Sure, and cars don't make people road rage, the anonymity of internet doesn't make people engage in cyber bullying - they're just tools or circumstances which facilitate or empower some people's worst instincts.
I stereotyped you, much as you stereotyped (less accurately) advocates of gun control. Regardless of your personal views the fact is that gun control advocates being generally liberal- and left-leaning are also very likely to be in favour of universal healthcare, mental health initiatives, inclusiveness and anti-bullying initiatives, social safety nets to mitigate financial stressors and the various other measures likely to mitigate peoples' inclination to engage in mass murder. Conversely, 'second amendment' proponents in America are much more likely to oppose many if not all of those measures. If you're one of the rare few who wants healthcare, welfare, inclusiveness and guns then I guess that's something... but it's far more common that "It's mental illness we need to focus on" is a cynical diversionary 'response' from people and politicians with absolutely no intention of follow through.
There'll always be tools or methods to kill other people, but guns are a tool whose sole and explicit purpose is death, maiming or destruction. Of game animals or targets at their most benign, but you haven't suggested that licenses should be granted specifically for hunting rifles and shooting clubs (a restriction which most gun control advocates would be perfectly happy with). Nor did you answer my question, even though you were the one who raised the topic of psychological disorders:
Irrelevant.
Yep.
Very few people own assault weapons today also.
Firearms were not very good at killing people in 1791, and ownership by every man and his kid is pretty much the exact opposite of "a well-regulated militia." Still, this tells us something about your mindset and what you think is good, at least
That's why they were carried by every soldier in every army in Europe and North America.
The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment is held by the people, regardless of their relationship to any militia.
Fact remains:Still, this tells us something about your mindset and what you think is good, at least
Which ones were formerly considered more appropriate for combat?
In the gangbanger culture.
Alice. He had the rifle to protect himself and it was a good thing that he did.
The right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people" in countries with quite strict gun laws like Canada and Australia too. It is a collective and circumstantial right, not an individual and universal right, as all but the most insane 2A advocates recognize with restrictions on gun ownership by felons, restrictions on carrying in some locations such as seats of government and restrictions on some 'arms' such as heavy artillery and cruise missiles. Among people mature enough to set aside any insane absolutism, it's simply a matter of quibbling over where to draw the line. And the simple fact is that in terms of firepower or potential deaths per second, what was authorized in 1791 was a lower threshold (even per capita) than what most US gun control advocates aim for today.
Assuming there is just one root cause. There could be real arguments made for at least 3 that I can think of.
Neither Harris or Klebold has an AR-15. So, your “argument” is completely rejected.How a Gun Made for Combat Found Its Way Into Millions of Homes
“American Gun,” by Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Elinson, recounts the grim history of the AR-15 rifle in unvarnished detail.www.nytimes.com
Nope. The gangbanger culture is what “progressives” protect in the name for social justice reform.
The rioters should have stayed home as well.
Never glorified him. A jury found that he acted in lawful self defense and that just burns you up.
You implied that Harris and Klebold had "ones [guns] formerly considered more appropriate for combat."
It makes more sense if you read the original draft of the 2A:
I hope you are not a teacher.