Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
The first sentence looks at what caused a person to do an evil act, and can we reduce or rehabilitate those. The second sentence looks at an inanimate object that has been used to save thousands or tens of thousands of lives when held by people with good intent.
Yes, imo, the focus should be on looking at personal responibility, and getting help to those who need it, BEFORE, they have set in their hearts to do evil.
The Parkland shooting shows us again, the systems were in place to stop it, but the almighty government and the individual guard who were alerted and could have stopped it - failed. It's that simple and tragic. You can ban whatever guns you want, there will always be a way for a person intent on an evil act to accomplish it.
HYPOTHETICAL, suppose Nikolas, instead of using a gun, had plowed his car through the parking lot, would you be calling on an end to high schoolers being able to park on school property? Of course not, and driving kills far more people per year than gun violence. And it's not a protected right in the Bill of Rights.
|
First off cars aren't designed to take lives. They are not promoted as ways to deal with other people with whom you have conflict up to including the government.
When I was younger you bought a hunting rifle now you buy an assault rifle.
When cars are advertised as ways to deal with other people then make laws to reduce that happening.
Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk