Threshold of death
From my point of view, there is a point where the safety of our most vulnerable citizens is more important than somebody’s perceived right to put out lethal rounds as fast as the person can pull the trigger.
If the NRA’s argument is correct that a gun in the hand of a good guy is the only way to stop a gun in the hand of a bad guy, then the U.S. should provide nuclear weapons to all our friends to ensure they are able to stop the nuclear weapons in the hands of the bad guys.
This, of course, is ridiculous, but only in degree. One kills in the 10s and the other kills in the thousands. It is just a matter of how many die at one time.
We can accept the 10s but we can’t accept the thousands.
Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years. Semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns were banned in 1966. There has not been a shooting involving five or more deaths since. (New Scientist, issue 2898 with reference to: Injury Prevention, dio.org/ff7gm4).
How many kids have to die at one time to cross that threshold? From the NRA’s point of view, 20 are not enough.
What is your threshold on the number of children who need to die before you will actually do something to stop it?
If it is your child then, surely, one is your threshold.
If it is somebody else’s child, 20 does not appear to be enough.