u/Fuck_This_Dystopia

This obviously isn't the case, but let's say some new scientific method proved to you with near-certainty that guns save significantly more lives than they end and that no form of restriction was effective in altering the ratio.

If you imagine that you have accepted this proof as valid, what is now your emotional state and why?

Do you feel this contributes to a healthy debate and/or encourages gun owners to compromise?

If not, what do you have to say the many, many people (at least online) who regularly make this argument?

Many Democratic politicians still believe in "collective right"...do you believe this is helpful or hurtful to your aim of "common sense" gun control?

I recommend that nobody here lets themselves get sucked into a debate about the historical validity of the premise...that's not what this discussion is.

They laughed off the revelation that Bobby has been grouped with mentally handicapped people multiple times, but this is absolutely what happened.

I still don't feel bad about mocking him though, because he's also a piece of shit.

The type of people overwhelmingly likely to misuse a gun in public...street criminals, mass killers, and low-IQ jerkoffs prone to violent altercations...couldn't care less about a sign or the relatively minor consequences they would face in the unlikely event their gun is discovered before they shoot someone with it.

Literally the only people affected by such laws are good citizens who want to defend against these others. However rigorous or lax a given locale's restrictions are for obtaining a gun or mandating what types of guns are available, once someone has it there is nothing physically preventing them from taking it into a "gun free zone."

If the above logic is incorrect, please explain why. Again, none of this applies to a place where technology or dogs etc. are used to actually enforce the law.

For example, AOC insists that the Virginia Supreme Court should have ruled on the redistricting referendum beforehand but "explicitly chose to issue this ruling after the election happened" and thus "overturned the will of three million Virginians."

However, the ruling makes clear on p. 7 that it was Virginia Democrats who had originally argued that precedent barred the case from being reviewed until after the vote.

Does the benefit of lying so blatantly for so little return really outweigh the need for credibility when calling out Trump's equally outlandish lies?

The attacker had no previous criminal history or documented mental issues, and he legally purchased a pump-action shotgun and basic semi-auto pistol in the most gun-restrictive state in the country. Numerous gun control groups, politicians, media figures etc. are nevertheless vaguely calling for "more gun control" so something like this won't happen again.

The pro-gun side sees this as evidence that such people want a full ban and/or simply have no idea what they're talking about. Is there a third option?