LoyalFan wrote:
so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.
Well yeah, this is how I would frame the question. At least acknowledge that there is some benefit of these laws, which there would be if we decrease the amount of mass-shootings by one per year.
Now you might think that's totally insignificant, but how significant is the burden on gun-owners if we say, for example you have to use a 10-capacity magazine, instead of 20?
This is the kinda of balancing we need to get into BEFORE we can simply assert that there has been a violation of constitutional rights.