Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?
Doing so would effectively be stripping law-abiding citizens of their second amendment rights which…
Firstly, the extent of second amendment rights is already under regulation, the question is simply how far that extent should go. Things like national gun registration, mandatory training licencing/certification, red flag laws, gun-free zones, etc. are all things that would have profound effects on our gun problem, while simultaneously not impacting those who are actually law-abiding citizens. Even things like AR bans have already existed in this country before, and also proved to be statistically beneficial against mass shootings. Secondly, I already addressed this point about illegally accessing guns: "if a criminal really wants a gun, then they will obviously be willing to break laws to get one...so, why not make that as difficult as possible for them? Shouldn't we be making it as actively difficult, annoying, and disincentivizing as we can, as opposed to just...doing nothing or making it easier?" I would 100% rather have it so that criminals have to take the risky and illegal route to access certain guns than to allow them to simply buy one at Walmart. Anything that makes it more difficult for someone who shouldn't have a gun to access a gun is fundamentally a good law.
@9B6P92Q1yr1Y
The government’s own study of the Clinton AWB found that the ban had no measurable impact on violent crime. Moreover, the Columbine massacre happened smack dab in the middle of the AWB, which did nothing to prevent it. The Clinton AWB was nothing more than a ban on scary-looking weapons, and focused on features that have absolutely nothing to do with a weapon’s effectiveness or lethality. It banned rifles like the AR-15 while allowing essentially identical weapons like the Ruger Mini-14 (which fires the EXACT SAME cartridge as the AR-15, from detachable magazines holding 30 or more rounds, at the EXACT SAME rate of one round per trigger pull).
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
I definitely agree that the Clinton ban simply didn't do enough to tangibly solve the problem; it was ultimately, like almost everything Democrats do, more performative than anything. Granted, there was a noticeable drop in mass shootings during the years of the ban, but it obviously didn't do enough. I'm definitely not saying that we should simply copy this ban, nor am I suggesting that a mere ban alone will solve the greater issue, but I am saying that there are absolutely plenty of policies that we should be enacting, yet aren't. To suggest that we do nothing would be the more ridiculous notion.
