> Societies also implemented security measures after terrorist attacks.

i would argue that those measures are costing more than the attacks themselves. It's security theater - high cost (in terms of time and resources), high visibility (politically). But doesn't really prevent any terrorist attacks, because terrorist attacks are fairly rare all things considered.

So you can say that those terrorists' attack succeeded in making the lives of those they attacked worse, and it's because we let them dictate due to "fear", rather than rationally ignore them.

>These are extremely rare events because we take measures to prevent them.

When you use the TSA and Patriot Act as an example of meaningful, useful legislation, you're probably not on strong footing. One is considered an expensive boondoggle jobs program, the other is tasked with illegal mass spying of US citizens and deprivation of rights. Neither shows any strong evidence of preventing terrorist acts. Its legislation like these that give gun owners pause of any "common sense" gun control solutions implemented based on emotion.

Apexalpha was talkimg about bataclan in France. The european context is super different from the US context. For example this year someone killed one person in a Amoklauf (~schoolshooting) in germany with a sports crossbow. These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public. As they should be. What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?

>What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?

This isn't a very compelling argument, and it's kinda intellectually dishonest because you wouldn't accept any answer I gave you. You are now acting as "dear leader," who decides what individuals do or don't need.

Why does anyone NEED to go over 10 miles per hour, why does anyone NEED more than one pair of shoes? Why does anyone NEED coffee, tea, beer, lots of things, why does anyone NEED a fast computer? Why does anyone NEED cologne or perfume? Why does anyone NEED dessert? Why does anyone NEED fashionable clothes? Why does anyone NEED art? How do you even justify that outside of a profit motive in a way you will accept? See it's a trick you are playing.

Of course to answer your question, a gun would be the preferred tool. If you ever go camping in the woods, they are certainly handy. If someone tries to rape or murder you, it would certainly come in handy. If you were a woman (or a man even) and attracted a crazy stalker, invaluable. If you have a massive plague where the police stop working and society stops functioning correctly, it would certainly come in handy. Remember covid?

>These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public.

Of course, someone will kill someone with a bow and arrow, then it will be banned, then someone will kill someone with a knife, and they will ban the "scary looking" ones. Then someone will use a slingshot and those will get banned. You know it's all just a theatrical overreaction at that point to placate the hysterical masses.

Lol. All the things you listed are more or less harmless to others, or general purpose tools/forms (mihht dispute art in this regard but I'm personally very willing to accept the dangers that art poses). A crossbow is an updated medieval weapon, that by the way, lower aristocracy (knights) at that time, tried to declare a warcrime, because it could penetrate the state of the art armour... What's it with the desserts? They are tasty and, if you're not scared of crazy clowns that try to embaress you in public, more or less harmless.Certainly not a weapon. Our forests here went through some thousand years of culture and there really isn't anything a manly man would need to defend himself against. Maybe the ones on the border to/in czech republic, but where that is the case, these areas are natural reserves, and you're not supposed to go there unless you leave no traces. Certainly not shooting left and right on animals for some sporting fun.

Well there is possibly enjoyment in all of these things. Now you might say: "yeah thats true for weapons also". And that I think is precisely the problem. Why do you think the enjoyment of having a weapon, owning it, feeling the potential power of it, should be acceptaple? If you want to argue then why I dont make that argument for other things, I'll habe to tell you: There is a word for people who argue like that: imbecile. Stop playing stupid games by seemingly following sime logic, that is purely linguistical and onedimensional and take responibility for xou're critical cognitive capabilities, by realising that weapons are a different category than desserts and computers, and try to realise that the enjoyment of something that is made to kill might be a perversion, not a right.

>All the things you listed are more or less harmless to others, or general purpose tools/forms (mihht dispute art in this regard but I'm personally very willing to accept the dangers that art poses).

Yes, but why do you NEED them, isn't that the argument you made?