Quote Originally Posted by blake View Post
Quote Originally Posted by GringoStar View Post
Predictions;

2) Every non-gun expert pops out and says that it's ridiculous to allow someone to own a gun that can easily kill 50 people, forgetting that hand guns kill WAY more people and if someone wanted to kill 50 people they could just get a bus driving license and drive it off a cliff or through a crowd.
i don't get this reasoning

the fact that handguns kill way more people (in total) is true (much like the common cold), but has nothing to do with whether we can help reduce mass casualty situations like what happened this weekend.

your analogy about the bus is particularly ridiculous. you are essentially stating that since there are multiple ways to kill a bunch of people, it would be pointless to ban any of them. by that logic, why ban grenades, rocket launchers, flamethrowers, etc.? what is the legitimate justification for why any of us need assault rifles? sidenote it's also crazy to act like it's just as easy to kill groups of people with a get access to a bus as compared with an assault rifle.
Particularly ridiculous? Who said I think that grenades and rocket launchers should also be banned?

The argument is that banning is a slippery slope. This should cover your apparent confusion about my hand gun argument and my school bus argument. If you ban semi-auto assault rifles, there will be an eventual call to ban handguns (which kill more people and are a much greater problem).

I could make a bomb out of legal fireworks that would make a grenade look like a firecracker. Should be ban fireworks?

They banned large amounts of liquids from airplanes after one attempted bombing attempt - are you also for the water bottle ban?