Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiwa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Why wouldn't the logic apply to other settings?
|
No logic is necessary. Evidence abounds. See Mexico, See 1994-2004 USA (assault weapons ban era), real life evidence that indicates that strict weapons restrictions do not increase public safety.
To indulge in the divergence of the military versus school shooter scenario, in the military an auto loading weapon serves as a "force multiplier" where through sheer volume of fire a force of a given size is able to have a higher % of success. In the modern setting a sophisticated optic is a "force multiplier" because of the same small % increase of success. The auto loading weapon in a military setting is also supported by supply chains.
Children don't shoot back and there are no supply chains. The % increase in murder effectiveness in this scenario would be statistically insignificant. There is no evidence available anywhere that indicates that 14 kids and 1 teacher would not be dead today if the shooter was using a pump action shotgun and a revolver.
Ceding power to an authoritarian government based on a mere idea is foolhardy at best. Logical approaches to increasing safety should be the prominent point of discussion. The fact that evidence based approaches to reducing mental health crisis that result in mass murder are not at the forefront of discussion is indication that these shootings are used to further an authoritarian agenda with no concern for public safety. Senators kids don't go to public schools. They give no fucks.