I'll just leave this here for the current gun discussion:

Even Fox is fed up with guns.

I think the NRA would be okay with calling guns inconsequential: they neither kill nor protect people thus no reason to ban them and it would take more work to ban them than to allow their unrestricted distribution.

Take path of least resistance.

Your description sounds reactive: police are reacting to a law being broken, in this case possession of illegal weapons.

Proactive would be someone not possessing illegal weapons to begin with because they're illegal.

I think it's easier to tally up cases of the former than the latter.

Criminals might think they're the weak so yeah "guns are created to protect the weak"
If you think guns are the ultimate equalizer you are so wrong,most of you can't even use them properly when needed and you just put yourself in danger,good but dumb people end up in jail or get shot because of this.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.

Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010.

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

And we must expect that the injuries are xtimes higher.

Cool, now include the part when Republicans and Democrats took over congress to see the difference. Since congress does hold more power than the President in almost every way. 2008 Democrats had both the Senate and the house of representatives. Not to mention employers cut full-time jobs to part-time jobs due to Obama's new health care changes to create artificial growth.

You seemed to have missed the point.

Its reactivity is an ends to the means of proactivity.

It comes down to why something is illegal. Why is owning extended magazines illegal in some places? There is no victim there. The reason it is illegal is in order to allow law enforcement intervention before someone is victimized and to prevent victimization in general. It is reactivity in service of proactivity. I'm going to call it "Fundamental Laws" vs "Proxy Laws". A "Fundamental Law" is a law against something that is fundamentally wrong, such as murder or robbery. These crimes deprive individuals of their rights and harm society in the process. A "Proxy Law" is a law against something that is not fundamentally wrong or harmful, but still is beneficial as a law in order to either aid in prosecuting fundamental laws or aid in the prevention of other illegal activities.

You could also argue that this all loops around to the idea of the purpose of the prison system. In a healthy prison system, punishment isn't the primary purpose. The four goals are as follows: Retribution, Incapacitation, Deterrence and Rehabilitation.

Three out of those four goals are proactive. They exist to both deter an individual from committing that first crime (like you mentioned) and to prevent that individual from committing another crime (through incapacitation and rehabilitation).

Basically my point is a response to the "Criminals don't follow the law" line of thinking. While that is sometimes true, there are a lot of proactive benefits to enacting new gun control legislation, including allowing police intervention before a "fundamental law" is broken.

Actually, it is pretty low when Republican controls both Congress and the presidency. As soon as Democrats touch anything, things go to shit. Just look at California.

Yeah, as if the economic crisis hadn't been kicked of by and under a republican president and under a republican house and senate. It needed a democrat to pull the country out of that mess that the republicans made under Bush junior. And he did, brought unemployment down from over 10% to below 5% and steady economic development with ~3% growth annually. The latter seems familiar? That's because Trump has just continued on the trend with the economic growth but is doing everything to buck it, from increasing the inequalities with his tax cut for the wealthy (like him) over torpedoing the US economy with his his petty trade war to risking a worldwide recession incoming with the no-deal Brexit he's supporting.

But why am I even writing this, I'm sure you're going to dismiss it all for some crazy fringe conspiration theory or something like that because you seem unable to see that the republicans are no angels or have a closer look to what they actually do.

Nah, context isn't real. Everything exists in a vacuum. Whenever a new individual is elected president, everything else is immediately erased and we start new. How can trends be real if context isn't real?

/sarcasm

There is no point in continuing a conversation with someone who doesn't understand the concept of linear time.

I don't think the last recession can be individually blamed of either Republicans or Democrats, being that much of the legislation that led to the housing crisis had been getting passed for the prior like...20 years, and there were numerous combinations in power during that time frame who didn't fix it.

Well isn't that what happened? Not just within America, either. Weaker people of other nations also created stronger weapons to defeat the people of strong nations.

Your nation likely wouldn't have got to where it is without it, and yet people still flock to your nation for some odd reason, even though there are many other developed nations who've solved this issue apparently.

Our conversation right here should be explanation enough. People are different, so you can just imagine 100's of millions of people arguing about it and where it would lead. Who is a problem and who isn't? Where do you draw the line? If those people are borderline and aren't aloud to have a gun, yet get gunned down while being left unequally defenseless, is that ok?

The problem when it comes to safety is people don't really care about the greater good in that aspect. People are very selfish when it comes to safety, and naturally so. It's a rarity to find someone who would risk or give their life to save some people they don't know and never will. It's also not fair to give someone an advantage over another when it comes to life or death, because you don't know the future, just the odds, and the odds are far from guaranteed.

Fixing people is something people have been working on for thousands of years, and we have no idea if we truly have made things better or worse. All we have is our perspective and that doesn't prove right from wrong unfortunately.