>>939820066
>Do I feel bad that someone who said innocent deaths were necessary to protect the 2nd amendment was ultimately a victim of the gun violence he called acceptable?
That's such a shit argument. For two reasons:
First, he didn't say that it was necessary to protect the 2nd amendment. He said that it's not enough evil for him to get rid of the 2nd amendment. You make it sound, deliberately I'd think, like he wanted gun victims.
Secondly, knives kill, cars kill, smoking kills, drinking kills, bad food kills
Leading causes in the US:
Heart disease (strongly related to smoking, drinking, food)
Cancer (strongly related to smoking, drinking, and to some degree food)
Accidents (leading, traffic accidents aka cars)
Guns barely make the top 10, and about two thirds of those are suicides. A good amount of the rest is gang violence.
Other countries with high gun ownership* rates do not have the same amount of gun deaths by far.
So let's also ban cars, knives cigarettes, alcohol, too fat foods, too sugary foods and drinks, ok?
And ropes, because when we ban knives and guns, suicidal people might hang themselves.
And hammers and other tools, because people might start bludgeoning each other once knives and guns are banned.
It would be more sensible if you made an argument about restricting gun ownership and carry. Pass a background check, some kind of evaluation. etc. At least that way you will get suicides down a tiny bit and probably domestic "heat of the moment" homicides a lot.
The criminals, like this shooter, or gangs, would most likely still find ways to get their hands on deadly instruments, like guns or knives, regardless of what you do.
* gun ownership is not the same as guns per capita. It is well researched that US gun owners on average own a lot more guns per owner, bringing the overall per-capita number up.
