What difference would gun control make? It's not gun prohibition, it's not magical gun disintegration, I live in Canada, we have strict gun control, yet I could load up my 870 right now and start shooting people at random, the risk is there, either way.GrumpyCatFace wrote:The difference, of course, is taking a risk to yourself vs imposing a risk on others.de officiis wrote:Like everything else, it depends on who you talk to. Americans to do a lot of things to themselves that are not particularly healthy, but we allow it to occur because we value individual liberty and freedom.The right to own and use a firearm is just one part of that, and entails risk. We could pass a law requiring everyone to wear a sling while they shower because bathtubs are slippery when wet and people die every year from bathroom accidents, but we don't because there is no consensus that the level of risk warrants that type of imposition on our personal freedom. For better or worse, life is full of risk. It is risky to get out of bed in the morning, and it is risky to stay in bed too long.GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Somebody should ask them.
Realitically, you're never getting rid of the 12 gauge pump, you can impose Canadian style gun control on America, but that's not going to stop anybody from rolling down the street pumping rounds into random strangers, if they are so inclined, and if you're not getting rid of that, what's the point?
I mean, never mind that the two most infamous mass shootings in strictly gun controlled Canada were perpetrated with an HK91 and an M14, two of the most powerful military firearms on the face of the earth... pretty sure that was illegal, let me just check my Criminal Code... yep, that's not allowed.
Gun control has nothing to do with risk reduction, at best, it's a post facto liability issue, at worst, is just theatrical legislation by feelz.
