3) Mass killings would NOT be avoided if guns were not available;
These two are really funny.
If one wanted to be provocative, one could suggest that the lack of availability of guns would INCREASE mass killings.
Timothy McVeigh showed how easy it is to kill a mass number of people without a gun -- he killed more people than, as far as I know, any gun toting person or group outside the military.
Ruby Ridge, the government used guns, and only one (or two?) people were killed. Waco, they claim they didn't fire a single shot, and how many people died?
Guns can only kill one person (or maybe two on occasion) per shot. A single bomb can kill dozens or hundreds with one detonation.
If people with grievances are deprived access to guns, will they turn to bombs, germs, etc. to exact vengance?
Will controlling guns lead to MORE, not less, violence?
How's that for provocative? |
