Airknight wrote:We are just discussing gun control here, with logic and reason.
Some of us are. You propose only appeasement. Despite the fear-mongering of the gun-grabbers, there's very little evidence that gun violence is increased by any of the following:
- Semiautos (with practice and speedloaders, people can shoot pretty nearly as fast with revolvers),
- Full-autos (tightly controlled since 1934 and only 2 homicides ever committed since then with legally-owned full-auto guns, one of them by a police officer),
- High-capacity or removable magazines (when you even read a story about dozens and dozens of shots fired, it's usually the police doing the shooting and anyway, a bad guy could simply carry another gun to keep people at bay while he reloads),
- Evil-looking black rifles (they've always been a small fraction of all guns used in crime),
- Evil features like bayonet lugs (do I even need to explain this?),
- .50 caliber rifles (not a single known instance where one has ever been used in crime), and so on.
The way the gun-grabbers work is by the nibble. It's always about "reasonable compromises" to outlaw a few guns at a time. But the objective never changes: Outlaw all guns, a few at a time. Make no mistake, what you propose is the Neville Chamberlain "peace in our team" style of negotiation. It doesn't work except just to paint you as naive.
More to the point, the reason there were so many deaths at VT is because those same morons you want to "compromise" with are the ones who created the conditions which allowed it to happen. They created this killing field by doing except putting up a sign announcing that everyone there was unarmed and defenseless and inviting killers to come in and shoot them all.