Don't proposals like these tend to get a
temporary bump in support when tragedies like these occur?
Before we go banning guns, we should be sure that
1) it will actually reduce shootings and have a notable impact on society, and
2) That people still support it consistently even when there is no shooting aftermath on peoples minds
I know certain people don't like hearing arguments against an assault weapons ban, but the shooter could just as easily went in there holding 2
glocks (handgun) with another 2 holstered, all of which have 17 rounds each. Takes very little time to reload.
And for the record, I am for gun control, but only for measures that actually work. I'm not entirely convinced such a ban would reduce shootings or the number of causalities in shootings.
