Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Mac
I didn't realize you guys were that sense to not understand the difference between cars and guns.
|
As far as I can see, I believe the only times we've seen shootings at protest marches have been explicit assassinations like the Dallas police shooter. Micah Johnson wasn't part of the protest; he used the protest as distraction from his ambush but it doesn't look like he was ever in a position where he could be picked out and subjected to confiscation for a "gun ban". So your gun ban would have prevented precisely no violence in that instance. Police have said that the gun violence that occurred in August 2015 in Ferguson, MO during the one year memorial of the Brown shooting was connected to criminal activity, not protests.
If the automatic weapons at Charlottesville were such a threat, why did the Nazis use cars and sticks to commit violent acts? It's because the violence was committed by people with poor impulse control, and those types of people can find methods to commit violence regardless of what is licit and what is not.
Gun control is doomed to failure if we limit the discussion to physically controlling the existence and presence of firearms. Gun control instead has to be a discussion about making sure people with guns control themselves. This weekend, it was the kid with the car that didn't control himself. But overall, we've spent too much time in this country playing Jenga with the 2nd Amendment and not enough time sidestepping it by figuring out how we can get potential violent gun owners to move from "My gun's here to strengthen my argument" to "My gun's here to protect from lethal ambush, and that's it." And yeah, if one of the guys with a gun had murdered a girl and shot twenty other people, then we can start talking about carving out "guns at protests" laws. Of course, nothing would happen, but talking's always nice.