[pc86]

This is exactly what the GP is referring to. "We have to do something! This thing won't actually solve the problem but it lets me feel better because we did something, so let's do it! Pretty close to the definition of a crap solution.

[croon]

It won't stop any one occurence from happening, but it likely will mitigate the damage on that occurence. It's hard to argue it's not at least a step in the right direction. But I agree it won't solve the problem at heart.

[pc86]

Not trying to get into an off-topic political discussion, but the AWB I'm familiar with is almost entirely cosmetic in nature and would not have prevented any of the tragedies that are often used to prop it up. There are many effective things that could be done to lessen gun violence without needlessly restricting something that has no connection to that violence. Barrel shrouds are cosmetic but they make something an assault weapon, as does a pistol grip on a shotgun (which makes it less accurate for 99.9% of users).

Comprehensive, mandatory background checks? Of course.

"This gun looks scary and is therefore dangerous?" Nonsense.

[Retric]

If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it. Instead, there is opposition specifically because it is a meaningful, though small change.

A purely cosmetic change would be requiring all guns to be panted orange.

PS: Most people don't have tools or mechanical know how, making 'simple' changes difficult.

[pc86]

> If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it.

Simply not true. People fought the AWB because it was largely cosmetic (not entirely). Even those in support of the bill have said many of the banned items were cosmetic.

> Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts.

From the Violence Policy Center, a pro-gun control group.

If a manufacturer can make strictly cosmetic changes to a weapon and have it be compliant, it's kind of hard to argue there was "meaningful change." That's not a loophole, that's banning a cosmetic feature and a manufacturer getting rid of that cosmetic feature.

[hnal943]

Wrong. People are fighting it because it infringes on our constitutional rights to no benefit.

[dsfyu404ed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre...

"Well shit dillon, they don't sell the Hi-Point-9 because it's banned, can I borrow an extra $50 so I can buy the carbine?"

People intending to commit violence (on any scale) will find a way.

[Retric]

Some people can pick locks, but not everyone can pick locks. Limiting dumb or lazy criminals is still useful.