No I don't think he wouldn't have done it, but he would have had a hell of a hard time trying to get the weapons he did have, and if you go around looking for weapons illegally, you're going to get picked up by the law somewhere along the line.
Yeah, if this continues to infinity
. But it wouldn't, and it doesn't. People all over the world possess illegally obtained firearms, and have yet to have been "picked up by the law".
I did say that, however you seem to be stuck to the notion that I was talking about every country in the world, not just the USA. I have said that I was specifically talking about the USA there, but believe what you will. I apologise for not being so specific in my statement you quoted.
You provided a generalized statement regarding the USA after
you had already made the statement that they should not be able to be obtained at all. And, what, Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns but others should? What kind of argument is that?
The inability to acquire such weapons by anyone would be a helluva good start. You could be the type who wouldn't hurt a fly, but still shouldn't be able to legally acquire such weapons legally.
And now you again fall back into the generalization that everyone should not be allowed to have guns, after literally just getting done saying that you were only talking about America. Okay, guy.
Bad answer to the question, too, since you were trying to draw a distinction between nations that don't have huge gun homicide rates despite having a large number of firearms per capita. I ask you again, and please give me a straight answer: What kind of criteria would you set up for a law-abiding citizen to ably defend themselves with a firearm which this man wouldn't have passed?
Exactly. There are a bunch of things to think about. He could have been restrained by a bunch of people had he just a blade on him. Same goes for a less powerful weapon. And if he did want to get the weapons he did, he would have taken a lot longer to do so, that theatre and those people wouldn't have been targeted, and he could possibly have been picked up on by the law before he had the chance to act. If I started to go gun hunting tomorrow, I'm sure that I'd get picked up on it before I managed to acquire one.
If he couldn't have obtained a gun he would have made bombs and set the theater on fire from within, or any manner of ridiculous methodologies to kill. The entire point of the response which you failed to grasp is that guns didn't kill these people, a murderous psychopath did
. Taking away all guns everywhere isn't going to make murderers disappear, it's just going to make all murderers everywhere on the same ground as law-abiding citizens --unless of course they for whatever reason decide to consider breaking the law and obtain firearms anyways.
Do you think that there are more people in the world who would kill innocents with guns than not? Then firearms should logically be illegal. Do you think that there are more people in the world who would not kill innocents with guns than would? Then firearms should logically be legal. Pretty simple.
Edited by Esau of Isaac, 23 July 2012 - 01:22 AM.