No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of "magnitude of lethality" that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
🙄 In which we equate Nuclear weapons with individual arms. It's the mental equivalent of assuming Communism means you have to share your tooth brush.
i started to respond but there are so many things wrong with your inane hypothetical i quit a couple paragraphs in. just fucking light up some neurons
Yikes. It took you multiple paragraphs before you understood how goddamn reactionary the Austrian response is. And while you understand it's wrong, you refuse to accept it. Liberal to the core. Please do not vote again for everyone's sake.
Yikes. Normalizing exotic scenarios. My daughter is afraid of thunder, a much more logical and reasonable fear. Any kid that is afraid of going to school because maybe someone will be on the news is a victim of abuse. If you can't trust your fellow man, you can't be trusted to participate in society.
Kids here are afraid to go to school (for good reason),
Why? Who is abusing their kids by trying to convince them that they should be afraid of school?
Do you think that the average person is a killer but the only thing that stops them are the tools they have available?
If there is no reason for them anymore, because there aren't cars as a form of private transportation then hell yea I'm on board.
Also, cars are dangerous AF. Tens of thousands of people die a year because of them. Hence why we have licenses and maintenance rules and an unbelievably extensive road system with clear signals and lights.
And despite all these rules, the number of car deaths is much greater then any other cause of death. It's not a lack of rules that are the problem with cars (nor guns).
Agreed, so we should be building trains which are way faster, safer and environmentally friendly then cars if we actually care about saving lives.
Right it's a law that is on the liberal -> fascist pipeline. They don't want to ban guns (why not?) they just want to make sure that only certain people can have them based on subjective evaluation. How is this good for anyone? It does nothing to prevent things like this in the future. I guess it makes low-information voters feel good?
Wow kneejerk pseudo-science enshrined into law because one person out of 10,000,000 used a gun to kill someone. Do you think if he had used a car instead you'd see a similar response? why or why not?
What's up with Europes fragile plumbing? Does the US have this problem but it's never reported or what?