USA Shootings (5 Viewers)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Sure, we won't magically get rid of all guns but assuming we had enough people supporting a ban that would just be an excuse not to do it.  Since we all love our bad analogies around here let me give mine - my house will never be 100% clean but that doesn't mean I want to leave food and trash everywhere.  As it is now we just sit back and do nothing.  I do know it won't happen or happen soon but I do think it can be useful in a discussion to see where people's head are. 

Yeah that’s a bad analogy here are some better ones.

 Alcohol is bad for you, the country tried to ban it once.  It was a disaster.  People still drank alcohol but there were all sorts of violent and socially undesirable side effects of the ban.

Drugs are bad for you, so we ban them.  That has also been terrible.  People still use drugs but the War on Drugs has destroyed families and communities and been a huge failure.

Abortion is arguably undesirable.  But when it’s been banned people still get abortions illegally in unsafe conditions.

The truth is that people when people really want stuff, banning it doesn’t stop them from getting the stuff it just creates lots of bad side effects.

 

[Ilov80s]

Yeah that’s a bad analogy here are some better ones.

 Alcohol is bad for you, the country tried to ban it once.  It was a disaster.  People still drank alcohol but there were all sorts of violent and socially undesirable side effects of the ban.

Drugs are bad for you, so we ban them.  That has also been terrible.  People still use drugs but the War on Drugs has destroyed families and communities and been a huge failure.

Abortion is arguably undesirable.  But when it’s been banned people still get abortions illegally in unsafe conditions.

The truth is that people when people really want stuff, banning it doesn’t stop them from getting the stuff it just creates lots of bad side effects.

Agree and the US has a love of guns that most other countries didn't. It's in our DNA- Wild West, cebturies of no strong central govt presence to provide law/order, affinity for gangsters, etc. What we should do is not ban them but be more serious in how we monitor them and in what types of guns we allow. 

 

[Stealthycat]

The Constitution does not say you have a right to own an unregistered gun. Courts have ruled gun registration is ok and even staunch pro gun lawyers didn't bring registration in front of the Supreme Court when they had the chance in 09. 

it doesn't say anything about registration at all - and the rulings change from decade to decade

none the less I'm telling you right now, I will never register my guns, the Govt doesn't need to know I have them, 1 or 20

 

[timschochet]

none the less I'm telling you right now, I will never register my guns, the Govt doesn't need to know I have them, 1 or 20

Yes they do. And yes you will. Eventually we WILL get these laws passed, and you will obey them or be forced to give up your guns or go to jail.

 

[Stealthycat]

I'll say this - I appreciate the fact that you are earnest in your beliefs. On the other hand, you make terrible points consistently. Yes, people drive drunk even though there are laws against it. BUT WE PASSED TOUGHER LAWS AGAINST IT AND AS A RESULT, DRUNK DRIVING FATALITIES WENT DOWN. Read that again. And then read it again until you understand what it means. Laws don't keep everyone from doing illegal stuff but if the punishment is sufficient and the laws are enforced, they generally do what they are designed to do.

I'm tired of the "x happens and we do nothing about that so why do anything about this" argument (which is completely false). I'm tired of the "it's going to happen even if there are laws, so let's do nothing" argument. I'm tired of you deflecting to everything but guns. In other words, I'm done with this. Enjoy your Saturday.

is it safe to say then that the punishments are not hard enough for people who kill ?

backtrack, you missed my point I think ............ where are all the tougher laws on driving drunk? the laws that affect 100% of the people who drive ......where are they?

do you have to breath into your car before it allows you to drive it? no. Do you have a background check to buy alcohol? no. When you purchase gas, a background check? The "tougher laws" do not target the 99.9% who drive safe, they target those .1 % who do not, right ?

gun laws do just the opposite - they focus on law abiding citizens

see what I mean ?

if you're going to do something - plan to do something that affects those who wish to murder. I, like 99.9 % of gun owners, am as safe to you as you are to me. I pose zero threat and it doesn't matter if I am a one revolver owner or if I have 25 AK47's. I am zero threat to you - legal gun owners are not the problem, but the gun laws you wish to pass only truly affect gun owners, legal ones. 

there is the problem when trying to get these two sides to see each others point of view 

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes they do. And yes you will. Eventually we WILL get these laws passed, and you will obey them or be forced to give up your guns or go to jail.

you would make me a criminal ? why ?

and no, I will never register my guns ........... I guess you want the BATF to storm my house, possibly killing me and destroying and taking my personal property? why would you want to do that ? 

