Stem wrote:
Sometimes the easy is misleading. It's possible if tighter restrictions come into play, and "better" laws are made, that after such are implemented, more people die in mass killings.
In order to be taken seriously you would need to make an argument why tighter restrictions and betters laws would increase the number of people killed in mass shooting. Especially when arguments for why they would go down has already been made, and seen in other countries.
And it takes even less imagination that such a killer simply couldn't have access to these weapons illegally anyway.
It's impossible to ensure zero access, but you can lower it more then enough to significantly reduce the number of events involving more deadly weapons. Also, when something is much harder to obtain, the likelihood of being caught before the event goes up.
I'm a supporter of more gun control. I just don't think it alone addresses our problems that are not fully exposed when these killings happen.
I have repeated this multiple times in this thread, but in the US this is a big problem. It results in a lot more deaths then we see in other western countries with more restrictions and laws governing who can own guns. It seems to main issue is all these innocent people dying or being horribly wounded. Guns play a crucial role in how many get killed and wounded, so guns are a crucial issue.