Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate

[RiverNoord]

80. I agree that group punishment for the acts of a few...

is utterly wrong. So... we should therefore let people drink and drive so long as they don't harm anyone's person or property while impaired, right? All the people who can drive effectively at or past alcohol limits would prove it by not getting into accidents. For that matter, speed limits should only be for people who have been in accidents while speeding.

Then you punish the ones who do have accidents while impaired or speeding by revoking their driving privileges for life.

Makes sense - after all, driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity. The moment you start driving a car, your probability of violent injury or death (or causing someone else's violent injury or death) increases dramatically from the level it was at when you were not driving the car. However, lots of people can handle their liquor much better than others, and many can handle a car far better at higher speeds than others. Why should they be 'punished' by a legal limitation on their behavior, just like the car criminals who've run over kids while drunk or lost control of their cars at 90 mph and caused a high-speed collision. That's wrong, isn't it?

How many people, would you think, would buy that logic?

Hm... the moment you pick up a gun, loaded or not ('cuz an unloaded firearm sometimes really isn't), your probability of violent injury or death, or of causing someone else's violent injury or death increases dramatically, compared to when you were not holding a gun...

Sorry, but there are many, many more direct parallels, and there's no logic that changes the outcome. A limitation on all persons' behavior concerning inherently dangerous activities is justified by the simple reality that it's inherently dangerous. You can't predict exactly who will or will not be unsafe enough to engage in the behavior by the the simple fact that they haven't shown themselves to be yet.