 

[randall146]

I still say arming schools is the #1 deterrent and the left seems absolutely against that for some reason. I don't know why. We have been desensitized to killing and human death in the US. Abortion meh. Auto fatalities? meh. mass shootings? meh. Inner city violence? meh. Just numbers, it goes away in a few days with the media reporting something new. Its sick and its sad it really is

An armed guard is an answer to only a small segment of school shootings - the well armed mass-murders. It may have prevented or reduced Columbine or Newtown. It wouldn’t have prevented any of the 2018 school shootings. 

The fear is that armed guards will lead to a different kind of gun death - the over-reacting school cop

 

[timschochet]

you would make me a criminal ? why ?

and no, I will never register my guns ........... I guess you want the BATF to storm my house, possibly killing me and destroying and taking my personal property? why would you want to do that ? 

I don’t want to make you a criminal. You would make yourself one, if you failed to obey a very reasonable law. I don’t want to take away any of your rights of gun ownership. But in order to fight crime we need to know who owns what firearms. Sorry if you have a problem with that. 

 

[Stealthycat]

What we should do is not ban them but be more serious in how we monitor them and in what types of guns we allow. 

and that will have zero affect on crime

its not the law abiding that's the problem - timschochet wants to force me as a legal gun owner into giving up my property or bowing to his demands or face prosecution? Why? I'm NOT a criminal and I'm NOT the problem

ya'll are focusing on the 99.9 % of legal gun owners who pose no problem and ignore the .1% of criminals - blows my mind

again, it would be like installing breathalizers in all automobiles - you blow to go. No private sales on automobiles. You have background checks every time you buy gas. Serious regulations on speed - all auto's have regulators on them now. When you buy alcohol, background checks. 

do all that on 99.9 % of the people who never drink and drive - is that your solution to stopping drunk driving ? seriously ? do you not see the analogy here ?

 

[Stealthycat]

An armed guard is an answer to only a small segment of school shootings - the well armed mass-murders. It may have prevented or reduced Columbine or Newtown. It wouldn’t have prevented any of the 2018 school shootings. 

The fear is that armed guards will lead to a different kind of gun death - the over-reacting school cop

conjecture

you feel its safer to leaves schools unguarded and continue the mass school shootings rather than post a trained armed guard because of what MIGHT be an over reacting cop ?

do you fear trained officers that much? 

few would go to a school intent on shooting if they knew there were people armed there to shoot back - its why crazies rarely go to police stations to do their mass shootings or military outposts or any places heavily armed and guarded. 

 

[Ilov80s]

it doesn't say anything about registration at all - and the rulings change from decade to decade

none the less I'm telling you right now, I will never register my guns, the Govt doesn't need to know I have them, 1 or 20

The Constitution doesn't anything about lots of topics. It allows for the courts to interpret the Constitution. The courts have interpreted it that gun registration- as well as photographing and finger printing gun owners is Constitutional. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I don’t want to make you a criminal. You would make yourself one, if you failed to disobey a very reasonable law. I don’t want to take away any of your rights of gun ownership. But in order to fight crime we need to know who owns what firearms. Sorry if you have a problem with that. 

you will make me a criminal then - and I'm ok with that, that's your choice to do it

I will not register my guns so later you can pass another law and come and get them 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

we've seen that before - and Hillary has already labeled me deplorable and unredeeamble ... not a big stretch for an administration with people like her leading to declare me unfit to own a gun huh ?

no thanks - I'll pass on the registration. I still believe in my rights of privacy as a citizen of the US, my constitutional right to own guns, and illegal search and seizure ... 

 

[Ilov80s]

and that will have zero affect on crime

its not the law abiding that's the problem - timschochet wants to force me as a legal gun owner into giving up my property or bowing to his demands or face prosecution? Why? I'm NOT a criminal and I'm NOT the problem

ya'll are focusing on the 99.9 % of legal gun owners who pose no problem and ignore the .1% of criminals - blows my mind

again, it would be like installing breathalizers in all automobiles - you blow to go. No private sales on automobiles. You have background checks every time you buy gas. Serious regulations on speed - all auto's have regulators on them now. When you buy alcohol, background checks. 

do all that on 99.9 % of the people who never drink and drive - is that your solution to stopping drunk driving ? seriously ? do you not see the analogy here ?

