Let's say that they prohibit it (some establishments do), without proper security screening, it would be easy to sneak anything in if you want to. The cost to implement this type of security seems too high (hardware + employees). The public may also reject that, the TSA is quite infamous in the US.
Have you been in any country that has this type of security in their hotels?
Yes. It's common in India, though TBH the staff don't always seem to be paying that much attention.
This is really all about priorities. If putting an end to this endless blood tide were a priority, we absolutely could take measures that would help. We could even do so without violating essential rights. There's a reasonable debate to be had about what measures we can or should tolerate, but screaming "it's infeasible!" denies such debate. It assumes one conclusion, and doesn't even allow consideration of another.
Or maybe join the NRA as a safety instructor. Argue for gun safes and mandatory training for young gun owners.
That way you can actually reduce suffering since there is a possibility that someone will listen instead of write you off as a gungrabber.
That way you can save even more lives.
Which are already regulated more than guns are. It would be great if we were allowed to make the same kind of rational choices about guns that we make about cars. Thanks for bringing that up.
> Or maybe join the NRA as a safety instructor. Argue for gun safes and mandatory training for young gun owners.
Oh right, I should join an organization whose policy agenda I despise, and spend my own time doing something that would have no effect on people like yesterday's shooter instead of advocating for measures that might. So glad I have you to tell me how I should spend my time. Or was that just deflection, to prevent a discussion that might lead to a conclusion you don't like?
> instead of write you off as a gungrabber
I can't control whether someone someone can write me off as a "gungrabber" (telling phrase BTW) even after I explicitly said that I don't want to take away everyone's guns and that they have plenty of legitimate uses. That's up to them and their psychiatrists.
I can think of two fairly simple measures.
(1) His weapons should have been inspected on entry to the hotel, to ensure not only legality but condition and unloaded state as well. In this case, that would have resulted in them being flagged as illegal full-auto conversions.
(2) Ammunition should have been stored separately, in the lobby or the basement, in total accordance with what responsible gun owners already recognize as best practice.
With these two measures in place, he might have been able to do some damage, but a semi-auto and one magazine would not have led to the kind of result we actually saw.
> The NRA defends against removing a constitutional protection against tyranny
The NRA does no such thing. The measures they support or oppose would make no difference if the day ever came when we needed to defend against tyrants commanding a military with modern weapons and training. If you look at the paramilitaries that the NRA enables, it would even be fair to say that they're promoting the tools of tyranny.