Surprise surprise. .another shooting

[Shiranu]

It's an extremely small inconvenience...

So is not having a gun, unless you make up the 0.002% (to be fair, this number is probably closer to 2%, sorry for the earlier hyperbole) of the population that uses it for self-sustaining or killing varmint.

You want to go target shooting? Go to a range that rents out guns, that's what I do. The amount that inconveniences me or anyone else does not out-weigh the "inconvenience" of people being killed left and right because of incompetence. Want to sustain yourself or protect your life-stock? I know very few places that don't allow farmers bolt-action rifles or shotguns.

...but I don't support the banning of any types of assault rifles...

If we are going to use convenience as criteria for not supporting, then this becomes even more ridiculous. There is zero reason to own an assault rifle other than, "I WANT ITTTTT!!!!". Pistols you MIGHT have an argument for, bolt action rifles certainly, pump-action shotguns, certainly... but magazine-fed rifles? No, that is strictly a matter of wanting.

This is coming from someone who REALLLLY wants to buy a IWI Tavor Sar 18'.

That said, pistols are the biggest culprit of suicides, accidental deaths and murder. I think the assault rifle issue is blown out of proportion, but at the same time... it is just not a necessary weapon to own.

[FaithIsFilth]

One is taking something away from people, or banning them from owning it, while the other is fastening a small strap around your shoulder/waist. You are not banned from owning something when you have to use a seat belt. I don't see these as similar at all, but I respect that you do.

I have never owned a gun or even fired one. To me, the mass shootings that happen are too rare to warrant any kind of gun ban.

[Unbeliever]

Another, in Nashville. Seem to be a lot of copycats. More to come, I bet.