Originally Posted by Drewski
As I said, feel free to ignore my logic if you find it lousy. I was just bringing up an example of a law which was made for a very specific reason, which to this reader, hasn't stopped the crime it was written to "stop".
As I said, no punative law can be written (well, it can be written as statute, but not as a matter of reasonable expectation) to entirely cease the action or activity it is designed to prevent. Cigarette regulations won't prevent people from getting cancer, food safety regulations won't stop people from getting sick, airline maintenance procedures won't stop airline disasters.
I see no logical reason why it should be more onerous, both in legal and practical terms, to own a car in this country than it is to own a gun. I also don't see some of the steps being considered (such as I outlined previously) as being particularly onerous or burdensome on those who would choose to own a firearm in this country.
To be clear, I don't believe we can regulate our way out of this problem. I think any solution, should one ever come to bear, will be roughly one part gun control, one part mental health reform, and one part cultural change. We also know there's a strong correlation between gun violence and high levels of poverty and lack of education, so investments in those areas can be expected to improve the overall situation as well.
I think the biggest problem in this whole debate is that the NRA has become a wholly owned subsidiary of gun manufacturers, and refuses to entertain even the most commonsense reforms that could be implemented. No surprise, then, that politicians who would desire to see some of said reforms are forced to resort to thinly veiled threats to action.