Originally Posted by theimp98
well if you want to save lives, ban all cars. since some people will abuse there right to drive , and get drunk,and kill people lets take all the cars away.
they kill more people then gun do .same line of thinking.
however i find it hard to trust in 2 9mm handguns killing that many. Something is missing.
bottom line is if a goverment does not trust me with a gun, i cant trust the goverment. do you really trust the goverment? but lets get back to what the thread is about..
I am very sorry to see this.
I agree with you Bruce, I do. But a car is not a weapon, and people who die in car accidents die in just that - accidents. I'm pretty sure drunk people don't decide that they are going to get in their car, search out and kill as many people as they can, no matter how angry they are. I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't be able to kill 33 people in one go that way either. If they had a gun, however.....
And no, I don't trust the government - yours, mine, any. It's not people like you who aren't trustworthy with guns, Bruce - it's people like this guy. I gladly forgo my right to bear arms if it helps stop this kind of thing from happening. And in my country (and other countries with strict gun laws) it does. Yes there have been shootings in Australia, but not so many - nowhere near.
Because there are psychotic murderers out there who can and will do this kind of thing, and because we don't know who they are and can't predict who they are (no Minority Report yet for us) then we need to restrict access to dangerous weapons that will help all those unknowns out there unleash destruction on an unsuspecting general population out of a clear blue sky.
I mean (and this is JUST an analogy and NOT meant to be inflammatory) if you agree with starting a war as a preemptive strike to defend your country, how can you not agree with restricting gun laws as a preemptive strike to protect your community?