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.
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.