Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
There seems to (already) be a lot of handwaving going on here.
The fact is this mentally-ill person didn't kill these kids with knives, or bombs, or bombs with knives in them. He didn't kill them with a video game or a movie either.
And it may not have been an "automatic weapon" or an "assault rifle", but that's just semantics now. At this point, what's the difference? He shot and killed a bunch of people in a few minutes without even really knowing what he was doing.
He simply should not have had access to those weapons. His mom shouldn't have had them (and shouldn't have been allowed to have them) in the house that he lived in, if at all.
The horse is out of the barn, obviously, but in this situation, there's more than one horse. Can't they at least try to stop at least the new horses from getting out?
Make it harder to buy these weapons. Make it at least as hard as getting a dog license or a driver's license. They can wave the Constitution all they want, but we know these modern weapons weren't part of the deal then. Just like being forced to buy insurance on your car, which also didn't exist, wasn't part of the conversation at the time.
And of course it's complicated, and there is more than one factor at play here. But it's pretty damn clear what the most dangerous factor is.
|
Bombs with killer bees in them.
In a way, it hurts to mock it, because this is a serious discussion.
On the other hand, what else are you supposed to do when someone says a 30 round magazine is necessary for hunting, and then tells you they don't disagree that it should be banned?
Video games, violent movies, lack of religion in schools. It's all the same ol' claptrap that leaves most of us saying, "can we get back on topic here?"