Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound
|
"the only way to have stopped this attack would be to..."
You're doing what too many (in my opinion) people on my side do, in regards to this question. I concede that there is no constitutional way to prevent all of these attacks from occurring. You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?
What if we can make the attacks harder to pull off, and what if we can reduce the likely body count, when attacks do take place? For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people?
If someone proposes gun control, I don't think it's a valid rebuttal to point out that any given proposal, will not be a 100% guarantee of 0 future attacks. The minimum requirement for a proposal to be worthwhile, shouldn't be a guarantee of perfect results. If a proposal makes things better (but not perfect), isn't that maybe a good thing?
We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws?