(08-08-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-08-2019 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/4-k...li=BBnbfcL

Better background checks and an assault weapons ban would have prevented this.

OO sees someone speeding on the highway. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

OO sees someone ignore a stop sign. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

I'll be honest lad... I really have a problem with this position... and it's mirrored lots of places from the left so clearly it resonates with the left... but it is a HUGE red flag for the right... so it's an issue that needs to be worked through if we're ever going to get anywhere.

Similar to what Owl said, but I'll say it differently....

first the analogy. It's more like seeing somebody doing 150mph, which is already illegal.... and something only a few people WOULD do much less COULD do... and saying, let's ban all cars.

Now to the reality

Taking away a Constitutional right is a big deal, even if one thinks that right is 'not important' anymore. It should require some very strong assurances that the price being paid is worth it... and the price being paid is NOT 'you can't have guns anymore'... the price is 'the government can take away your rights'.

I think if there were even reasonable belief that a total ban on guns would meaningfully reduce the number of mass killings in this country, you'd have a lot more support... but there isn't.

A total ban on alcohol produced a bigger problem. A total ban on drugs arguably has as well.

When we talk about 'common sense' restrictions, they're only 'common sense' to people who have the common sense not to kill people with them.

I'd like for someone to take a look at every mass shooter, and apply some of these 'common sense' solutions and see how big a dent it would have made. Every one I've seen shows that they either passed or would pass a background check, OR they already broke the law in having them... Focusing on the gun us silly... the FBI classifies a 'gun' (when talking about restrictions) as the lower... the action... which is why people can buy the action for a legal AR-15, and then put things like a bump stock on it. Barrells are easy to affix to guns, so are grips... and the magazines can be fabricated in almost any garage, or even 3d printed.

so it seems clear that a common sense solution would be better enforcement of existing laws