No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of “magnitude of lethality” that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
Literally every single government on this planet classifies and restricts weapons based on potential of danger/lethality.
Anything from knife types/blade lengths to gun caliber is regulated everywhere. The same applies to chemicals with which explosives/poisons can be manufactured. You can’t order them in any country without filling out forms.
It’s literally the most basic type of risk assessment possible and by far the most effective way to reduce harm.
My point is there is clearly a limit to how many people a weapon can kill before no sane person would allow people to possess it.
Apparently, for you this number is greater than 61 deaths per weapon, seeing as this is the number of people killed in the Las Vegas Mass Shooting.
So, which is it? 100? 1000? 1 million? When is a weapon too dangerous to be available commonplace in your opinion?
No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of “magnitude of lethality” that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
Literally every single government on this planet classifies and restricts weapons based on potential of danger/lethality.
Anything from knife types/blade lengths to gun caliber is regulated everywhere. The same applies to chemicals with which explosives/poisons can be manufactured. You can’t order them in any country without filling out forms.
It’s literally the most basic type of risk assessment possible and by far the most effective way to reduce harm.