself in your home, but don't have the 'small' requirement. Rifles to me don't make sense since the bullets will penetrate whatever is behind the target, but I'm sure some people would argue for them.
Having one shot for self defense (if you are okay with using a gun in your home for self defense) is not wise, regardless of which gun you want to use for that purpose.
Having multiple shots available is also a key part of many (if not most) types of recreational/legal gun usage. Shotgun shooting, rifle shooting, and pistol shooting all have many competitions which require shooting multiple shots (albeit not 20 or 30 or anything like that).
|
On December 20 2012 02:43 decado90 wrote:
The world would be a much better place without guns. I have hope in our generation-- the most tolerant, educated, and open minded in history. Maybe in 40 years there will be no guns in the world.
The problem is, there will NEVER be a world without guns. It's nice to dream that way, but it is a dream. The world is governed by force and so there will always be weapons and militaries. So you are left with the choice of who is allowed to have all the guns. That is a decision which you need to make very, very carefully, because it is to ask "who should rule over others?"
|
On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:
Back on topic, to the pro gun posters:
What about restricting rifles to bolt action / manual reload only? Would they still not be useable for target shooting, hunting etc? Presumably weapons being used for self defense in the home would more likely be pistols anyway, but feel free to correct me if you feel that a rifle is better indoor protection.
I don't think restricting semi-auto rifles while allowing handguns will change anything. Hand guns are used in almost all violent crime as it is due to their conceal-ability. They are just as deadly in mass murder range also. They may be harder to use compared to a rifle but banning rifles won't stop murders or mass murders. I also am against banning hand guns. The solution to this problem won't be solved by gun control in my opinion. Absolute ban on firearms is a pipe dream and regulations have proven to do absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen.
Ya, because there is no logical reason for not allowing firearms in a school full of children. Nothing bad could ever come of that! Or in a movie theater crowded with people. We definitely need lots of guns in there. Or a shopping mall. Nothing bad could happen opening fire in a shopping mall during the holidays. Cause you know, everyone is a John Wayne ass motherfucker who can snipe a dude with a rifle through a crowd of scrambling people with his super duper handgun skills.
Unbelievable.
|
United States24568 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:46 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:41 Zaqwe wrote:On December 20 2012 03:22 3Form wrote:
At the end of the day, what it boils down to is if I snap tomorrow, the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train. If I were an American with a gun at home, if I snap tomorrow I can go and shoot up a school.
I don't see how this sort of logic is refutable, really I don't. The only reason you would be able to shoot up a school is because all the responsible adults there have been disarmed. He killed himself. I don't think he cared whether there would be other people with weapons in the school.
I think we should leave analyses like this to the experts who study this. There's a reason why he didn't go to the local police station and shoot it up. I'm not necessarily advocating arming teachers or school administrators, but let's just make assumptions about why mass shooters do what they do based on our own uninformed guesses.
|
The important question is:
Why do civilians need firearms?
U.S. Constitution says: To protect yourself/ your property/ your family
And that is infact the core of the argument.
Most of europeans wont be able to understand this (including me). The reason I dont understand this is the fact, that the point goes back to a time where the government was incapable of providing the security that was necessary to build the society that should be.
Cant the U.S. Government provide security? Why can european governments provide this security?
|
On December 20 2012 03:26 Simberto wrote:
Well, i think i am out of here. Have fun shooting each other in the US, while civilised countries have actually working laws to deal with gun violence, which provide statistically far better results. It was obviously a mistake to enter this debate, i thought i would meet rational people here who have an other point of view which is logical, but apparently this is another of these situations where americans just live in another world then anyone else.
Fact is, all other first world countries have stricter gun control then you, and their deaths related to guns are lower by about an order of magnitude. Of course correlation does not equate causation, but you might really consider that there is SOMETHING they do that actually works better then what you do, and you probably won't like the answer what it is, because it is either gun control, or something you would probably describe as socialism.