It might impact you. A law could be passed requiring you to register you guns. You said you won't, so you would then be impacted by it and would become a criminal harboring illegal firearms. 

 

[Stealthycat]

The Constitution doesn't anything about lots of topics. It allows for the courts to interpret the Constitution. The courts have interpreted it that gun registration- as well as photographing and finger printing gun owners is Constitutional. 

sure - and the courts change all the time as well

 

[timschochet]

Ah yes the Nazis and gun control. It always comes out eventually. It’s a great story and argument. Too bad it’s a complete fabrication. 

 

[Stealthycat]

It might impact you. A law could be passed requiring you to register you guns. You said you won't, so you would then be impacted by it and would become a criminal harboring illegal firearms. 

if such a law passed ....the impact on killing people? pretty much none .......... you'd only be affected the 99.9 % of people who pose no threats

again - why focus on the people that's NOT the problem ?

 

[Ilov80s]

There was an armed officer in Columbine when it happened. He engaged one of the shooters and then called for back-up when the shooter (Harris) has his gun jam and fled into another part of the school. Virginia Tech has a full campus police department. It took them 3 minutes to get to the building and another 5 minutes to get to the scene as the shooter had locked doors. 

 

[randall146]

The left want to heavily reduce/regulate them all, the right wants common sense. 

But that’s the same old fallback politicization of it. It’s what the right wants so the right calls it “common sense.”  I counter that with “the right wants zero regulation of deadly weapons, and all the left wants is common sense.”  It’s what the left wants so the left thinks it’s common sense  

and there we are again, talking past each other and doing nothing

 

[Ilov80s]

sure - and the courts change all the time as well

Well this last ruling is just 2 years old and about 8 years ago when it could have been brought to the Supreme Court, the pro gun side of the SC Case declined to even bring it up to the court. It's unlikely that would be overturned. It would be easier for legislative branches to pass laws banning registration. 

 

[randall146]

I’m gonna have to go all HellToupee and start issuing bannings if you all keep talking about Trump and Obama and the Clintons in a way that has nothing to do with discussing gun violence and it’s solutions. 

 

[Stealthycat]

There was an armed officer in Columbine when it happened. He engaged one of the shooters and then called for back-up when the shooter (Harris) has his gun jam and fled into another part of the school. Virginia Tech has a full campus police department. It took them 3 minutes to get to the building and another 5 minutes to get to the scene as the shooter had locked doors.

that saved lives

in fact, guns saved lives in many of these shooting when the good guys with guns started shooting back. Not all , but many plus the deterrents of having guns and armed people 

But that’s the same old fallback politicization of it. It’s what the right wants so the right calls it “common sense.”  I counter that with “the right wants zero regulation of deadly weapons, and all the left wants is common sense.”  It’s what the left wants so the left thinks it’s common sense  

and there we are again, talking past each other and doing nothing

tell me how you would stop DUI randall146 - please tell me all the restrictions you would levy on the 99.9 % of drivers and drinkers that will stop this .... we're talking 10,000 lives here man 

DUI Deaths Rise in 2016. According to new reports, an average of 28 people a day have been killed in DUI accidents during 2016. In 2015, approximately 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired crashes, which was an increase of nearly 300 from the year before.Dec 27, 2016

 

[Ilov80s]

Just read the Kentucky school shooter took the gun out of his mom's closet. 2/3 of all minors that engage in gun violence got the gun from a the home of a family member. Many States have laws about gun storage to prevent children from getting their hands on them. Kentucky does not. Should parents be held responsible for allowing child access to this weapon? 

 

[randall146]

It’s just not possible. For a bazillion reasons. 

I’d personally love to live in a gun free society. But I also believe that people should have the right to own guns if they really want them.

Tim - take this with a grain of salt because I may be totally full of it:  

Sometimes you (tim) say stuff that I don’t think you personally believe, but you think you are supposed to say. I don’t mean in a trolling way. I mean like you’ve heard  people say for so long that banning guns will never happen so you also say it will never happen. Like you know where the conversation is supposed to get to so you just start there. 

That may be why you are sometimes seen as a bit of a flip-flopper. It’s not that your actual opinion has changed, it’s just that you say things as absolutes when you don’t actually think in absolutes. What looks like flip-flopping from one solid position to another solid opposing position really just you engaging in dialogue and showing some moderation. 

