2 ms·
> Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong. Fortunately guns aren't the only weapons. Guns a
by UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
> Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong.
Fortunately guns aren't the only weapons. Guns are more contentious than most because it gives a single individual the power to kill many others.
> A short look at mass shootings in Western Europe, which are both more numerous and more deadly, suggests that intermediate restrictions at best won't do any good.
More numerous and more deadly than, what? The UK hasn't had a mass shooting in several years. It certainly wasn't more deadly than the handful the US has had between then and now.
> For that matter, echoing the others who have commented prior to my starting this comment, such an attempt would instantly spark a nasty civil war killing orders of magnitude more people.
This just further proves that the very people who have guns are dangerous individuals who cannot be trusted with guns.
- hga 12y agoGuns are the only effective weapons that "the infirm, the elderly, the women" can use. The U.K. != Western Europe, and I include the massacres prior to "several years" ago; you have to since these incidents are fortunately rare. Wikipedia has done a very good job of chronicling them, although you have to look at half a dozen entries because they're broken down by things like where it happened. "This just further proves that the very people who have guns are dangerous individuals who cannot be trusted with guns." Well, you're welcome to try to act on your prejudices (unConstitutional ones, I might add). Those of us who've read our 20th Century history know what such actions mean, and the only practical response.