Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
i'm totally aware of that. and that's why i acknoweldge it as a problem, a big problem. because the media jumps on this events, overshadowing the problem of where and how and why the majority of people are killed by guns.
most people are not killed by assault style weapons but most all, like 90+% all of mass shooters kill with assault style weapons so yes, i think a policy re: assault style weapons would go towards solving several problems:
1. curbing mass shootings
2. curbing media sensationalism of mass shootings and shooters that distracts from addressing other gun problems.
3. being able to then address other gun problems
|
it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?
So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this...