@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
Think about a small place like a church building filled with armed members just waiting for a shooter to start shooting. Ideally, they envision a sharpshooter shooting down the shooter when it could very well be that everybody pulls out their guns and guns get fired all over the place by the good guy and bad guy shooters. I guess that freedom's collateral damage. It should be just trained guards in churches, not everyone armed to the teeth.
If there were multiple bad guys going into churches for gun battles, it would provoke a counter-terrorism movement that would target gunless people based on their political affiliation, like what happened with Anders Breivic shooting up the social-democrat party's summer camp.
Gun rights opponents think that if the collateral damage gets bad enough, it will result in stricter gun laws being passed; but stricter gun laws passing would also result in more anti-governmental terrorism; so there's no real end to it; just ever more escalation.
The best thing to do is to just accept the 2nd amendment and prevent escalation. The extremists who procure terrorist violence on either side have nothing to do with the vast majority of people who support that side of the political divide. I.e. Anders Breivic's actions wouldn't be favored or celebrated by most people who support gun rights and dislike the left, but that wouldn't stop someone like Breivic from taking matters into their own hands and committing an act of terrorism.