(February 16, 2018 at 3:29 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote:(February 16, 2018 at 1:50 pm)wallym Wrote: Ideally, he wouldn't legally be able to get his hand on a pistol. But I'm not sure what sort of profiling would be necessary, and even possible constitutionally speaking.
Do you care that it was a semi-automatic rifle, and not a handgun? That's where I think gun control advocates come off a bit wonky. Because nobody believes that him killing 8 people with a handgun would be any more acceptable than killing 14 with an AR-15. It's a bit of mitigation, but it doesn't really solve the problem in any way.
The point that a semi-automatic rifle is deadlier than a hand gun, that is a fact.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunda...-myth.html
Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.
This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year...
---
I'm fine with banning some guns, or even all guns. I don't really care. It's just the AR-15 stuff is an odd way to tackle the problem, because it's a small portion of the problem, and doesn't solve the problem in any way. I think a comprehensive plan rather than a half-ass band-aid might make more headway.