Conservatives should have the honesty to recognize that guns are a tool often used in these mass murders. The more efficient the tool, the more people the nut is able to kill quickly. Some guns are more efficient for this purpose, particularly those designed for combat, where a lot of firepower is important.
Had the recent shooter in CT been using a double barrel shotgun, it is highly likely the death toll would have been a lot lower.
IOW, the freedom we have by the 2nd Amendment means that an unpleasant side effect is that occasionally some nut will use these weapons to kill a lot of people. It is at least to some extent the cost of that freedom.
We recognize this with other types of tools, though not consciously. If we had a national speed limit of 10 mph that was effectively enforced, the highway death toll would drop to nearly zero. But instead we’re willing to pay the price of 30,000 dead Americans a year to be able to function efficiently on the highways.
If there are a lot of guns around, and a normal number of nuts, every so often one of the nuts will take one of the guns and follow the direction of the voices in his head. And a bunch of people will die.
We will always have nuts. With guns very hard to get, there would be fewer such incidents, but at considerable cost to freedom.
I agree with everything you said.
That said, a sick mind will find a way.
Worst school killing in the nation’s history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
The freedom to carry would mean your death toll wouldn t be as high when thr nutjubs started shooting... They would be taken out almost immediately by armed bystanders.
Your correlation of making guns harder to get to make the death toll less is flawed... True freedom to carry will mean the nutjobs kill less.
Shall not be infringed.