Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
An argument we had here once led me to the belief that plenty of laws could be passed to limit gun tragedies. Mostly safety related....some with harsher penalties for felons found with guns...an expanded "No guns" list along the lines of a no fly list with a higher standard of proof. Life on a no guns list for anyone found to have their gun in the hand of a child under 10 who hurt someone with it. Universal background checks and safety courses. Greatly increased taxes on sales of guns and ammo which drive the price up and over time(decades) reduce access to low level criminals who cant afford to shop the emerging black market.
There are a dozen things you could do that would save lives. Eventually most anyone you speak to would accept that. But what I run into....is that we are supposedly a nation of freedom and individual freedom comes before the hypothetical greater good. For example...smoking. Greater good if nobody smoked? Sure. Who is pro cancer? But...you cant take peoples freedom to choose(apparently you CAN take their freedom to smoke other plants but thats another topic).
Could you legislate away a psycho getting his hands on a gun? No. Could you make them harder to get? Harder to own large numbers of? More expensive to deal in? Sure. You would save tens of thousands of people. If you think thats an exaggeration....look at the numbers. Imagine a 10% drop over your entire lifetime. There would be hundreds of thousands...millions of lives saved longterm. Drop a tragedy from 19 lives to 6. Keep a gang member in jail an extra 2 years for having a gun as a felon. You WOULD save lives.
Lets say you passed a law saying anyone caught with kids under 6 in a car without a car seat gets 90 days in jail per kid after a 6 month adjustment period during which the poor could get free seats from the DMV. What exactly would happen? 100% of us know...less kids would be killed in car accidents. Not an opinion. A fact.
Does that outweigh the somewhat draconian law?
The problem when it comes to guns is you cant take political credit for tragic situations prevented. But you can lose your seat when you push for these laws and some nut shoots up a state fair anyway. People wouldnt think long.
How many lives do you think the 1934 firearms act saved by limiting gun access to violent felons? We still lose too many people....but how do you account for lives not lost?
Where do you come down?
Lean towards over reaching laws that prevent many kids being shot in the face....even if not totally eliminating it?
Giving people as much freedom as possible even at the cost of innocent lives?
Is there really a third option?
We all just make peace with a certain level of violence we are prepared to accept so most of us arent inconvenienced. To take it back to cars....
Nascar style restraints in every car save thousands of lives. But it would be annoying so....you wouldnt pass that law.
When it comes to guns where is the line? Have we already reached it? We gonna just accept that while we could save lives....it would cost too much freedom?
The NRA is already fighting to give felons their gun rights. They would lose it at the idea of a no guns list for the criminally negligent or taxing guns like cigarettes to drive up the price and price out low level criminals.
They would go all "Its our right as Americans....." and maybe it is.
But where is the line?
And more importantly...in the real world...could a politician survive pushing for drastic life saving changes once a few more tragedies roll in? We all know that even people smart enough to know they would be reduced long term...would still use their existence to say gun control is a failure.
Knowing that....does all this talk even matter?
They say its not the time to talk about it after these things happen....but then you never get to it because they happen every 2-3 months now.
They just putting off the greater good out of political fear?
The people who really put in these changes eventually just have to accept that most are getting voted out for it. Especially anyone in a red state. It would cost too much personally to do the right thing...so how do we expect them to?
If we wont accept taking 2 minutes to put on much safer seatbelts to....live? How do we expect someone to risk their career to save abstract lives? Or to sit through a mandatory safety class when they are already safe...so some other idiot doesnt get his baby girl killed by his 6 year old?
Im generally one to lean towards societal safety...but the freedom champions arent entirely unreasonable.
Where do you fall?