It really doesn't, which is why countries and states with stricter law on the point are much safer from gun violence than those who don't bother, as I've noted repeatedly using comparative data on states and countries.
Gun laws aren't about changing hearts, they're about restricting access.
Not may and they prevent a great deal, comparatively. Also, if we restrict the types of weapons and how those weapons are stored, etc. we can impact second hand possession. It will take time and effort, but the cost of doing nothing is worse.
Separate issue, but one to tackle.
:yawn:
I'd say you're mistaken. It's an access/type/cost issue. We've made increasingly deadly weapons more and more affordable and accessible.
And the guns we bought weren't a bump stock away from a submachine gun. They were rifles and shotguns, and a lot of revolvers. Add that seachange to the numbers game (more people/more crazy per) and it's a recipe for disaster.
They really have, and so has the cost/availability of the more lethal, the sort perfect for shooters like the one in Las Vegas. But even if that wasn't the case, the argument for restricting access would remain as viable and for the same reasons. Even if we were somehow convinced that people have turned more violent, and maybe especially if we were convinced, restricting access to those weapons would remain a pragmatic and intelligent response.
That's not really the case either, because there aren't realistic alternatives that afford the same opportunity for the type of violence we see in mass shootings.
Then I'd suggest not much will change and the mounting death toll will eventually alter your position or overwhelm it with the majority of the populace. The numbers are already moving in that direction.
It's not naive. It's empirically true, which is why the numbers line up as I've set out repeatedly. Universal, tough gun laws have real, measurable impact on public safety and gun violence.
It's both and always has been, but the latter is more accessible and cheap and the former hasn't grown up enough to make that latter a non-issue.
I'm not asking you to. I'm suggesting the current restrictions on firearms are insufficient due to the increased capacity for destruction coupled with an affordability/access that poses a demonstrable danger to the public.
I also support the 2nd Amendment. This isn't about the abolition of it, but where the reasonable line of restraint should be. And every right has that line.
Actually, there are a number of lesser approaches to strict and universal gun laws in our democratic, industrial cousins and all of them work much better than our laws do at managing the prevention of mass shootings and other gun violence.
Not so shockingly, gun violence has reduced as a result of the effort. Not one mass murder by gun since the Port Arthur massacre had the people and government of Australia responding with new laws. That's zero in 22 years. In the decade prior there had been 11.
And yet, where societies change the law, they profoundly impact gun violence and mass shootings. So maybe lax laws invite the wrong heart, or maybe they just make a thing easier or possible, give an impulse born in frustration or anger or mental illness an easy outlet.
The Parkland shooting reveals the problem with more laws. If all the existing laws had been followed that shooting would not have happened. More laws mean nothing when we are nat able/willing to enforce existing law.
Rather, the rule is that where strong, universal gun laws exist you have a much lower incident of gun violence and mass shootings than where those laws and restrictions aren't in evidence. True comparing states and true comparing nations.
When our Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment there was only one type of gun and it was used by everybody. I tend to think that ey intended that citizens be as well armed as the military to both defend this country in times of need and to stop a tyrannical government should that need arise.
Laws, including God's laws, cannot prevent crime, laws can only define the crime and prescribe a punishment. What additional laws would have prevented any of these shootings?
If you mean laws won't alter behavior and outcome, won't impact practices we view as destructive and violative of right, you're objectively, observably mistaken. By way of example, seatbelt laws and speeding laws have empirically impacted driving habits and saved lives.