just because it's easy to commit mass murder via other methods-- and yes, from history, we know that people have used bombs before (the favored weapon of the anarchist groups of the late 19th/early 20th century)-- does not eliminate the fact that the portability, ease of hiding, ease of resupply that is available with the modern firearm makes it the usual go-to weapon for people wanting to commit massacres, at least here in the US. most of the others are a second choice, otherwise people would be using them more than they use guns already.
to extend the argument to the ridiculous, if committing mass murder with molotov cocktails is easy, why have any restrictions whatsoever on arms that people can carry? moreover, why do our militaries continue to carry arms? for that matter, why should people be worried about the Second Amendment being eliminated if it's just as easy to cause devastation with other weapons?
like i said, the history of guns in the US has always been about acceptance of a higher overall level of violence in exchange for having the ultimate form of protection against tyranny and dictatorship.
to extend the argument to the ridiculous, if committing mass murder with molotov cocktails is easy, why have any restrictions whatsoever on arms that people can carry? moreover, why do our militaries continue to carry arms? for that matter, why should people be worried about the Second Amendment being eliminated if it's just as easy to cause devastation with other weapons?
like i said, the history of guns in the US has always been about acceptance of a higher overall level of violence in exchange for having the ultimate form of protection against tyranny and dictatorship.
Comment