People keep justifying maintaining the status quo on guns by pointing at terrorist activities involving trucks and bombs in Europe.
Are deaths from trucks and bombs in Europe equivalent to gun-related deaths in the US?
Is there really no benefit in trying anything to reduce the numbers of deaths even if there’s no guarantee it will work?
If in certain parts of the US it’s too easy to obtain guns is it not worth trying to make it more difficult?
For instance someone mentioned the acid attacks that have been in the news in the UK recently, mainly perpetrated by teenagers. The government has responded by making it illegal for under 18s from purchasing acid-based household chemicals. Sure it won’t stop the ones committed to harming someone with acid (they can get an adult to buy it for them or they can presumably steal what their parents buy) but it will make it more difficult. Surely it’s worth a try? If it prevents one opportunistic acid attack isn’t it worth it? .
I realise the latest atrocity in Las Vegas was not opportunistic but surely going back to what earlier posts have written - can there not be honest dialogue as to the causes of these kinds of atrocities in the US, what could have prevented them and a genuine commitment to trying to reduce these numbers by whatever means are found to be necessary?