That's a ridiculous assertion. Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The result? Only 11 gun deaths per year, while we typically have 20,000 - 30,000.
Your arguments are so dumb they don't even qualify as spurious. Let me know the next time somebody kills somebody against their will with a cheeseburger.
Use Drunk Driving. Its against the law yet still happens. Kills more than mass shootings. However, like always you miss the point. If you want the government to regulate your life, you can like, move.
Because some people kill others by driving drunk we should just let it be easy for others to kill people with guns..... that's your argument, and it's stupid. And you and others who insist that gun control laws are a waste of time because shootings will still occur are committing a separate stupid argument..... it's called "making the perfect the enemy of the good." NOBODY with any sense could or would ever argue that we can stop all mass gun murders entirely, but we certainly can reduce their frequency, as proven by regulations made stricter in other countries around the world. And fewer is BETTER, even though not perfect. Your argument is akin to saying that taking measures to stop fire ants in your yard is a waste of time because you could never kill them all, ignoring the obvious fact that even a 50% reduction would be better than no reduction at all. And, yes, laws against drunk driving DO result in fewer cases of drunk driving and SAVE LIVES.
You keep saying this. Please quantify the ease in killing someone with a car vs a gun because we have examples of both being extremely easy. No friend, the point is that you are pointing at Ar-15's. With is less than 10% of the killings. SO ANYTHING you do to them is a moot point. Further, you offer NO solution as to how to round up all the "assault" weapons. Zero, None, Nadda. Assault rifles account for 3% of gun deaths... 3%. Most mass shootings are with a HAND GUN....
I would love to watch a real debate between an NRA spokesperson and a hard core control advocate. Topics would include: 1) Gun show loop holes 2) Bump Stock's legality 3) Suppressors etc... Lot's of people claim a position without really knowing the arguments of both sides. They decide based on a quick few sound bytes from wacko politicians and idiot celebrities, who really know very little about the subject aside from what they see in movies.
The point I tried to make is that if the concern is the ability to shoot fast then it really doesn't matter what the weapon looks like. Its all about how fast a round can be sent down the barrel. So if anything we should discuss cyclic rate but then I guess the average gun control freak would not understand the concept.
