I don't see this as a valid argument either. Simply enforcing the laws already in place would be a great deal easier than trying to create new laws. You're saying we can't even handle what we currently have, but we want to put MORE on the table? I don't know how completely irradicating gun ownership would be LESS complicated than just actually DOING what you say you're going to do.Americans think they have laws for keeping guns out of dangerous peoples' hands. If you check out gun regulations in a lot of other developed nations you'll see the USA's are kind of flimsy, to say the least.
Slavery isn't really a cultural thing.. We were lazy rich fucks that got free work. Of course they didn't want to give that up. Guns, however, are very cultural. There is an art to them, and an appreciation for their work. Owning a well-made Japanese katana would make a person more dangerous.. but I don't think it is my place to say a person IS dangerous for owning any weaponry. There's shooting done for sport, and hunting/killing food is a lot more merciful with a gun than with a knife or bow for the animal. (I don't know how it is up there for ya'll, but people here go hunting for their own food all the time here) There are OTHER purposes for guns. They were designed to kill.. but Cheetos were designed for eating, and an artist made drawings out of them. Vodka was made for drinking, but we use it in homemade mouthwash, bug spray, and disinfectants. I don't think it is fair to say one thing is dangerous, like a gun, without acknowledging that MANY things are dangerous, like a Car.There are lots of things that used to be normal that aren't any more which lack lobbyists defending our ability to keep them. On this, I'm going to say that I don't care if it's a cultural thing. If you're saying the culture makes the law less effective there might be and interesting point there. However, if you're just saying that cultural attachments will make people unhappy, I don't really care. We had to take slaves from the south, and boy they didn't like that!
Sure. A car is more useful on a daily basis than a gun. But I'm not running over a bobcat on my friend's property anytime soon either. It depends on where you live.. You live in a city. It's easy to see guns as useless out there. But you can't just call pest control and spend $300 to remove every predator that gets on your farm. And a car doesn't help in hunting your own food either. Your lifestyle is not the only one out there.No, there's a way better argument for why cars are not as regulated; cars are vastly more useful. There cost-benefit analysis between a car vs. a gun is so completely different that the comparison makes a fatuous argument. Furthermore, cars kill me people because they are used so frequently, which is because they are so immensely useful and basically power our economy and lifestyle. A gun is borderline useless. The only thing it does is kill. That's it's purpose. You'd have a hard time explaining how you shot someone dead while you were going about the daily grind.
Assuming he didn't use something like, say, a dirty bomb or something. I'm not speculating whether it would have gone down or not.. but I'm assuming he went out with the intent to take out as many people as possible, based on the sheer number of casualties. I'd say he'd have found a way to make that happen whether a gun was there or not.It wouldn't have stopped him. It probably would have brought his kill and injury rate down.