Anti-gun advocates keep saying it's time for a serious discussion on guns. None of them are speaking seriously, but they all seem to want to have this discussion. Since they can't be serious, allow me to start.
My first question, how many people is it ok to kill?
The anti-gun movement tells us that high capacity magazines are a problem. The thinking behind this is that the more bullets in the magazine, the less the shooter has to reload, allowing him to kill as quickly as he can pull the trigger. The more bullets in the gun, the more carnage. Fair enough.
The obvious question becomes, how many shots should they be able to fire, remembering that each shot is a potential dead person. Is 5 enough? Is 6 too many?
If you believe round capacity is the problem, the moment you decide on an acceptable number of rounds a gun can hold, you are saying you are ok with that many people dying. Don't get upset with me, I'm just showing you the end result of your logic using actually logic.
My next question is, what part of "criminal" are you not understanding?
What happened in Newtown was not only a tragedy, it was a crime. Murder is a crime. Committing any crime with a firearm is a federal offense in addition to whatever the original crime is. Meaning, if you kill someone with a knife, you will not be punished as severely as if you did it with a gun. So not only was the shooting last Friday a crime, it was a criminal crime.
Forget for a moment that our society actually teaches that it's more of a crime to kill one way than another, none of these attempts to make a crime more of a crime stops criminals. By the very definition, a criminal is someone that disregards the laws. In what world does it make sense that more laws will suddenly keep criminals from breaking laws?
My final question, who carved David, Michelangelo or the chisel?
If you need me to explain that question further, you aren't ready for a serious discussion.