> That doesn't really say much, at the range he was firing and for his skill level, a shotgun may have been the optimal weapon for "number of people hit."
And he hit a lot of people, but the AR-15 would have led to a lot more people dead.
> With training you can switch magazines fast enough that there isn't enough of a difference between a 100 round magazine and 3 standard 30 round magazines to matter.
But he wasn't trained. He tried to get a gun range membership, but he couldn't hold himself together enough to actually get said membership. Is it not reasonable to ask if a feel hurdles wouldn't have stopped him from buying the guns in the first place?
> But my argument is just that, it wasn't a large number. Even 100 people killed is barely a blip compared to the total number of gun deaths per year. You need to look at the whole picture, not just a single emotional event. If 10 gangbangers each killed 3 extra people last night you wouldn't bat an eye. This is a completely emotional reaction.
First of all, I live in Chicago, and I see such reports about gangbangers and the random people who get caught up in their wars all the time, and it always bugs me. I went to see the movie last weekend too, and even if I knew I was at greater risk travelling to the theater at all, a tinge of fear still entered in. Why does it matter if the reaction is emotional? I consider my abhorrence of early death part of my humanity, and I'm hardly alone in that. I would rather see 100 fewer deaths a year from guns than 100 more.
> I'll ask you this, if a madman drives a hummer into a big crowd of people and manages to kill 13 of them would you be calling for more regulation on SUVs?
You need a revocable license that requires a few basic competency tests to acquire in the first place. On top of that, you are required to have insurance to drive as well. It doesn't stop everyone from driving who shouldn't, but it certainly helps. I would be thrilled if the same sort of requirements existed on guns across the country. It is also worth noting that cars are much, much more useful than guns, even in places like Alaska.
And he hit a lot of people, but the AR-15 would have led to a lot more people dead.
> With training you can switch magazines fast enough that there isn't enough of a difference between a 100 round magazine and 3 standard 30 round magazines to matter.
But he wasn't trained. He tried to get a gun range membership, but he couldn't hold himself together enough to actually get said membership. Is it not reasonable to ask if a feel hurdles wouldn't have stopped him from buying the guns in the first place?
> But my argument is just that, it wasn't a large number. Even 100 people killed is barely a blip compared to the total number of gun deaths per year. You need to look at the whole picture, not just a single emotional event. If 10 gangbangers each killed 3 extra people last night you wouldn't bat an eye. This is a completely emotional reaction.
First of all, I live in Chicago, and I see such reports about gangbangers and the random people who get caught up in their wars all the time, and it always bugs me. I went to see the movie last weekend too, and even if I knew I was at greater risk travelling to the theater at all, a tinge of fear still entered in. Why does it matter if the reaction is emotional? I consider my abhorrence of early death part of my humanity, and I'm hardly alone in that. I would rather see 100 fewer deaths a year from guns than 100 more.
> I'll ask you this, if a madman drives a hummer into a big crowd of people and manages to kill 13 of them would you be calling for more regulation on SUVs?
You need a revocable license that requires a few basic competency tests to acquire in the first place. On top of that, you are required to have insurance to drive as well. It doesn't stop everyone from driving who shouldn't, but it certainly helps. I would be thrilled if the same sort of requirements existed on guns across the country. It is also worth noting that cars are much, much more useful than guns, even in places like Alaska.