I'd still rather the whackos trying to make bombs with fertilizer than running around with automatic assault riffles, or whatever you call them. The whackos have less chance of constructing a fully functioning weapon of serious destruction if they are trying to put a bomb together. I'm sure plenty of them would blow themselves up along the way. The McVeigh incident is not a regularly occuring scenario, is it? With a gun, you're buying the "bomb" ready to go. And please don't give me the "most wacko mass murderers have a 220 IQ" -- it's a generalization.
Look, I'm not in the USA, so there goes half the weight of anything I have to say on this topic, I hear you say.
I'm not an intellectual, I don't have great debating skills, and I'm not a "full book" on this issue, so I'm not equiped to have a long running argument, I was just very surprised to here anyone still trying the "people kill people, not guns" argument -- I thought that this was dead and buried. People do kill people, but if these people can only get hold of a boxcutter, they will not be able to do as much damage. Like I said in an earlier post, if it's the man and not the weapon, why don't we still fight wars with bows and arrows? These weapons continue to progress because they are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more effective at killing.
Frankly, I think it's too late for the USA; there's just too many guns, so any talk of gun control is pretty much pointless. So, there's no hope.
How the hell can anyone expect to control the movment of 80 million guns?
This is serious, dudes.
