Quote:
Originally Posted by DoninDel
Of course it won't stop all shootings - I can't think of anything that would.
It would allow police to stop anyone carrying a gun and inspect it to ensure it is unloaded. Magazines unloaded would take time to load.
|
Reasonable comments. I disagree with most of it, but reasonable nonetheless.
I'd challenge the phrase above, though.
Can you think of EVEN ONE shooting this would've stopped? I'm unaware of ANY situation where a shooting has occurred and later we said "if only we'd stopped him when we saw him carrying that gun on the way there!". Or even more: "at least we could've checked that the bullets were in his pockets!"
One obvious thing that it seems we frequently miss in these conversations: it is already against the law to kill someone. It's already against the law in most states to even "brandish", except in self defense. I'm completely unaware of any situation where all laws were followed up to the point of the actual shooting. The truth is that the shooter has already broken many laws, long before he pulls that trigger. Why will more laws make a difference?
As I said in the first post of this thread: I'm in favor of "common sense laws". But common sense to me means something that will, in fact, demonstrably make an impact in the fight against senseless killings. I am decidedly NOT in favor of "feel good" laws, or knee- jerk "solutions".
Show me it'll work, I'm all for it.
Remember, these comments come from a non- enthusiast. I go to a range every 5 years or so, and the rest of the time the guns are in the closet. Im not a guy who thinks I'll someday need that gun to defend myself from a tyrannical government. I'm not a guy who thinks I'll need it for self defense. I have a large axe handle at each door for that. ;-) but I am a staunch defender of civil liberties.... and I think every internal-combustion-enthusiast would understand that. Because Al Gore and AOC would do away with our hobby in a hurry, given an opportunity.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk