Originally Posted by
Macdon1588
Sure, the assault rifle eases the rate at which people are killed. However, don't kid yourself with the idea that a this would have been less tragic had he only had nine round clips. Any amount of children killed is too much of a loss. He killed at close range, so did the wacko in Colorado. The weapon is irrelevant. Without guns, people could use bombs. You might laugh, but that happened here in Oklahoma.
Your logic side must see the long history of tyranny against the powerless. The presence of guns in society balances power and enables people to defend themselves. Also, Switzerland defeats the more guns equals more violence mantra professed by progressively minded folks. They're more educated about guns, all males own fully automatic rifles and they enjoy a low crime rate. America has less violent crimes per capita than some other countries with stricter gun laws such as Britain just more gun violence. Violent crimes on the whole are down to historic lows in the US. Plus, less politically correct, most gun violence is probably gang violence. When a gang member kills another gang member, society wins. There's a confusion that guns cause violence, when, actually, violence is caused by a plurality of reasons whereas the gun is only a means to an end. More over, gun laws don't work in the places in this country where they are in place.
Again, if this wack-job would have, say, killed one child, would it have been less tragic? No. He should have been in an asylum years ago, and shame on his dead mother for not properly securing her weapons. Fix our real problems and gun violence will go down, but remove guns, and like it or, we endanger the very freedom we are based upon.