>So, we force these killers to use other methods.
Not a good argument.
Allowing civilians to have assault weapons is either a good idea or it isn't
When something is as lethal as these things, the test should not be - "why should I get rid of it?" or "will it really solve THE PROBLEM?'"
It should be "what good can it possibly do?"
If that has no good answer, we should get rid of them.
Does anyone think that civilians should be allowed to have nerve gas?
Why is this so difficult?