Most mass shooters like this aren’t criminals beforehand. An overwhelming majority of them acquired their firearms legally.
Because guess what? It’s fucking hard for 9th grade little Billy to get his hands on an illegal firearm.
Reduce the number of legal firearms will reduce the number of mass shootings by directly reducing the number of people that would commit a mass shooting and by reducing the number of stolen firearms in circulation.
I’m pretty sure most of us wouldn’t even make it far enough to go to jail, unless we asked for guns from a honeypot online. Like I legitimately don’t even know who I would ask to get started on being able to buy one illegally.
And yet somehow someway every single person who is desperate enough and poor enough to attempt a home robber will be able to buy guns that the government is actively looking for. And the kinda of people who are unstable enough to shot up a school will have enough stability to raise who knows how msny thousands of dollars to buy a AR-15 from the underworld.
Your analogy is false and you should feel bad for making it. Do people get addicted to guns? No. Can you cut guns with baby powder and the like? No. Can you smuggle drugs through a metal detector? Yeps. Does cocaine allow you to kill who knows how many dozens of kids at a school or at a concert? No.
The goal isn’t to stop random criminals. The goal is to make mass shootings a lot more difficult.
Why can’t you answer the question? You said banning something causes a booming black market and I asked you about asbestos. This should be so simple for someone who I am positive has had 2,000 arguments on Twatter about the definition of assault rifle.
I’ve literally given you proof that you can. You can get addicted to anything that gives you dopamine. Either provide proof for your claim like I have, or shut the fuck up.
I don’t actually own any guns, but look at how effective the war on drugs was.
Criminals aren’t going to suddenly throw away their guns because it’s now illegal to have them.
Most mass shooters like this aren’t criminals beforehand. An overwhelming majority of them acquired their firearms legally.
Because guess what? It’s fucking hard for 9th grade little Billy to get his hands on an illegal firearm.
Reduce the number of legal firearms will reduce the number of mass shootings by directly reducing the number of people that would commit a mass shooting and by reducing the number of stolen firearms in circulation.
Don’t you understand? All 19 year olds are Jason Bourne and have access to the network and funds needed to get guns in a future where they are banned.
I am very confident that if I tried to buy a gun illegally that I would fail at it and go to jail for a long time.
I’m pretty sure most of us wouldn’t even make it far enough to go to jail, unless we asked for guns from a honeypot online. Like I legitimately don’t even know who I would ask to get started on being able to buy one illegally.
And yet somehow someway every single person who is desperate enough and poor enough to attempt a home robber will be able to buy guns that the government is actively looking for. And the kinda of people who are unstable enough to shot up a school will have enough stability to raise who knows how msny thousands of dollars to buy a AR-15 from the underworld.
Makes no freaken sense.
Your analogy is false and you should feel bad for making it. Do people get addicted to guns? No. Can you cut guns with baby powder and the like? No. Can you smuggle drugs through a metal detector? Yeps. Does cocaine allow you to kill who knows how many dozens of kids at a school or at a concert? No.
The goal isn’t to stop random criminals. The goal is to make mass shootings a lot more difficult.
No, my analogy isn’t false. Banning something only creates a booming black market, as we saw with the war on drugs.
I’m not sure why you thought I was saying that guns and drugs carried the same dangers.
Really how is the booming market for asbestos going? Answer the question
don’t be petulant
Why can’t you answer the question? You said banning something causes a booming black market and I asked you about asbestos. This should be so simple for someone who I am positive has had 2,000 arguments on Twatter about the definition of assault rifle.
>This should be so simple for someone who I am positive has had 2,000 arguments on Twatter about the definition of assault rifle.
this is pigeonholing, or maybe poisoning the well. either way, it’s ad hominem. it’s sophistry, not logic.
How about some lead paint instead?
have you considered that pairing and rhetoric are inferior tactics? they may win an audience but they get us no closer to Truth.
>You said banning something causes a booming black market
no, I didn’t
I got some raw uncut asbestos you can have if you want. It’s street value is negative.
you literally don’t know who you are talking to.
Asbestos is 100% legal in the US, so try again.
Of course people can get addicted to guns you giant idiot.
You can’t get addicted to a fucking gun
I’ve literally given you proof that you can. You can get addicted to anything that gives you dopamine. Either provide proof for your claim like I have, or shut the fuck up.