3 ms·
You’re deliberately dodging my question. Your point is also true of most gun control laws. Short of full confiscation you will not stop people from obtaining
by _mlbt 2y ago
You’re deliberately dodging my question. Your point is also true of most gun control laws. Short of full confiscation you will not stop people from obtaining guns illegally via straw purchases or theft. Gun control will also not prevent law abiding citizens that suddenly become homicidal with no priors.
So again, what specific gun control laws would actually make a difference that aren’t already on the books?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThey're not dodging your question. They engaged your point with a point of their own and you asked a non sequitur question in reply to that.
- _mlbt 2y agoduxup said… > Most gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them. …yet when asked about specifics, they declined to provide any. So they did in fact dodge my question.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> at least in theory The point that they are making is that this 9/11-inspired law would not have, even in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. They are saying that they can conceive of gun control laws that would have, in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. Coming up with a specific intention of such is not relevant to their point. I’ll answer your question to hopefully illustrate the point: no guns in US airports. That law, in theory, at least would have had a chance of preventing the attack, which is not something that can be said about this one.
- _mlbt 2y agoGuns were not used in the 9/11 attacks, box cutter knives were. It is also already illegal to bring firearms past TSA checkpoints.