Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
What is the answer?
Something, or nothing? If something, what?
Gun control will work in the long term. What will happen is the same thing that happened with cigarettes. The use has declined over the decades since we started placing warnings on them, society has placed burdens on smokers, the health risks have been highlighted and we've taxed the holy you-know-what out of them.
They are still available but much less front-and-center than they used to be.
It takes an incrediby long time to do this but in the end, it is worth every minute spent.
What you do is make the high volumes cartridges harder to get via mail order, place a surtax on them to make them cost prohibitive, and manufacturers sell less of them. So less are made. It is supply and demand.
Lets say that we have a bazillion of these clips out there. Over time, they wear out, get damaged, stolen, destroyed by various means such as fires, floods, etc... So the Bazillion becomes a bathousand over time. Meanwhile, the public becomes safer by increments since you're not able to log on and buy them.
You can replicate the model with things such as the AR15, AK47, etc.. and you're not diminishing the rights under the 2nd amendment at all.
Meanwhile, what you do is place armed guards in schools--men and women trained in aggressive deterence. At no point do you put guns in the hands of teachers or students. Thats batshit crazy.
Human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon but if you took everyone who can't swim and kept them away from water, you'd have fewer drowning deaths. If you stem the tide of guns, eventually, you'll have fewer on the streets.
It's not politics; it's logistics.
It's retarded, because you're conflating two incredibly different situations, and two WILDLY different goals.
In the case of cigarettes, you're trying to affect the behavior of the general, mostly-sane population, and convince them to buy and use fewer cigarettes in general, because the general, everyday possession and use of cigarettes is considered bad and harmful.
In the case of guns, the problem - for most of us, anyway - ISN'T the general, everyday possession and use of firearms. It's the handful of crazy, violent people who decide to go on rampages.
So we can conclude one of two things.
1) The correct analogy would be to the small handful of crazy people who are going to torture their wives and children with lit cigarettes REGARDLESS of what the rest of the people around them do concerning cigarettes.
2) Leftists aren't trying to solve the problem of crazed shooting rampages at all, but what they perceive as the REAL problem, which is that PEOPLE SHOULDN'T OWN GUNS! It doesn't fit in with their ideal world toward which they're determined to work, regardless of whether or not anyone else wants it and no matter WHOSE rights, freedoms, and basic safety they have to trample and which tragedies they have to exploit.
So YOU tell US which conclusion we should go with.