Klem Wrote:Well, it's all about the risk we all take living in a democracy where a small portion of gun owners want to misuse their guns. As a gun owner, do you want to live with the risk that someone will misuse a bump-stock to maximise carnage for continued access to them? I love my guns but don't particularly care about bump stocks. So, if it makes society a tiny bit more safe then sure, let's ban them. We've all got to live together and I also want live in a safe place.
As for encouraging the narrative that guns are the problem, well to be honest they are part of the problem. Obviously it is the nut behind the bolt that does the killing but you cannot deny that restricting civilian gun ownership lessens the likelihood of firearm misuse. But, this logic only holds true if the restrictions are across the board and cannot be circumvented. There are of course other issues at play here;
- The definition of freedom in a country that valorises gun ownership.
- The potential the guy will simply use a different means to kill others.
- The likelihood that restriction will only target law-abiding citizens in a country where the authorities remain largely unaware of who has what.
and probably a bunch of other cogent arguments that with a little effort we can think of.
My argument is that gun restriction is a politically convenient and clumsy way of mitigating the problem. If it works then let democracy in a population decide the extent of restriction, but we all know it doesn't really work.
I'd rather they used a bump stock than a truck loaded with diesel and fertilizer. If these wackos have to get serious about killing, serious enough to use things other than guns, survivability of Joe Q. goes way down. That is the message to the public so they understand guns are not the problem.
And follow up with that we lose 100+ per day to traffic accidents. Why is there no outcry for those people as there is with gun control? Because reducing traffic accidents does not expand control of the people the way disarming them could.
I watched Eric Pratt use almost the above argument against an anti-gunner on tv yesterday. He owned the poor disarmer so bad the hostess gave up trying to help him out. This is plain as day. Don't concede unnecessary defeat.
Edited to add this quote: "And then, of course, there's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who when it was pointed out to her that banning bump stocks could lead to further gun control, shot back: "So what? ... I certainly hope so.""