There were many mass casualty incidents without the use of guns. 9-11, Oklahoma City, the tractor attacks in E”Y, the truck ramming attacks, particularly the one in Nice that killed 86 people. Banning guns is an emotional reaction. The right reaction is to determine the root cause of why these attacks are perpetuated, not to ban every possible means of attack.
It’s not an emotional reaction to ban one particularly efficient method of mass killing. It is folly to not try to save some lives because you can’t save all.
Do you really believe that if Nikolas Cruz wasn’t able to buy a gun, he would have rammed a truck into the school?
I’m all for determining “the root cause of why these attacks are perpetuated” (hint- some people are evil), but not to preclude taking common sense measures to prevent some of these events.
If we determine the root cause of why these attacks are perpetuated, and somehow manage to eradicate the desire some people have to commit these heinous crimes, then we’ll talk about allowing people to indiscriminately own AR-15s and the like. Until then, why give them the weapon which makes it easier and more likely to kill?