The Las Vegas shooter planned his spree over the course of several months. In fact, I don't think you can show us a single mass shooting that was an 'impulse" act. And if you can't get a gun on a moment's notice, you won't kill anyone?
You seem to not understand that criminal law exists not to prevent certain acts, but punish people that commit those acts..
So how is it being proposed to go about removing firearms from existence? That is the only way to truly have no firearms, not simply no legal firearms. Then why has it not been done? Speeding limits are not comparable to firearm-related restrictions.
Incorrect, most mass killers plan their shootings in great detail, the Vegas shooter travelled the country looking for the perfect venue and collected his rifles over a number of years, most recently in Parkland, the shooter Cruz had diagrams of the buildings he planned on hitting and detailed the routes he would use to execute the shooting and carry out his escape plan. Only in your world, you can travel to Miami with me and I can put the handgun or rifle of your choice in your hands within a couple of hours, no questions asked, cash and carry.
What is serving to prevent an individual from "snapping" after they have already acquired the firearm? What is being proposed in the event of such developments occurring, rather than the hypothetical "snap" immediately precluding the firearm purchase?
The Vegas shooter was an exception I don't have to go anywhere. We both live in a world where a multiplicity of guns are readily available to just about anyone, that is the whole problem we are discussing.
423,000,000 guns in the US. Fewer than 10,000 - less than 0.0024% - are used to commit murder. The free access of guns is in no way a "problem".
The fact remains, no guns is not a possibility, as I pointed out. then get started amending it. Just know that it only takes 13 states to stop you from amending the constitution. lol, 500 million guns in circulation is most certainly not irrelevant. And I am quite correct to say it would not stop a single shooting, and you can't demonstrate that it would stop a single shooting. of course it's true. speed limits are not a constitutionally protected right. firearms are.
Incorrect, laws cannot prevent criminal acts they by prescribing punishment, they can only deter a prospective criminal considering committing a crime. Basically is the crime worth the time.
We really have no way of knowing but most people probably think better of going on a murderous rampage for no reason, otherwise, they would have always been far more common than they are now. Hell, most people have never thought of it at all up until now, if you go by the number of times it has happened
...and so, you have no idea whatsoever if your rubbish about "impulse shooters" has any basis in reality. Good to know.
Then you need to understand the fallacy of your idea, it's a plan that would only serve to make life for the law abiding less safe while doing nothing to deter someone with evil intent.
So you think we have at any one time I don't know how many people who are methodically planning to go off and murder several people without rhyme or reason. And you want to make sure these people have access to as many firearms as they possibly can?
How does a law prevent anything, laws are just words with no effect on anyone, it is the prescribed punishment that provides a law with teeth?
Incorrect mass shooting have been happening for decades, however with the 24/7 news cycles they get a lot more attention nowadays.
Why wouldn't it make the law-abiding safer? Notwithstanding conservative mythology criminals and mass shooters do not simply pluck guns from the air. They must get them from somewhere and if you make them difficult for criminals and mass shooters to get you will get fewer mass shootings and less crime.
Nothing here changes the fact that you have no idea whatsoever if your rubbish about "impulse shooters" has any basis in reality. And, you apparently don't understand this means your "impulse shooter" premise does not support the restrictions you seek. That is, you -made up- a reason to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights. Sad. Expected, but sad.
And they will continue to get them via. the same channels they get their drugs from to sell on the streets, all you plan does is disarm the law abiding making them sitting ducks for the still well armed criminals.
Cite some. And how does that support your contention that we need firearms to be readily available to everyone?
Here's the list. - almost 40 years of mass shootings. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ "Everyone"? Nice strawman you have there. The law abiding have a right to own and use firearms that shall not be infringed and, constitutionally, must be as easy to exercise as the right to free religion, religion, abortion, etc - there's no sound argument for the necessity or efficacy of making it harder for them to exercise their rights.
No I followed the dictates of logic and commons sense, You can't kill someone with a gun that isn't there. You seem to think that if we provide madmen with improved weaponry we will have a safe society Not sad, Insane, utterly insane.
