This is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. Humans are such pieces of shit that they actively destroy each other, so why bother even trying to stop even one of them? You’re right. I’m sure that if the Florida shooter hadn’t been able to get his hands on that gun, he would have just taken 17 people out with mean thoughts.
Sure. Maybe if we had some requirements to meet in place before we just handed a deadly weapon to whoever the hell decided they had to have one right this second, those people would find another way to get a gun. So why even make the effort?
I used to live in a damp village. That means you can bring alcohol in with you, but you can’t sell it or buy it there. Before the tribal council voted to make it damp, domestic violence was off the charts. Homicides and suicides were way above the national average. Accidental deaths by drowning and snow machine accident were taking the village’s teens out 3 or 4 a year (in a village of 380 people).
When alcohol was no longer readily available --meaning you could no longer go to the bar or visit a liquor store--the violence and death statistics dropped by like 85%.
Nothing much had changed. People could still drink, if they had booze brought in. And people still sold bootlegged stuff, on the DL. Of course that stuff cost a pretty penny and usually ended up being warm piss beer. But if a kid really wanted to get hammered, he could find a way. If a guy really wanted to beat the shit out of his wife, he still could.
So, you tell me. What changed?
Your argument is ridiculous. It’s not wrong, it’s just irrelevent. People will do what they do. That doesn’t mean we don’t fight like hell to make things better.