08-16-2020, 03:18 PM
(08-16-2020, 02:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The "why not?" is because it's a logical fallacy.
No, it's not. We are talking about the government taking action that could, ostensibly, save lives. Why is one acceptable and the other never discussed? The real answer is that people would not tolerate a governor on their vehicle and politicians know this. So it's not really about saving lives, it's about giving the appearance of saving lives.
Quote:The reality is that premeditated mass murder and accidents will always be viewed differently, especially when the accident is an accepted risk of driving or riding in a vehicle. It's unreasonable to expect anything different.
It's unreasonable to ask people to look at a problem logically. You're far more likely to die in a car accident or slipping in your bathroom than you are to be shot and killed in any scenario, much less a mass shooting. If you're advocating for the restriction of an Constitutional right then you'd better offer a compelling argument for doing so.
Quote:Emotions drive human behavior, and while you may find that to be a "piss poor reason to draft legislation", the legislation itself has merit.
I'm sure you'd take great issue with a law enforcement officer allowing emotion to drive their decisions. Why would you hold legislators, who make laws that affect everyone, to a lesser standard? The legislation has zero merit as it will not prevent any shooter from doing what they plan on doing. It's feel good "look at what we did" legislation that does not make anyone safer or prevent any shooting.