Here you said gun elimination is a non-starter, and will never happen for many reasons. 

But I bet if I asked you to pretend it was possible and asked for a strategy you’d have some ideas. 

I don’t know where I’m going with this. I don’t have a conclusion. Just an observation. 

 

[msommer]

 Yes, people drive drunk even though there are laws against it. BUT WE PASSED TOUGHER LAWS AGAINST IT AND AS A RESULT, DRUNK DRIVING FATALITIES WENT DOWN. Read that again. And then read it again until you understand what it means.

Infinity loop commenced. Stand by ...

 

[Stealthycat]

Just read the Kentucky school shooter took the gun out of his mom's closet. 2/3 of all minors that engage in gun violence got the gun from a the home of a family member. Many States have laws about gun storage to prevent children from getting their hands on them. Kentucky does not. Should parents be held responsible for allowing child access to this weapon? 

they already have a lifetime ahead of being punished for knowing what their kids did

if I had to guess - this kid was on prescription med's and good ones and/or has known issues

is a parent responsible for a kid wrecking a car and killing someone too then ? I grew up in a home with guns on racks and it never occurred to me to use one to hurt someone else. Only a crazy person would do that - and those crazies almost always are known to people and parents. 

but its very hard to punish someone BEFORE they do the crimes right ?

 

[Stealthycat]

ban killing/murdering another person

lets do that - everyone can keep their guns, we'll just pass a law to ban people from murdering other people

deal ?

 

[msommer]

I’m gonna have to go all HellToupee and start issuing bannings if you all keep talking about Trump and Obama and the Clintons in a way that has nothing to do with discussing gun violence and it’s solutions. 

Please don't delete the thread, though. It's what a certain poster wants

 

[randall146]

when the Constitution was forged, the gun was the most powerful weapon on earth other than a cannon which was just a big gun.

and the founding fathers said you know what? the people of America should own these, for their personal protection and nations protection too.

today, we have nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks, rockets ........ guns are not the most powerful weapon by any stretch of the imagination

so yes - absolutely they meant that guns of today should be in our hand 

I don’t follow your logic. It seems like this would be an argument that the founders wanted us to have the right to own the most powerful weapons available. 

And, in any event, “original intent” is not a particularly persuasive argument in my view. The founding fathers were smart and deliberate, but they couldn’t predict the future of technology. 

 

[Stealthycat]

randall146    sure, you could argue that, but in today's world with the unforseen technology as you said, we need some common sense don't we ?

now, show me how you would craft laws to save those 10,000 people who die in DUI accidents every year - I'm curious how you would do it

 

[msommer]

I don’t follow your logic.

There's nothing to follow.

 

[randall146]

Saying “we have a second amendment” is not an argument for keeping guns. It IS a reason it will be challenging to ban guns, requiring is to maybe be more flexible in solutions and/or make a bigger effort to amend the constitution. 

 

[randall146]

well for me, I'm not selling back my guns - your law would make me a criminal and I'm ok with that. 

ammo super expensive would lead to massive black market important and domestic too - kinda like Prohibition. That worked didn't it ?

your plan means nothing and what it would do would mean criminals have more fire power, legal citizens have less

You are actually quoting my proposal, and my laws would not make you a criminal. There would be a ban on new guns and a voluntary buyback at good prices on old guns. Keep your guns if you want to. My idea is that if gun lovers such as yourself value your guns more than the buyback amount, then you’ll be really careful not to lose it or let it get into the wrong hands. 

One of the reasons so many bad guys get their hands on guns is that there are plenty of otherwise law abiding gun owners that repeatedly have their guns “stolen”.

In fact they are not stolen, but are sold on the black market for big profits. Lawful citizen then takes his profits and buys a new arsenal. 

If new gun sales are stopped, there will be a finite and ever-decreasing supply of legal guns. The legal guns will eventually find their way into the hands of those that value them most and will act as necessary to keep them

 

[randall146]

#1 I'm totally against. Might as well ban all person to person selling of cars, vans, knifes, baseball bats etc too right?

#2 I will never register my guns. Ever.

#3 assault rifles are semi-auto guns and I will never submit to banning them.

See this makes your position seem a little less "common sense"

 

[AAABatteries]

The truth is that people when people really want stuff, banning it doesn’t stop them from getting the stuff it just creates lots of bad side effects.