Since you seem to be so keen on coorelations, you should also know that coorelation never implies causation. A can cause B, B can cause A, or C, D, E, etc. or some other unknown can cause both A and B.
I'm not saying gun control doesn't have any effects, but you don't think it's entirely possible that something else in American society is causing this (i.e. higher instances of mass shootings)? Having experience with different cultures, I can name many other things besides gun control just off the top of my head.
|
On December 20 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have. For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer.
I guess I didn't explain very well, what I mean is that he is not claiming to be an expert on the definition of types of guns, if he was you would be making a good point. He is talking abut the concepts of gun control and possible effects that would have. An analogy would be that you don't need to know how to build a computer to talk about software piracy.
I do completely agree with you about the issues involved in this discussion though. You can see from a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotional topic for people on both sides of the argument, and consequently there are some incredibly irrational things being said.
|
while i love to pheasant hunt and generally agree to the right to carry arms, there really needs to be something done. people have to find a compromise. its disgusting to see on facebook friends defending gun rights as they are in midst of what happened. i deliver to stop n shops in that area about 2 times a month, its so fucking quiet in connecticut
|
On December 20 2012 03:53 DR.Ham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have. For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer. I guess I didn't explain very well, what I mean is that he is not claiming to be an expert on the definition of types of guns, if he was you would be making a good point. He is talking abut the concepts of gun control and possible effects that would have. An analogy would be that you don't need to know how to build a computer to talk about software piracy. I do completely agree with you about the issues involved in this discussion though. You can see from a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotional topic for people on both sides of the argument, and consequently there are some incredibly irrational things being said.
Your analogy is rather bizarre, hardware and software are fundamentally different, whereas with firearms, if you don't understand the mechanics and definitions, you can't possibly know which features based on mechanics and definitions would be most relevant to restrict.
If I say, for example, "Oh, he used a gas operated semi-automatic firearm", and you hear that and say "Oh, so we should ban gas operated semi-automatic firearms", well, congratulations, you've just left me with blowback operated semi-automatic firearms, which are still equally dangerous.
If you restrict magazine capacity, what happens if someone starts selling belt fed semi-autos?
If you scream "ban assault rifles", guess what, you just managed to not ban the majority of what you were actually trying to ban.
|
On December 20 2012 03:51 BeHave wrote:
The important question is:
Why do civilians need firearms?
U.S. Constitution says: To protect yourself/ your property/ your family
And that is infact the core of the argument.
Most of europeans wont be able to understand this (including me). The reason I dont understand this is the fact, that the point goes back to a time where the government was incapable of providing the security that was necessary to build the society that should be.
Cant the U.S. Government provide security? Why can european governments provide this security?
It's more about the founders of the country believing people should be free and independent and not dependent upon government for things as basic as self-defense.
|
On December 20 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians. I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally. criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway. You should note that most of these mass shootings where the person 'goes nuts' involves days of planning if not more. This is plenty of time to get/make/whatever a clip that suits their purposes. I don't think making large clips illegal would have much of an effect on mass shooting rates/damages, by itself.
i'm not saying that having only smaller clips would prevent this kind of events from happening, even if the shooter killed a single person it would have been a tragedy, but it would be one of the reasonable options to consider to make these events less severe (since just a few seconds of the shooter reloading would give the victims a little time to flee making the difference between life and death) without banning weapons altoghether thus infringing law-abiding citizens' rights;
btw it's not easy at all to make a clip from scratch or to modify one,it takes equipment and expertise to the point that it's not worth the effort.
|
On December 20 2012 04:09 Warheart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians. I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally. criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway. You should note that most of these mass shootings where the person 'goes nuts' involves days of planning if not more. This is plenty of time to get/make/whatever a clip that suits their purposes. I don't think making large clips illegal would have much of an effect on mass shooting rates/damages, by itself. i'm not saying that having only smaller clips would prevent this kind of events from happening, even if the shooter killed a single person it would have been a tragedy, but it would be one of the reasonable options to consider to make these events less severe (since just a few seconds of the shooter reloading would give the victims a little time to flee making the difference between life and death) without banning weapons altoghether thus infringing law-abiding citizens' rights; btw it's not easy at all to make a clip from scratch or to modify one,it takes equipment and expertise to the point that it's not worth the effort.
