(November 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:(November 6, 2017 at 12:09 pm)wallym Wrote: "This is unacceptable, we need to do something" will be the refrain after any mass murder. If you give all the background checks, and all the modification requirements, and whatever else you want, there will still be a mass murder, and the response will never be "This is acceptable, nothing we can do."
The NRA is smart enough to recognize this. It's not a battle over gun rights, it's a war. If it were an issue of background checks, and that was going to end the debate, I'd bet the NRA would happily concede the point. But that's not how it will work. Because every event will result in another call to do something forever until guns are illegal.
Ah, the Slippery Slope fallacy.
Common sense, to me, says that if you are going to say "This needs to be stopped! Mass murder is unacceptable!" The goal is no guns. There isn't a number of children that can be shot in a Sandy Hook scenario that is going to be okay. If the guy in Vegas kills 5 people with a deer rifle, that's still a cause for outrage. If the acceptable number of mass murders with guns is 0, you can't have guns around. That would be my take if I were a humanist. We need to get rid of the guns. Feasibility would of course be an issue, but everything would be pushing towards as close to that end goal as possible.
I'm not a humanist though. I don't care either way. Take all the guns. Give everybody a free gun. Whatever. I'm uninvested on the issue. That's probably why I don't have any problems with thinking things through from both sides.