Ubiq
I don’t know what the video culture is in Europe (I would imagine it’s much worse in arayos and probably similar in murder)
And perhaps their stricter gun laws keep them safer.
That’s why I keep falling back on the stupid answer of the second amendment.
It’s difficult for me to imagine that the second amendment excluded weaponry that was not yet invented at the time.
It’s more probable that it meant any available weaponry.
So if they want to change /amend/abolish it, by all means, go ahead.
According to your way, we should ignore all the societal breakdown that is causing people to lose any semblance of worth for human life, and deny people their freedom to something enshrined in the law of their country.
To me that is a step towards communism/dictatorship/totalitarianism which by the way always leads to way more murders than all the civilian mass murders of the entire history of America.
A government must follow. The laws it operates under. That is imperative.
A private citizen who breaks the law almost always has a personal pressure to do so. As such it is not intrinsically societally destructive or dangerous.
A government that does not follow its own laws is a terror.
Yes this argument can and should be used in any case where government infringes on individual rights enshrined in law.
The fact that people will die who could have been saved is an unfortunate fallout from the fact we live in an imperfect world (until moshiach )
How many innocent people died while the allies bombed the axis countries?
Would you say they should not have done it? Of course not because on the other side millions were being saved.
It’s always a trade off.
Sad but true