21 Apr 2021 1:39 pm
Your first sentence is silly. WE write laws that say MURDER is against the law. How does that STOP MURDER? Does that mean we shouldnt HAVE laws against murder I men they dont STOP itConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑ And how, EXACTLY, will the proposals do that? How do you write a law that keeps people from breaking the law?
There are very simple facts that you simply do not want to admit. One of them is there is no weapon, clip, stock, silencer, etc...known to man...that can take the life of ANY being by itself. Every single one requires a person. People who have absolutely no problem committing multiple felonies in the span of a few minutes (like the kid in Indiana) are simple not going to say "Damn, I can't break THAT law. Guess I will have to eat a peanut butter sandwich rather than go kill a lot of people like I had planned to do."
Then we get silly talking points I was hoping for REAL discussion but no we get the AGE OLD SILLYNESS. The gun might not do it by itself but it makes it aLOT EASIER and the countries that DO regulate guns have a LOT LESS MURDERS. That is a FACT
Then its back to the silly logical fallacy. Since criminals dont listen to lwas why do we write ANY of them? Nothing STOPS people from comitting murder or robging banks are you arguing that we shouldnt HAVE LAWS agasinst murder and robbing banks?