Uhm, no, there'd be some trial and error involved, but mechanically, a magazine is a box, a spring, and a piece to sit under the bullets. The rest is just shinies to make it more efficient.
|
This topic shouldn't be discussed here. Butt, fuck it. Honestly I'm a believer to keep political opinions to yourself, for good reason. So seriously guys, stop flaming each other about politics because quite frankly you all probably barely understand it as much as I do in a sense of what changing one rule in a country can affect everyone and everything. It's a very cautious situation and it's for our government to decide on. So let me say this one last time, don't flame each other over politics, lets flame each other about video games! 
|
On December 20 2012 03:32 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians. I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally. criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway. Restricting capacity is ridiculous compared to other concepts. For example, which of the following would you consider to be more capable of killing? A: 6 interchangeable 15 round magazines B: A fixed magazine weapon with a capacity of 15 Sure, if you're really proficient with speedloaders, you can get reload time on a fixed magazine down pretty quick, but it's not as easy as drop mag, insert mag. You can swap to a new mag without even lowering a weapon if it's weight is reasonable. If you're going to target magazines, you should be demanding fixed magazines, rather than specific capacity. This is just one of the examples I could bring up regarding areas where the things people who don't use guns don't understand what good limitations would actually be.
this is only one of the reasonables options avaliables in my opinion,in my first post i wrote more about other issues as well,including the state of the law in my country (Italy)...demanding fixed magazines would be pointless and absurd, and if you use guns just like i do i don't even need to explain you why
|
On December 20 2012 03:59 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:53 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have. For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer. I guess I didn't explain very well, what I mean is that he is not claiming to be an expert on the definition of types of guns, if he was you would be making a good point. He is talking abut the concepts of gun control and possible effects that would have. An analogy would be that you don't need to know how to build a computer to talk about software piracy. I do completely agree with you about the issues involved in this discussion though. You can see from a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotional topic for people on both sides of the argument, and consequently there are some incredibly irrational things being said. Your analogy is rather bizarre, hardware and software are fundamentally different, whereas with firearms, if you don't understand the mechanics and definitions, you can't possibly know which features based on mechanics and definitions would be most relevant to restrict. If I say, for example, "Oh, he used a gas operated semi-automatic firearm", and you hear that and say "Oh, so we should ban gas operated semi-automatic firearms", well, congratulations, you've just left me with blowback operated semi-automatic firearms, which are still equally dangerous. If you restrict magazine capacity, what happens if someone starts selling belt fed semi-autos? If you scream "ban assault rifles", guess what, you just managed to not ban the majority of what you were actually trying to ban.
Firstly, I'm not screaming anything, nothing in my posts was outrageous or using inflammatory language.
For me, there are scenarios where weapons which seem to me completely unreasonable for average civilians to own while still allowing for personal protection, shooting for leisure etc. can be devised quite easily.
For Example:
* Existing Guns which would potentially be restricted can be removed from the community using buy back schemes and harsh penalties for those who are subsequently caught with them. This has been done in other countries (admittedly on a smaller scale), but the principal is the same.
* Semi-Automatic rifles for sport etc could be kept in safe storage at shooting ranges / gun clubs etc rather than in the home.
This would still leave pistols / shotguns for home defense purposes. Even this could be restricted to one per household for example, as it is difficult to argue that a person needs many guns for self defense.
Obviously this would still leave room for these mass shootings to occur, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that it would be harder and thus less likely for them to occur given the lower availability of the weapons.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
