This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
@Dragon and Strawberry: Yes, there will always be a truck. Or bombs. Or a screwdriver or anything, but assault rifles are far, far more efficient at death.
Dragon: An assault rifle is no good for hunting because it destroys the meat. If you're talking about trophy hunting, well, that's an entirely different discussion we can have. A rifle and an assault arm have different uses with different efficiency. There's a reason the military uses the latter and not single-shot long arms anymore. Personally, I'm for regulation (not bans) on all guns. It's simply too easy to obtain them in a country living on edge. If fire was destroying us nationwide, wouldn't we get to work trying to control the spread of flame?
Chicago - the poster child for no guns = shootings - is a complicated situation and almost certainly not caused by gun-free zones and restrictive laws. You can't simply tell people punishment is harsh for using a gun - the gun has to be removed from the equation. It's not a weapon of logic and thought. Obviously. Not to mention the spate of "responsible" gun owners accidentally killing themselves and family members. There an interesting article on the Chicago situation: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html?_r=0
Dragon: An assault rifle is no good for hunting because it destroys the meat. If you're talking about trophy hunting, well, that's an entirely different discussion we can have. A rifle and an assault arm have different uses with different efficiency. There's a reason the military uses the latter and not single-shot long arms anymore. Personally, I'm for regulation (not bans) on all guns. It's simply too easy to obtain them in a country living on edge. If fire was destroying us nationwide, wouldn't we get to work trying to control the spread of flame?
Chicago - the poster child for no guns = shootings - is a complicated situation and almost certainly not caused by gun-free zones and restrictive laws. You can't simply tell people punishment is harsh for using a gun - the gun has to be removed from the equation. It's not a weapon of logic and thought. Obviously. Not to mention the spate of "responsible" gun owners accidentally killing themselves and family members. There an interesting article on the Chicago situation: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html?_r=0