Why don't we look at the actual weapons used, how they were used, and what modifications/restrictions (if any) would have reduced/eliminated the damage? For example, would banning certain weapons actually remove them from circulation? Could they simply be modified or replaced by other weapons?
It seems that we are debating a particular solution without having specifically determined the problem. Expedient feel-good legislation often results long term headaches.
It seems that we are debating a particular solution without having specifically determined the problem. Expedient feel-good legislation often results long term headaches.