2012-12-17, 02:48 PM
Person A can expedite the death of Person B through the use of poison, arson, stabbing, drowning, ect. However, giving Person A an assault weapon makes it significantly easier and faster to not only take down Person B, but also Person C, D, and E. Yes there is the basic identification that guns are objects and people are the ones who use such devices for questionable means. This is unarguable. But given the fact that you can't monitor and address every human being to not go emotionally crazy, it doesn't hurt to limit and or totally restrict their access to a weapon that has the potential of massive violence and murder. Guns aren't restricted because as a society we blame them for senseless killings. Guns are restricted because even the most dependable people can always have rare moments of complete emotional fall out and putting them in proximity of an offensive weapon is an unnecessary risk when you weigh the pros and cons. Civilians don't need guns for civilian life unless they live in some slum side with dealers, slingers, fiends, and robbers who are packing arms. For most cases aside from high crime areas, a firearm is not needed to protect one's own well being.