I don't understand

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

boa10

Moderator
First of all Im an Englishman living in Peru and yes I've owned a gun for the past 4 years, but have never fired it apart from when I first got it I fired 6 shoots. The argument about the need in an ordanary family household to have an assult rifle, even if its a semi atomatic one, just goes over my head. The reasons the gun lobbyists state is that its the insane person, not the gun that kills so meany people in one go. Thats true, but however insane you may be Im sure you would know what type of gun that can cause the most damage and pick that one, not some 6 shooter that needs reloading every time after 6 shoots. So does it not make sense to ban these types of guns that can fire off up to a 100 rounds a minute from the general public? It wont stop murders, but I think it would stop the number of people murderd at one time as seen at the primary school last Friday.
Your thoughts please
An Englishman in Peru
 
Welcome to The Firing Line, boa10!

No, banning them doesn't make any sense. The problem isn't the weapon and never has been. On 9/11 thousands of Americans were killed using box cutters and airplanes. Number of firearms used? Zero. In Oklahoma City (I forget the year), Timothy McVeigh killed 168, including 19 children in a day care, using a box truck, fertilizer and racing fuel. Number of firearms used? Zero.

Banning such weapons from the general public only ensures that law-abiding citizens do not have them. Violent felons and the mentally ill don't follow the law very well. If a man is willing to stand in the middle of an elementary school, mowing down small children, do you really think he cares if the gun he uses is illegal?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top