Yserb, i personally don’t see a need for more than one gun per person, because I don’t believe in hunting. But Americans do, and a firearm for self defense isn’t ideal for hunting, according to those who engage in the barbaric activity – and goyim are allowed to do so under the 7 mitzvos, so it’s not something we have to fight against.
One can ask why a person would need more than one set of kitchen knives, too; i don’t know if it’s a fair law in practice. I don’t know of a correlation study between the amount of guns owned by an individual and the propensity for violence.
I agree with lowering the amount of guns overall, and theoretically limiting the amount one can own will do that to an extent, but not a large enough extent that would justify the precedent of the government limiting people’s ownership of legal items…we don’t have such a law anywhere else, and it can be a slippery slope.
Now if it can be shown that ownership of many weapons increases the chances of violence, then maybe i can support it. But a lot of the motivation seems to be because “big scary gun” goes together with “big scary arsenal” and “big scary magazine”
I don’t think those things make much of a difference.
A mass shooter really could do the same amount of damage with a glock and a few magazines, as he would do with an ar-15.
Actually, i think rifles are safer than small guns, because they can’t be concealed; theres a reason why laws regarding long guns are far more lax than handguns…while used in mass shootings for some reason that probably only psychopaths understand, thats about the only time they end up hurting people; handguns account for over 90% of all gun violence, because they’re concealable and portable.
but i think that regulation should come from the top down; limits on shops and manufacturing, but in terms of what a consumer can own…it seems like an overreach.