(April 25, 2018 at 11:14 am)Aegon Wrote:(April 25, 2018 at 4:31 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: That's what happens when people can't access assault rifles. It's not like mentally ill people and terrorists are going to be like "oh well, can't get a gun, I guess I'll just be a law abiding citizen. "
What do you mean "this" is what happens... what is "this"? A lower body count? A less frequent event? Which do you mean?
I mean people running vans through crowds. Is it less frequent though?
That's a real question by the way, not rhetorical. I know that once here I did a comparison of massacres in Australia post their assault rifle ban, and there was no difference. Of course there were less shootings, but the same number of people died per year in mass killings, which mostly was arson attacks I recall.
I just feel that someone who wants to kill a bunch of people senselessly will find a way, regardless of access to firearms.
I have an open mind on the subject though, because basic logic does seem to say firearms are an obvious assistent to killing people. I'd love to see some real stats on these types of events, massacres, regardless of the method.
If that were even part of the conversation, we could make a more informed decision about gun control.
Instead most gun control advocates push 'gun violence ' which lumps suicides, accidents, self defense, police shootings and every type of homicide into one propaganda stat that tells you nothing.
So I'd love to know if it really is less frequent of an event. My gut tells me if someone wants to kill a bunch of strangers, a truck is just as easy, if not more, than an assault rifle.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)