hes on Nostr: Unsure how this is relevant to my question. The assassin could have made the shot ...
Unsure how this is relevant to my question.
The assassin could have made the shot with a bolt-action, which is considered "not a scary military-style weapon!" (yet).
Some of the deadliest attacks in history have used pistols and shotguns, which are also deemed "not scary military-style weapons!" (yet).
Your friends are right. Regulations infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and criminals will do crazy things regardless. Seizing 20 million+ AR-15s that were never, and would never, be used to commit such atrocities does not seem like a plausible solution to this problem.
So, my question remains. Why don't we learn what prescriptions these lunatics are on?
The assassin could have made the shot with a bolt-action, which is considered "not a scary military-style weapon!" (yet).
Some of the deadliest attacks in history have used pistols and shotguns, which are also deemed "not scary military-style weapons!" (yet).
Your friends are right. Regulations infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and criminals will do crazy things regardless. Seizing 20 million+ AR-15s that were never, and would never, be used to commit such atrocities does not seem like a plausible solution to this problem.
So, my question remains. Why don't we learn what prescriptions these lunatics are on?