This is a very good question. It's considered an act of terror to kill three people with a bomb (and it should be). Why shouldn't it also be an act of terror to kill 26 people (mostly tiny children) with a gun? Why is it considered OK, even manly, to own a military-style assault weapon? Why can't we ban civilian ownership of these weapons (since their only use is to kill a large amount of humans in a short time)? And don't try to answer that with the tired old Second Amendment argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that banning assault weapons would NOT violate the Second Amendment.
nobody said the newtown shooting was not a "terrorist" act (depending on whether or not you consider anyone who kills americans a terrorist). the main error in banning "military" weapons is because virtually every gun was at one point in history military technology. a .30-30 lever action rifle was the "assault weapon" back in 1885. a musket was the "assault weapon" in 1776. in 30 years or so, there will be new firearms that will replace the M16, and that will be the new "assault weapon" while the AR15 will be considered mundane, if not quaint and outdated. it does not matter if you have a fully loaded AR15 with hundreds of rounds of ammunition or a .22 rifle if you are shooting at unarmed, defenseless people who arent allowed to defend themselves because of a "gun-free zone".
ReplyDelete