tinfamous12 said:
Over 50 people just died within a 20 foot radius of each other because of a man and his assualt rifle, and you can really say we dont need gun control? This area of Orlando is not a poor area either, this is not a result of poverty, this is a result of someone being able to easily buy something who shouldnt be able to. Sure there are law abiding citizens who are responsible with their firearms, but sometimes you have to take things away for the greater good. People just lost their children, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, spouses, and all we can say is "It may be an act of terrorism"? I'll bet he bought the guns in Florida, with cold hard cash. It's too easy for people to have guns, and we need to put a stop to it. Just my opinion. You cant even go out to celebrate, or watch a movie, or send your kids to school now without worries of something happening. |
I like civilize debate without the name calling. No amount of Gun Control would have stopped him from killing 50 plus people. He could've easily walked into the dance club with just an explosive vest alone and done more damage, and mass casualties than using a firearm. The A-Hole could have rented a U-Haul truck loaded up with explosives and killed everybody at the dance club, and no gun control laws would have stopped him. Tim McViegh and the original WTC Bombers in the early 90's proves you don't need a firearm to do mass casualities and damages. We had "Prohibition" in 1920 for the "greater good", and that did not work out no matter how good or not the intentions were. It brought out the likes of AL Capone and organize crime. Eventually it was repealed because of crime it brought.