Paraphrase: "No, I have no solution. Sorry for wasting your time."
I have ideas, but telling you is futile.
But you have no solution. As a gun lover, you should. Try formulating one rather than just obfuscating. the onus of action is on those who regularly sit on their hands, and that means you.
We interrupt this engaging debate to bring you a tearjerker moment.
This is a note written by a student at Sandy Hook who lost his best friend in the shooting:
“Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside
them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.” -Neil Gaiman
People need a scapegoat for their emotions, lashing out to gun control is perfectly understandable.
I'm not angry. though I would be if it was my country.
I wouldn't go onto a US forum and argue with people. But as this is an international forum, and to see people who refuse to accept a correlation between massacres, and the fact that any idiot can buy a gun like it was "candy", is an insult to the intelligence.
Banning new gun purchases is plausible but ineffective, banning new semi-automatic weapon sales is even easier, but even less effective. Banning all guns is unrealistic unless you want to extend the violence we've had from school shootings to the violence that would follow forced confiscation. Yes, banning guns is unrealistic. There is no way an amendment that would simultaneously kill the 2nd, 4th and 10th amendment is going to pass, even if it were to pass it would not be tolerated. There are millions of gun owners in this country, as in like more than your total adult population and who knows how many would rather die(i.e, kill) than see three of their favorite rights get stripped away. On top of that, think of all the local law enforcement, organizations, military personnel, businesses etc who would actively oppose and refuse to comply. To ban guns in the USA in an effective way is basically justifying the stockpiling of guns and preparations for a tyrannical government that no longer respects the law of the land. Violence to take away guns from people who may, at some point in the future, decide to be violent is not good policy. I don't understand how people don't see violence on a large scale as being a very realistic result of banning all guns. You're saying that we need to ban guns to save children, how many children are going to die when the ATF and FBI starts coming for guns? Our Executive branch has a track record of leaving little dead bodies as collateral damage, is that an acceptable result to disarming the public?
“Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”