[allthenews]

The thesis is that, because these events are so rare, the cost of prevention outweighs the benefit.

Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile.

>just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection

Do you not normally make decisions regarding the future based on observed past data?

[AstralStorm]

The prevention is not free of costs either. Suppose access to guns is limited. An argument can be masse that since fewer people know how to deal with gunmen they will be less able to defend themselves from one so the shooting will be more massive. (I concede it is a weak argument.)

Likewise the argument can be made that there might be psychological results from drills like the ones used to allegedly prepare kids.

[craftyguy]

So the point you are trying to make is that it's worth giving up a few human lives every year to maintain the status quo?

[allthenews]

How is it that people are so convinced that guns serve no purpose other than murder of innocent children? This isn't just about obstinately maintaining some "status quo" out of spite for one political party. Guns are tools, and the vast majority of gun owners use them responsibly and more often to positive effect.

Let's put it this way: how many incidents of violence did you NOT hear about because simply brandishing a gun was enough to diffuse a situation or deter a would be criminal?

Please do not presume that this is some black and white issue where simply banning guns would solve all problems with gun violence. The implication that 2A supporters are all psychotic "gun nuts" who choose guns over innocent lives is a slanderous , oversimplified strawman, which only serves to further entrench divisiveness.

[craftyguy]

Please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a gun-hating person. I own several firearms, that I use for sport and hunting. I am in favor of making it harder for people to purchase guns. Most people don't actually need firearms. Funny how humans have made it several hundreds of thousands of years without them, and have managed to protect themselves and hunt food. They are a tool, but an extremely powerful tool in the wrong hands.

Why is it that we require tens of hours of training in order to operate a car, and just a few more to drive bus loads of people, but require absolutely nothing to purchase a tool capable of inflicting just as much, if not more, damage? That's fucked up.

[verylittlemeat]

As a society we make decisions like this all the time. How about cars?

[uurrnn]

Cars provide a much more useful function to society.

[CompanionCuuube]

Alcohol and tobacco don't.