The first step that has to be taken is for the current laws to actually be enforced. The vast majority of mass shootings are carried out by criminals who do so with weapons they obtained illegally.
For many in the liberal media, certain politicians, anti-2A people, and those for whom only an outright ban on private citizens owning guns will do, their "go-to" idea to deal with things such as mass shootings seems to be, more often than not, to pass new, more restrictive, gun laws aimed at either reducing or taking away the rights of law abiding current, or future, gun owners. Until, at the very least, politicians and LE are willing to enforce the current gun laws we have, I see no benefit in ever adding more new laws simply to pacify the nervous, restrict the law abiding citizens' rights, and give criminals more laws to ignore because they know that the new laws are likely to see similar levels of enforcement as the current ones.
States, and areas, with currently the strictest gun laws on the books seem to be the target areas of choice for these criminals and the mentally unstable who are determined to inflict the most damage with the least level of resistance to them. Sure, some will always claim that it is the fault of any neighboring state if that states ' gun laws are not as restrictive. If that were truly the reason, then why is it that that state, the one with the less restrictive gun laws, where supposedly all these criminals are getting their guns, does not see the same, or an even higher level, of the same gun violence? Could it be that if the criminals cannot tell who might, or might not, be armed, they might think they would have better luck, at least in their mind, going somewhere they know the "good people" are less likely to be armed?
Yes, I agree, something has got to change; but, imo, restricting people's legal, and natural, rights while at the same time increasing the pool of potential victims that the criminals, and the mentally unstable, can prey upon, is not the way to go.
Over the last few years alone, multiple liberal DA's have proven this point; as they lower the consequences (i.e. refusing to even charge or prosecute an increasing number of crimes) it is the good, law abiding, largely unarmed, citizens that are paying for these DA's social justice pet projects.
I think it is only logical that, over time, violent video games do desensitize players to both violence and any natural & normal guilt associated with such violence. The younger the player starts, and the longer they play, I believe the faster such changes begin. I don't believe it is the games themselves that "make" them do something negative; only that they allow the persons own moral fiber which would normally prevent them from, or at a minimum, force them to take a longer time to reach that level, to be compromised to the point that such actions might seem "normal", so to speak. |
