ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
This is the thing, and the reason why some of the narrative bothers me. I've argued that there's no indication any of the proposals will solve or even slow down the rate of mass shootings (which actually aren't increasing in number, although the number of people killed has gone up some: https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...hootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678 ), and that the assault rifle ban under Clinton was basically an arbitrary hodgepodge of stuff that - if it had any effect at all - would have to have been almost coincidental.
But what if it saves one life? Isn't that worth it?
That's the issue. It's a phrase and a benchmark that are applied selectively, and tend to get used when the other person basically doesn't know if something will help, but they have to do SOMETHING, so they throw stuff against the wall in the HOPE that it will improve things. And they will argue correctly that it probably won't make things WORSE... so what's the problem?
The problem is that the argument can be carried out infinitesimally. Let's say we re-enact the ban. And then the next shooting takes places. And the next. Because we all know it will.
The same voices who shout down any actions that don't involve gun regulations will then point out - correctly - that the law we enacted didn't help. They will then go back into the same cycle, which is that we didn't do ENOUGH and we need MORE laws and MORE controls and we should outlaw MORE types of guns. And once again, the hard things will be ignored, because tackling bureaucratic inefficiency is hard, unglamorous work, and legislators don't get to do what they like best, which is pass laws.
So someone will finally say "you know, the gun nuts always told us that one rifle's just as deadly as the next, and they're right. We need to get rid of all of them. After all, if it saves one life..."
But what if it saves one life? Isn't that worth it?
That's the issue. It's a phrase and a benchmark that are applied selectively, and tend to get used when the other person basically doesn't know if something will help, but they have to do SOMETHING, so they throw stuff against the wall in the HOPE that it will improve things. And they will argue correctly that it probably won't make things WORSE... so what's the problem?
The problem is that the argument can be carried out infinitesimally. Let's say we re-enact the ban. And then the next shooting takes places. And the next. Because we all know it will.
The same voices who shout down any actions that don't involve gun regulations will then point out - correctly - that the law we enacted didn't help. They will then go back into the same cycle, which is that we didn't do ENOUGH and we need MORE laws and MORE controls and we should outlaw MORE types of guns. And once again, the hard things will be ignored, because tackling bureaucratic inefficiency is hard, unglamorous work, and legislators don't get to do what they like best, which is pass laws.
So someone will finally say "you know, the gun nuts always told us that one rifle's just as deadly as the next, and they're right. We need to get rid of all of them. After all, if it saves one life..."