Thread: Gun Control
View Single Post
Old October 15, 2017, 03:27 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,945
Let me break some of this down:

However, I've changed my mind on how this should be regulated after seeing tragedy after tragedy and nothing being done to try and make impactful positive changes.
First of all, I'd task you with pointing me to one gun control law in this country that has actually achieved its stated aim: to demonstrably reduce gun violence. This won't be easy. The plain fact is, laws restricting the ownership of certain firearms, or by certain people, are a lazy, incomplete answer.

As long as we're only focusing on the instruments used, we're failing to ask why we keep creating monsters who think it's acceptable to kill strangers. Banning bump stocks or placing arbitrary caps on magazine size will do absolutely nothing. We need a new approach to the problem.

Australia banned certain types of guns after a mass shooting and one hasn't happened since.
Australia wasn't really having them before Port Arthur, so that argument is a bit deficient. There has been one mass shooting since then, though Australian authorities moved the goal posts to reclassify it.

While there are claims the 1996 NFA reduced violent crime, it was already on the decline before then, and a 2008 University of Melbourne study struggled to find whether the law had any effect on crime.

In fact, actual compliance with the 1996 buyback was spotty at best. Most of the weapons they wanted "off the streets" are still in circulation.

Mass shooting are their own animal and what allows them to happen is the precision and effectiveness of the guns we allow citizens to own in this country.
There has been no major advancement in firearms technology within the lifetime of most people in this debate. Any firearm used in these mass shootings is based on technology at least half a century old. Yet the rise in mass shootings has only been going on for about three decades.

There is simply no technical advancement that suddenly made mass shootings deadlier. Again, we're back to blaming the hardware rather than the act.

I think its really selfish to put your hobbies and enjoyment ahead of protecting society from mass shootings.
I've been hearing this quite a bit lately, and sorry, but it's a cheap and dishonest argument. Preventing me from engaging in my "hobbies and enjoyment" is in no way going to protect society from mass shootings.

Here's a fun thought experiment: let's say we took things your way and banned all semiautomatics. If we still have mass shootings, will the law be repealed? Nope. It'll just be an excuse for a law on pump-action shotguns. Then another mass shooting, and a ban on all pistols. Then another, and a ban on all centerfire guns. This is how it goes, and it's how the gun-control lobby wants it to go.

With all due respect, you've been had. It's not your fault. Gun-control advocates have effective control over the narrative, and they've been pushing it for decades. We've all been fed the lie so pervasively and for so long, it takes on a life of its own.

But it's still a lie. They're selling you tollbooths to lower drunk-driving fatalities and banning Judy Bloom books from the school library to stop kids from doing drugs.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Page generated in 0.03052 seconds with 8 queries