(February 16, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Shell B Wrote:(February 16, 2018 at 3:57 pm)wallym Wrote: It's a fair idea. The practicality of investigating every threat made on the internet is where I think things go awry. But when the next guy doesn't threaten to kill kids on the internet, we'll need a new plan for him.
And what seems inevitable, is that the rules are going to end up disproportionately disarming poor people and minorities. Maybe that's okay theoretically, but I'd be surprised if it goes over well in any other way.
Having plans for different situations is fine by me.
I'm not sure that's true. Affluent white kids are pretty trigger happy. I can't even think of a single minority school shooter.
If you start listing reasons to take away the right to own a gun though...criminal activity. violence in school. drop out of school. drug use. etc... It's going to be very hard to set up a system so strict it nails affluent white kids without hitting the poor/minorities.
Drug laws are a good example of the struggle there. Affluent white folks aren't filling up the jails even though they use just as much as anyone else. Probably more.
