I
consciously called you a retard because that's what you are lmao. Here's how you make an actual argument.
Your Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer examples are invalid because they didn't take place recently. Bundy's crimes took place about 40 years ago, and Dahmer's 27 years ago respectively. Legislation would've since been enacted that covers for scenarios like theirs, thus making their power in an argument considerably lesser, if not nil. Conditt's case, though recent, needs to be examined closely to understand why it isn't a valid argument for anti-gun control sentiment. Conditt made a video explaining how he made the bombs. The materials he used could be found in hardware stores. Batteries and the like. Now, lets deconstruct the popular, albeit moronic, argument of "are you gonna ban [insert hardware object/vehicle] here because it was involved in a crime?". First of all, good luck trying to ban batteries. You need them to power all kinds of equipment and appliances. Good luck trying to ban mousetraps, because they're a form of pest control. Good luck trying to ban vehicles like vans and trucks, even cars, since people need them to get around and halting transport is enough to cause financial crisis. Good luck trying to ban materials used to make any of these things, as you now need to find substitute materials and methods for making these appliances and objects that also don't pose the same risk to civilians as the aforementioned banned materials and objects.
I'll keep this part short since I could be here for hours unpacking everything. See why legislation and policy to control firearms is actually effective in curbing deaths caused by them. Maybe you and your country would learn a thing or two.
You must be registered for see links
- stats from 1991 - 2001
^ government intervention and policy resulted in a decline in homicide incidents that involved a firearm. In fact, across the board, there was a decrease in the number of deaths related to firearms, not just homicide.
You must be registered for see links
- research report on gun seizing scheme
^ seizing guns is effective. Not much to say here,
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Skimming the abstracts and conclusions should give you the idea by now. And if that's not enough, I'll remind you that Trump revoked Obama-era legislation that would've prevented the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Your president, who touts the same position as you do, was indirectly responsible for a massacre. See if you can down that one.
You're the second lucky one today to get a present from me, so have fun with this as well.
[video=youtube;CEPFCLMEP8I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEPFCLMEP8I[/video]