I said it was bad!  

To me the difference here is I don’t see as many people breaking the law to own guns - maybe I’m wrong but I don’t want to sidetrack good options to debate bans as I think it’s unrealistic too.

 

[randall146]

Yeah that’s a bad analogy here are some better ones.

 Alcohol is bad for you, the country tried to ban it once.  It was a disaster.  People still drank alcohol but there were all sorts of violent and socially undesirable side effects of the ban.

Drugs are bad for you, so we ban them.  That has also been terrible.  People still use drugs but the War on Drugs has destroyed families and communities and been a huge failure.

Abortion is arguably undesirable.  But when it’s been banned people still get abortions illegally in unsafe conditions.

The truth is that people when people really want stuff, banning it doesn’t stop them from getting the stuff it just creates lots of bad side effects.

I disagree that drugs and alcohol are good examples, because you use them and enjoy them but then you need more to enjoy them again.  So there will always be an ongoing demand to fuel a black market.

With guns, once you have one, or twenty, you have the one or twenty you want.  So there's less of an ongoing demand to fuel a black market.

Also, drugs are mostly grown/manufactured outside the US, and alcohol can be imported or bootlegged domestically.  You can't readily make guns in a backwoods armory, and we are by far the largest producer of guns in the world, so, unlike with drugs and alcohol, it is realistic to significantly reduce the supply of guns.

 

[randall146]

There was an armed officer in Columbine when it happened. He engaged one of the shooters and then called for back-up when the shooter (Harris) has his gun jam and fled into another part of the school. Virginia Tech has a full campus police department. It took them 3 minutes to get to the building and another 5 minutes to get to the scene as the shooter had locked doors. 

Oh geez, thanks for the correction.

 

[randall146]

Just read the Kentucky school shooter took the gun out of his mom's closet. 2/3 of all minors that engage in gun violence got the gun from a the home of a family member. Many States have laws about gun storage to prevent children from getting their hands on them. Kentucky does not. Should parents be held responsible for allowing child access to this weapon? 

Yes, they should.  To what extent is another issue.

I will say this:  If new gun sales were banned I don't think lawful gun owners like Stealthycat would be as likely to leave their guns around where people (kids or criminals) could get them

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Stealthycat's views, at least in this thread, are extremely important- because they represent the fact that there is a section of our population who are not open to reason on this issue. They are a minority, to be sure, but they are very vocal.

We will never convince the Stealthycats among us. The rest of us need to (a) be unified in our specific goals and (b) defeat them at the ballot box, and thereby force our views on them (as they are currently doing to us.)

America!

 

[randall146]

tell me how you would stop DUI randall146 - please tell me all the restrictions you would levy on the 99.9 % of drivers and drinkers that will stop this .... we're talking 10,000 lives here man 

Is your position really that I can't brainstorm ways to prevent gun violence unless I also solve every other means of death?  Because that will be a LOT of work.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - take this with a grain of salt because I may be totally full of it:  

Sometimes you (tim) say stuff that I don’t think you personally believe, but you think you are supposed to say. I don’t mean in a trolling way. I mean like you’ve heard  people say for so long that banning guns will never happen so you also say it will never happen. Like you know where the conversation is supposed to get to so you just start there. 

That may be why you are sometimes seen as a bit of a flip-flopper. It’s not that your actual opinion has changed, it’s just that you say things as absolutes when you don’t actually think in absolutes. What looks like flip-flopping from one solid position to another solid opposing position really just you engaging in dialogue and showing some moderation. 

Here you said gun elimination is a non-starter, and will never happen for many reasons. 

But I bet if I asked you to pretend it was possible and asked for a strategy you’d have some ideas. 

I don’t know where I’m going with this. I don’t have a conclusion. Just an observation. 

I appreciate the analysis, and it’s true that sometimes I AM a flip flopper. I don’t think I change my core principles very much, but I do change a whole lot of my specific beliefs, if I am convinced otherwise. 

Here, though, I’ve been fairly consistent for the last several years at least. I don’t think it’s feasible to ban all guns. What’s more I don’t want to. In a free society, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for recreation or protection. They don’t hurt me at all; in fact they might even make me safer. I’m good with them. I just want some reasonable restrictions and regulations imposed to help us fight the bad guys and the sick guys out there. And I’m not going to let the paranoia of people like Stealthycat get in the way of that. 

