Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The mass killings wouldn't be as spectacular in body count so in a way your right they would reduce. But believe me they would still happen. People have been finding ways to poison each other, stab each other and blugeon each other since the beginning of time.
|
I would say any reduction to the current levels is a huge win, even if it doesn't eliminate it. I liken it to lowering the legal blood/alcohol level; if you were to set it at .05 instead of .08, you would get more dangerous people off the road and people would be more reluctant to even step in the drivers seat after a beer or two (and after a big steak dinner). The thought of risking it even after one beer would be a no-no for the average citizen.
It may be more arduous to enforce, but I believe society would find that balance much in the same manner when .08 became the legal limit. You wouldn't reduce all the drunk driving incidents, but you would certainly create more of a deterrent. Some people would argue "I need a gun to live!" as openly and irrationally as people who say "I need alcohol to have a good time" and have next to no understanding of the dangers of firearms, but stricter rules are never a bad thing, as long as the cost-benefit isn't more greatly negative on the general population (e.g. unsustainable higher taxes to fund stricter drunk driving laws).
Now, until someone invents an instant-sobriety pill for drunk driving, any reduction to incidents is the next best thing. The same thing applies to guns.