General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: SE Cupp doesn't know what "rapid-fire" or Military grade weapons" means [View all]OneGrassRoot
(23,954 posts)when I said People like her, and most of the gun enthusiasts I encounter are using that argument to deflect and stop discussion, not engage it. I was referring to her (or my distinct impression of her, not only a few minutes ago but other times I've seen her), and others I've interacted with, family and friends, who are gun enthusiasts.
Just sayin'.
Hopefully someone will show the clip which prompted this OP. I may be wrong about the reply including Columbine.
Essentially, the ability to kill 100 people in a matter of a few minutes due to whatever -- be it the type of weapon, magazine clips, etc. -- is what most of us are referring to.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but the term "weapons of mass destruction" is correct; we don't need such weapons so readily available to all citizens, in my opinion. Criminals can always find means of committing atrocities and mass destruction, but there doesn't seem to be a really valid reason for people having such weapons which can kill many in a few minutes.
Is there a good reason? No one has ever answered that question that I have found.
Most people simply want them because they can have them, it seems.