 

[randall146]

I appreciate the analysis, and it’s true that sometimes I AM a flip flopper. I don’t think I change my core principles very much, but I do change a whole lot of my specific beliefs, if I am convinced otherwise. 

Here, though, I’ve been fairly consistent for the last several years at least. I don’t think it’s feasible to ban all guns. What’s more I don’t want to. In a free society, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for recreation or protection. They don’t hurt me at all; in fact they might even make me safer. I’m good with them. I just want some reasonable restrictions and regulations imposed to help us fight the bad guys and the sick guys out there. And I’m not going to let the paranoia of people like Stealthycat get in the way of that. 

Thanks for the clarification.  I mistakenly thought you were being vague about whether you actually wanted to ban or allow guns and whether it was impractical or difficult to do so

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes they do. And yes you will. Eventually we WILL get these laws passed, and you will obey them or be forced to give up your guns or go to jail.

keep telling yourself that

 

[Stealthycat]

Saying “we have a second amendment” is not an argument for keeping guns. It IS a reason it will be challenging to ban guns, requiring is to maybe be more flexible in solutions and/or make a bigger effort to amend the constitution. 

what argument would you use for freedom of speech or right to vote? 

Rights granted by the Constitution - they're kinda important 

 

[Stealthycat]

One of the reasons so many bad guys get their hands on guns is that there are plenty of otherwise law abiding gun owners that repeatedly have their guns “stolen”.

they get their hands on guns because they want them - I see your point in making something less accessible = controlling it, I mean that worked with marijuana and cocaine and heroin I guess huh ?

banning guns work on law abiding citizens - it means nothing to criminals

 

[Stealthycat]

I will say this:  If new gun sales were banned I don't think lawful gun owners like Stealthycat would be as likely to leave their guns around where people (kids or criminals) could get them

my kids have never tried to access my guns - why would they? I've taught them from babies what guns are, what they're capable of and used for 

people "getting them" ..... make that illegal, and that'd stop the problem, right ?

 

[Megaton]

There are many rural areas where guns are an absolute necessity, even in this day and age.   

 

[Stealthycat]

Is your position really that I can't brainstorm ways to prevent gun violence unless I also solve every other means of death?  Because that will be a LOT of work.

my point is clear - you would architect a means to stop drunk driving that would be effective towards those drinking and driving without impacting 99.9 % of the car drivers and alcohol buyers that do NOT drive under influence

you wouldn't pass laws to impact the 99.9 % in an effort to stop the 0.1 % would you ?

would you pass anti-muslims to stop terrorist attacks by muslims? I mean 99.9 % of muslims are not terrorist, but lets focus on them to stop the 0.1 % right ?

that's what gun laws are - they focus on legal law abiding citizens, not the criminals

 

[Stealthycat]

I appreciate the analysis, and it’s true that sometimes I AM a flip flopper. I don’t think I change my core principles very much, but I do change a whole lot of my specific beliefs, if I am convinced otherwise. 

most people are unable to do that - I can do it too

 

[Rich Conway]

what argument would you use for freedom of speech or right to vote? 

Rights granted by the Constitution - they're kinda important 

I'm generally a fan of the Constitution, but I also constantly ask myself how I would design the laws if I were starting from scratch.  Just because something was once a good idea doesn't mean it remains so forever.  Also, sometimes we just get it wrong from the start.

For example, it's fairly impossible to argue that every amendment was a great idea.  You know, what with one of them directly erasing a previous one.

Note that I'm not arguing that the second amendment is a bad idea or wrong.  Whether it is or not is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

my point is clear - you would architect a means to stop drunk driving that would be effective towards those drinking and driving without impacting 99.9 % of the car drivers and alcohol buyers that do NOT drive under influence

you wouldn't pass laws to impact the 99.9 % in an effort to stop the 0.1 % would you ?

would you pass anti-muslims to stop terrorist attacks by muslims? I mean 99.9 % of muslims are not terrorist, but lets focus on them to stop the 0.1 % right ?

that's what gun laws are - they focus on legal law abiding citizens, not the criminals

I don't understand what you are saying here.  There are laws against drunk driving and I am certain that they lower the incidence of drunk drivers.  They do not affect my ability to buy alcohol.

I think everyone understands that putting in better gun restrictions will not stop gun crime, but will help reduce the incidences of gun crime.