Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
How exactly is it dishonest?
If someone is not happy that innocent 6 year olds get shot, chances are pretty good they are unhappy that 10000 others die from gunshots each year too, even tho it's not part of a mass shooting. Wanting all guns scaled back is hardly contrary to their own goals.
It's not like someone only dislikes mass shootings, but secretly approves of the other thousands of gun homocides a year that do not occur in a group setting, so they only speak up after a mass incident.
Even if you could wave a magic wand and somehow guarantee that everyone who is diagnosed as clinically insane by todays standards could not even touch a gun, that wouldnt stop all the other shootings, because not all shooters in a 1-on-1 battle would be consistenly, reliably categorized as insane based on any test you could somehow administer against their wishes. Crimes of passion while drunk or something would not be stopped, unless the person was in that state while tested for for their right to touch a gun.
I seriously doubt that Australia or Canada has a fraction of the homocide rate because they have fewer insane people.
It's dishonest. Consider this--the day before this horrible incident there was zero chance that the "assault weapons" ban would be revived. Now, thanks to the emotion of the moment, a law that will have no impact whatsoever on the deranged and mass murder, will likely be passed. Understand that I'm not in knee jerk opposition to some action but I prefer we start from ground truth and with specific, measurable objectives. Right now this is so emotionally charged and so fact-less an atmosphere that none of us will get what we need out of this.
Here's my bet. I, a law-abiding gun owner of no danger to the innocent, who takes prudent safety measures will end up having my rights impinged upon for no rational reason and the measures imposed will not solve anything.