No. I was agreeing with you that hundreds of millions of lives are not worth my inconvenience. My right to drive drunk is important even if it kills hundreds of millions of people who oppose it. And there is no middle ground. Either I get to drive drunk or we ban all cars.
The vegas shooter has his guns for a long, long time and planned his assault (supposedly) for a long time as well. I think this is a very broad assumption and not something I'd be comfortable with. You can go to a gun show and buy an AR15 with no check necessary, did you know that? Remove that (and we should) and the buyer and seller move underground. Are you suggesting that prior to being approved for purchasing a weapon, someone needs to complete a psyche eval? That would subject all those who follow the law to that, fine, and slow down the process, which I'm not against. But people who know they would fail would skip that and get a gun illegally through any number of a dozen different ways they can now. The problem, again, is the hundreds of millions of firearms on the street as of today.
Speaking of hundreds of millions of people, there’s nothing that we’ve said that isn’t worth having an abortion for!
There is a law against drunk driving. And people still do it. All the time. You can operate a motor vehicle legally, or illegally. Just like a firearm. It is the individual who is guilty of the crime - not the object used in the crime.
As far as vetting goes, Stability in the family and training sound good and I like the idea, however I’m concerned about a single parent’s gun ownership rights who has to live in a tough neighborhood.
Potentially very good info. http://www.wfmz.com/news/lehigh-val...d-in-shooters-home_20160929023249123/99773366
No laws is perfect for all potentially exceptional cases. Isn't it? We need to have a framework first, then improve it afterwards. Still never perfect! A real world!