blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,765
- 543
- 126
So, let's say we all buy into the argument that we must ban certain guns immediately, particularly semi-automatic guns, because they have the potential to kill more people, more quickly.
Now, let's say the ban rids the world of these guns, at least in the hands of citizens. Now, for those that argued this logic, what happens at the next mass killing? The one that used an 8 clip pistol with 4 extra clips?
By default that scenario becomes the next "potential to kill more people, more quickly" than any other threat. So, now we need to ban that, right?
Do you people arguing with this logic see the slippery slope? Do you see the standard goes lower and lower each time you "ban" something?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The discussion that is necessary is
"How do we keep mentally ill people from firearms?"
Instead of engaging in a debate about something that no one will give on. Let's address what seems to be a common factor in mass shootings in the past few years.