![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When the NRA agrees with your gun-control measure, that's a good sign it won't make a difference
Actually, outlawing bump-stocks and other after-market mods that convert semiautomatic guns to automatic guns almost certainly won't hurt, and might even save a few lives. Not many -- after all, when is the last shooting you heard about that involved such a modified gun? The interesting thing -- in both good and bad ways -- is that it means the NRA supporting a legal restriction on something involving guns, for the first time in probably several decades. On the good side, it reminds the NRA of its one-time focus on gun safety. On the bad side, the NRA hasn't actually changed since last week, and this makes them look momentarily sane and moderate.
Anyway, in the same breath with supporting a possible ban on bump-stocks, they say "Restricting the ability of law-abiding Americans to buy guns will do nothing to prevent ... the criminal act of a madman."
WTF? Stephen Paddock *was* the NRA's perfect law-abiding gun-owning American until the moment that he fired on a crowd of concert-goers. Restricting his ability to buy guns would most CERTAINLY have prevented this "criminal act of a madman". Sure, he would still have been a homicidal madman, but if he had gone berserk with a butcher knife, he might have killed two or three people, and injured half a dozen. If he had been able to buy hand-guns, but not long-range semiautomatic rifles with large ammunition clips, he might have killed half a dozen people and injured dozens.
But of course we can't write a law for the guy who's going to become a mass murderer; in reality, any such law would have to apply to millions of Americans. What would be the effect of such a law? Well, the tiny fraction of gun owners who want to carry out mass shootings would have a harder time of it, saving lives. Hunters might have to stalk their prey to closer range before shooting, or they might have to take an extra second between shots, forcing them to either be better hunters or take home fewer prizes. Fewer children would shoot themselves, their friends and relatives, saving lives. A really strict gun law would even reduce the number of suicides, saving lives. Sounds like a win all around to me.
Rep. Scalise, the guy who was shot at the Congressional baseball practice, said (paraphrased from memory) "It's a shame that some people can't hear about a mass shooting without thinking 'Great: another opportunity for me to push my gun-control agenda!'" Wait: do you *really* think restricting guns is the goal? No, saving innocent lives is the goal. Preventing human suffering is the goal. Restricting guns is just one of the possible means to that end -- a really obvious means, that seems to work well in every other developed nation on earth, but only one means. For my part, I think it's a shame that some people *can* hear about a mass shooting without thinking 'How could we prevent this from happening again... and again... and again?'"
Anyway, in the same breath with supporting a possible ban on bump-stocks, they say "Restricting the ability of law-abiding Americans to buy guns will do nothing to prevent ... the criminal act of a madman."
WTF? Stephen Paddock *was* the NRA's perfect law-abiding gun-owning American until the moment that he fired on a crowd of concert-goers. Restricting his ability to buy guns would most CERTAINLY have prevented this "criminal act of a madman". Sure, he would still have been a homicidal madman, but if he had gone berserk with a butcher knife, he might have killed two or three people, and injured half a dozen. If he had been able to buy hand-guns, but not long-range semiautomatic rifles with large ammunition clips, he might have killed half a dozen people and injured dozens.
But of course we can't write a law for the guy who's going to become a mass murderer; in reality, any such law would have to apply to millions of Americans. What would be the effect of such a law? Well, the tiny fraction of gun owners who want to carry out mass shootings would have a harder time of it, saving lives. Hunters might have to stalk their prey to closer range before shooting, or they might have to take an extra second between shots, forcing them to either be better hunters or take home fewer prizes. Fewer children would shoot themselves, their friends and relatives, saving lives. A really strict gun law would even reduce the number of suicides, saving lives. Sounds like a win all around to me.
Rep. Scalise, the guy who was shot at the Congressional baseball practice, said (paraphrased from memory) "It's a shame that some people can't hear about a mass shooting without thinking 'Great: another opportunity for me to push my gun-control agenda!'" Wait: do you *really* think restricting guns is the goal? No, saving innocent lives is the goal. Preventing human suffering is the goal. Restricting guns is just one of the possible means to that end -- a really obvious means, that seems to work well in every other developed nation on earth, but only one means. For my part, I think it's a shame that some people *can* hear about a mass shooting without thinking 'How could we prevent this from happening again... and again... and again?'"