Humans, as a species, are incredibly panicky. We are so panicky that I often wonder how we have survived at all. Worse, when one human panics, that panic spreads through the entire herd.
We see that every time one of these events take place. Some mentally defective jackass shoots into a crowd, that crowd (sensibly, perhaps) panics, and the panic spreads throughout the general population that was never in danger from the gunfire to begin with. Next thing you know, before the bodies even cool, calls for draconian measures regarding firearms ring from sea to shining sea. No matter that the measures called for would not have prevented the shooting in the least - folks just want someone to DO something, even (or especially) if what they do is wrong, with a null effect on the tragedy at hand.
In this case, the predominant calls are for "more stringent and comprehensive background checks". My ass. No background check under current consideration would have prevented any of these shootings. That doesn't matter to the herd, however. They want SOMETHING, ANYTHING, done immediately, under the influence of emotion rather than logic, and then they can all go home and sleep peacefully... until the NEXT shooting, which their measures will fail to prevent.
Then the cycle begins again.
Liberals in particular are hell-bent to institute draconian, nazi-esque firearms bans RIGHT NOW. They are taking advantage of the panic mode of the populace, riding the wave of emotion, and want to sneak totalitarianism in under the radar before cooler heads can prevail and logic and rational thought can take hold. None of them, exactly zero, are displaying any logic in their calls for totalitarianism. As one of them openly and famously said some years ago, "never let a good crisis go to waste".
Your proposal, while impeccably thought out, will not gain any consideration in the current climate of panic and illogical knee-jerk reactions. It has two fatal flaws: It is well thought out and logical, and it will not disarm the population. The goal here is to disarm the population in a moment of panic while the defense of logical thought is down.
They also want "red Flag laws", where anyone can disarm anyone else with just a mere accusation. Again, the lack of logical thought prevails. I for one know exactly how fast and how wrong those sorts of laws can go if someone just gets angry at you, or if they want you out of circulation or disarmed for just long enough for them to rob you. I was jailed for two days (just long enough to be robbed blind while I was out of the way and they could pick through my stuff and make off with it) by a mere unfounded accusation spewed out by a vindictive woman. I was eventually acquitted of all charges stemming from that lying accusation, but by then the damage had been done. While I was out of commission, they had free reign to rob me blind, which they did.
Suppose a crack head down the street decides he wants to rob my house, but knows he will get filled with holes in the attempt? The simple solution under Red Flag laws is to simply call the constabulary, mention I have a gun, and claim I made a threat. POOF! The constabulary sweeps in, removes my firearms pending a hearing, and there we go - the crackhead down the street has (or supposes he has) free reign to kick in my door, tie me up and rape my wife, then make off with whatever valuables I have to pawn for his next fix. Maybe kill us both on his way out to eliminate witnesses.
Note to the crackhead down the street: That likely won't go well for you, all things considered, but you won't know until you try, eh? The guns are only for show, and as a distraction, warning, and deterrent. the REAL danger would come from another quarter entirely, and you'll never see it coming. I learn from my mistakes, and adjust accordingly.
Eliminating "gun free zones" (AKA "target rich environments") as you suggest, would make far more sense, which is how I know it will not prevail in the current climate of illogic. These shooters are cowards, plain and simple, and only attack weak points where they think they will not get shot themselves. the manifesto of the El Paso shooter specifies that. Therefore, the more logical move would be to create an air of certainty that someone there will be armed, and will drop them like a pole-axed steer.
But that won't happen in Today's America.
.
We see that every time one of these events take place. Some mentally defective jackass shoots into a crowd, that crowd (sensibly, perhaps) panics, and the panic spreads throughout the general population that was never in danger from the gunfire to begin with. Next thing you know, before the bodies even cool, calls for draconian measures regarding firearms ring from sea to shining sea. No matter that the measures called for would not have prevented the shooting in the least - folks just want someone to DO something, even (or especially) if what they do is wrong, with a null effect on the tragedy at hand.
In this case, the predominant calls are for "more stringent and comprehensive background checks". My ass. No background check under current consideration would have prevented any of these shootings. That doesn't matter to the herd, however. They want SOMETHING, ANYTHING, done immediately, under the influence of emotion rather than logic, and then they can all go home and sleep peacefully... until the NEXT shooting, which their measures will fail to prevent.
Then the cycle begins again.
Liberals in particular are hell-bent to institute draconian, nazi-esque firearms bans RIGHT NOW. They are taking advantage of the panic mode of the populace, riding the wave of emotion, and want to sneak totalitarianism in under the radar before cooler heads can prevail and logic and rational thought can take hold. None of them, exactly zero, are displaying any logic in their calls for totalitarianism. As one of them openly and famously said some years ago, "never let a good crisis go to waste".
Your proposal, while impeccably thought out, will not gain any consideration in the current climate of panic and illogical knee-jerk reactions. It has two fatal flaws: It is well thought out and logical, and it will not disarm the population. The goal here is to disarm the population in a moment of panic while the defense of logical thought is down.
They also want "red Flag laws", where anyone can disarm anyone else with just a mere accusation. Again, the lack of logical thought prevails. I for one know exactly how fast and how wrong those sorts of laws can go if someone just gets angry at you, or if they want you out of circulation or disarmed for just long enough for them to rob you. I was jailed for two days (just long enough to be robbed blind while I was out of the way and they could pick through my stuff and make off with it) by a mere unfounded accusation spewed out by a vindictive woman. I was eventually acquitted of all charges stemming from that lying accusation, but by then the damage had been done. While I was out of commission, they had free reign to rob me blind, which they did.
Suppose a crack head down the street decides he wants to rob my house, but knows he will get filled with holes in the attempt? The simple solution under Red Flag laws is to simply call the constabulary, mention I have a gun, and claim I made a threat. POOF! The constabulary sweeps in, removes my firearms pending a hearing, and there we go - the crackhead down the street has (or supposes he has) free reign to kick in my door, tie me up and rape my wife, then make off with whatever valuables I have to pawn for his next fix. Maybe kill us both on his way out to eliminate witnesses.
Note to the crackhead down the street: That likely won't go well for you, all things considered, but you won't know until you try, eh? The guns are only for show, and as a distraction, warning, and deterrent. the REAL danger would come from another quarter entirely, and you'll never see it coming. I learn from my mistakes, and adjust accordingly.
Eliminating "gun free zones" (AKA "target rich environments") as you suggest, would make far more sense, which is how I know it will not prevail in the current climate of illogic. These shooters are cowards, plain and simple, and only attack weak points where they think they will not get shot themselves. the manifesto of the El Paso shooter specifies that. Therefore, the more logical move would be to create an air of certainty that someone there will be armed, and will drop them like a pole-axed steer.
But that won't happen in Today's America.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’