- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Points
- 1,040
Your missing my point. If the argument is those items are too dangerous for the public to own why are you not going after items shown to be equally dangerous if not more (even if the public doesn’t perceive them as such)?Good for you. I can fire 30 rounds in about 6 seconds from a semi-auto, and there's less chance of me coming off aim from taking my hand off the trigger to cock the bolt. Also, you've got tons of experience. Can someone with less experience and practice pull off the same?
Oh well I guess since we cant stop someone from using a knife or a car for mass kurder, we shouldn't bother trying to stop them from using a gun! While we're at it, let's bring back fully automatics and hand grenades for public use. Sure, they could be used to cause mass casualties, but people are still commiting those atrocities anyways, so what's the point?
Nice showed that having a firearm doesn’t matter. You would be hard pressed to equal the damage caused by that as a single person with any type of firearm, be it full auto, semi, manual, etc.
Lots of things can be used to commit mass casualty situations. Going after specific technology which has been publicly available for over 100 years and imagining it will change much in the grand scheme of things is asinine.
What makes sense to control is who has access to what, not what exactly is being accessed. A firearm is a firearm. If you can’t ‘trust’ them with a semi-auto you can’t trust them with a manual either. You also can’t trust them with a vehicle.
Making legislation around ‘preventing damage’ in a mass casualty situations is poor legislation which really doesn’t actually target your primary issue which is people trying to do mass casualty situations.
