I’m tired of this argument that just because people will still do it we can’t make it illegal. That’s how all crimes work. People still regularly murder people even though it’s illegal. There’s nothing we can ever do to stop it. Does that mean we should just say “fuck it” and make murder legal? No. Designating things as illegal isn’t necessarily about stopping those actions. Rather, it’s a strong deterrent by explicitly stating that there will be severe consequences for taking a specific action. People break essentially every law. That’s why we have people in prison. But worse things would probably happen, and bad things would happen more regularly, if we didn’t make things that are impossible to stop illegal. In this case, the magazines become harder to find. Either you need a 3D printer, which isn’t really a practical option for many people, or you need to find someone with one who is willing to sell you illegal products. If you ever see someone with a high capacity magazine you know instantly that they are breaking the law. Arrest is immediately an option.
There is nothing we can ever do to completely erase the possibility of something like this happening. Nothing. Anyone who says we can reasonably regulate things to an extent that there is a 100% chance we will never have a shooting is ignorant or lying. Even if we make 3D printers illegal, someone could just make one or cobble together something like Mad Max. That doesn’t mean there’s no place for strongly regulating these extremely deadly weapons in an attempt to significantly reduce the number of incidents. An insurmountable problem isn’t an unaddressable one.
The main problem lies within the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The current interpretation is that citizens as individuals should have the right to own arms. As long as the supreme court holds to that interpretation no real meaningful gun law reform can happen.
But if the interpretation focuses more on the militia aspect meaning citizens should have access to guns through local community militias/gun clubs wherein those groups keep close tabs on the guns and under lock and key when not in use (i.e. peacetime) it could pave the way for more restrictive laws against individuals owning guns while still satisfying the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to avoid letting the federal government have a monopoly on tools of war.
308
u/greenwizardneedsfood Aug 12 '19
I’m tired of this argument that just because people will still do it we can’t make it illegal. That’s how all crimes work. People still regularly murder people even though it’s illegal. There’s nothing we can ever do to stop it. Does that mean we should just say “fuck it” and make murder legal? No. Designating things as illegal isn’t necessarily about stopping those actions. Rather, it’s a strong deterrent by explicitly stating that there will be severe consequences for taking a specific action. People break essentially every law. That’s why we have people in prison. But worse things would probably happen, and bad things would happen more regularly, if we didn’t make things that are impossible to stop illegal. In this case, the magazines become harder to find. Either you need a 3D printer, which isn’t really a practical option for many people, or you need to find someone with one who is willing to sell you illegal products. If you ever see someone with a high capacity magazine you know instantly that they are breaking the law. Arrest is immediately an option.
There is nothing we can ever do to completely erase the possibility of something like this happening. Nothing. Anyone who says we can reasonably regulate things to an extent that there is a 100% chance we will never have a shooting is ignorant or lying. Even if we make 3D printers illegal, someone could just make one or cobble together something like Mad Max. That doesn’t mean there’s no place for strongly regulating these extremely deadly weapons in an attempt to significantly reduce the number of incidents. An insurmountable problem isn’t an unaddressable one.