NightDragon83 said:
Please do explain how "better and stricter gun regulation" (whatever that means) would have prevented today's shooting WITHOUT stripping or curtailing others of their rights to own guns in any capacity? This guy was already legally licensed to own firearms in the state of Illinois despite his checkered history, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. What additional law or laws would have prevented him from obtaining a gun? |
I was just arguing why being a socialist (which I for the record am not) and for stricter gun control aren't necesarily mutually exclusive standpoints...
And of course any gun control regulation would (by definition almost) deny some people access to guns in some capacity. When did I say that it shouldn't? I think owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. I think of the same way about having the right to drive a car. It's a privilege that has to be earned. You wouldn't let a person drive a car without multiple test of both their knowledge about traffic rules, as well as their actual driving skill.
But literally all I said about gun control was this: "Advocating better and stricter gun regulation doesn't mean you deny gun ownership to an entire class of people..."
I didn't even say that this specific instance could've been avoided with stricter gun control. You are just making assumptions.
