1st you have to pass a law before you can crow about democracy. If meaningful legislation fails, you will not be making conceited remarks about democracy. Neither will I.
Ad hominem is always the last resort of a bad argument, or possibly arguer. You expect your opinion to be obvious and universally accepted. Unfortunately what is normal and obvious depends on how one constructs the world. All firearms are dangerous and Ar15s etc. are by no means unusual. For many they are simply normal, 21st c. rifles. They genuinely don't understand what the fuss is about. Obama warned gun control advocates not to be dismissive of the rural perspective for a reason. You should see some of the FB posts from my non-urban friends and relatives, many of whom voted for Obama.
I don't live in NY, so their retroactive and IMO overreaching ban does not effect me. Still, it has gotten me a bit worried. So here I am as mortified as anyone by Sandy Hook. I came to the conclusion long ago that the NRA is evil and that we need all transfers to be regulated. I think magazine restrictions are necessary, especially for rifles, but also those extra long pistol magazines. Also, maybe we need universal licensing. I managed to get myself banned from my favorite Youtube review channel because I blamed the owner for supporting the NRA. So it is with some dismay that people here lump me in with NRA apologists and that broad, sweeping bans are becoming likely that I can only hope will not be retroactive.
I have never used (shot or otherwise) a gun in anger. My only interest is putting holes in paper. Most of my guns are rimfire caliber (that's small and weak) because it's cheap and paper does not shoot back. So why come after me? Honestly, if I were Bruce Banner, I would never get angry enough to turn into the Hulk. Why should many of my .22s become illegal like they are now (retroactively) in NY? I've not done anything wrong, so why should I absorb the financial loss? And I am not the only one. Yeah, we need meaningful restrictions and ending unregulated transfers, but some of this talk just seems punitive and arbitrary.
The psychological aspects of mass shooters is a well-taken point. I just think that if ARs are not available, they will get something just as dangerous, but because it does not look like an assault weapon, is uneffected by the ban.
= new reply since forum marked as read