Holy Fuck feel like I should copy paste shit over and over again.
I made the 99 Percent argument just to counter go ts argument.
My original argument always has been,
The changes ( banning of assault weapon, limiting magazine) won't make anyone safer. Use that resource that would have been used to enforce such changes to millions of citizens , on making deterrence in places that are targeted,(gun free zone).
If someone can come up with a better , realistic, plan, I will adopt it.
You realize that your own 99 v 1% argument can be used against you in the case of "gun-free zones' right? Out of the 11000ish gun deaths per year, only an minuscule portion of those take place in gun free zones. Most shooting deaths take place in the streets and in private homes. So you're criticizing people for supporting regulation that will only target '1% of the problem', while hypocritically pushing the abolition of gun-free zones that only has the potential of 'solving' (most people believe that this would actually make children less safe and increase the risk of putting firearms in the hand of children) '1% of the problem'.
Either way, you're still over simplifying the issue as a whole. Your argument is essentially "Why waste time solving 1% of the problem while ignoring 99%, especially while resources are so limited" right? The reality is that there is NO simple solution to 99% of the gun violence 'problem', the reality of the situation is that it's more likely that there are 99 solutions, each accounting for 1% of the problem, but when enacted together can make a difference.
I agree with you though that the AWB is largely toothless and will do little if anything to curb gun violence, as far as I'm concerned it's simply to passify the public after Newtown. Unfortunately though, the proposed regulations are the only issues with which the public supports in large numbers and with which lawmakers can conceivably come to a consensus on, but this is the political climate we're living in right now.