Let me show you how to hump without making love.
Are we ever going to move away from "well they could still killed a lot of people without a gun"? It's a hypothetical of the utmost absurdity.
Yep, purely hypothetical and totally absurd --
would never happen. No
bombs either.
There's no point in arguing with people who do not like guns, regardless of what they say regarding how they feel about them. Have been arguing the same points using facts, citing sources, and just a reasonable argument.
People outside the US tell US citizens how they should handle their gun control. No matter what you do, the majority of gun owners see legislation against guns as another step against their rights given to them by the founders of the country. And they are right, because every country in the world that has moved to make their entire population register weapons, soon after went and confiscated guns right afterwards. Not highly illegal or dangerous ones, just to take them from citizens they feel shouldn't have them. No reason, no background, just a look at where they live, their income, and denominations. Now you can keep preaching about how "well
my country" but guess what, we are not you. We have been established longer than you. We have
less people to enforce this by almost a third, not to mention that our country is currently against police because of how the media has been portraying them for decades. Not to mention even our president places blame on the police officers before an official investigation is even done, and when it comes to light that everything was done correctly, it's too late.
Who is going to enforce these laws that you want our country to have? The guys who are being persecuted for doing their job to the best of their ability? Or how about our military, who when they step foot into any domestic event, other countries see it as a move towards military control of the country? Do you guys know anything outside of your own circles or do you just sit their, watching the news that is biased towards your viewpoints?
Cecil has done nothing but make reasoned arguments and you guys come back with, "Well, that doesn't solve the issue that you guys have shit gun control."
The point he and I have made, is that you can literally ban guns. Then the guy bombs people. What then? Tell Walmart they cannot sell household goods anymore? Guess what, that's already being done with pseudoephedrine and people still manage to get it in sufficient quantity to make methamphetamine. Or hey, you know how it was illegal to get military weapons back in the 1920s? And they were only accessible through armories? Criminals were still able to get them and they were more controlled back then than pistols are today.
Guns in general put an extremely simple and effective killing method in people's hands. Even someone who has never held a gun could read all of 2 pages of text (if not less) and know the general skills needed to empty one magazine into a person or crowd. There isn't a particular strength requirement as stringent as knives either since that would depend a lot on overpowering somebody.
Have you ever fought someone with a knife? Ever been in a situation where someone had a knife? Nobody is eager to go and disarm someone with
any kind of weapon and if they have the right mindset, which let's face it they are willing to pull a knife onto a crowd, they can do damage. It's not just about overpowering someone with a knife, they have something that can inflict pain and a response from your subconscious to avoid getting hurt with that again. Having a gun drawn on you and the distress from getting cut with a knife have the same effect on the brain, you know both are dangerous from that point forward. This is something that is taught in not only the military, but law enforcement and private security. You never want to get into a close confrontation where someone has a weapon, avoid it entirely, because even with proper training you should never introduce yourself into a situation with unknown factors. That is why police will often shoot suspects at the slightest hint of seeing a weapon. People might disagree with this method... I would rather have living police officers and a dead suspect that resisted arrest than a dead police officer and a murderer. Any day.
Not going to touch on this topic anymore because I have argued with friends, family, and strangers on many occasions on why it's not a simple thing we can work towards. It's just not an argument that I have ever witness causing either side to change their view or stance. There are so many other things we should be focused on, but let's narrow down guns when most of the people who own them have never even shot at a living thing in their lives. They own them out of pure recreation and that's just how the United States is. The US would not even have the ability to enforce strict gun laws if they were passed and background checks don't work when somebody has a clean background. Psych evaluations do not work if you are not being honest and in some cases, not at all. Every argument I have heard would not work in these extreme cases everyone talks about where there was a shooting. Though you do know what works? An armed civilian shooting the assailant, to which more have died from than the mass shootings that have succeeded.
None.