You're probably right, newfoundland.
The most disturbing thing about this debate here and on CNN is the apparent lack of compassion amongst the no-law brigade for those young children and their families. It's very sad that people live in such a hardened and insensitive culture and don't seem to want it to change. There's been much written about the right to carry guns but nothing about the right of people to go about their lives free from the fear of being caught up in a shooting incident.
Perhaps the change towards something we take for granted is too much to expect.
And here we have the problem.
Your side believes it has a monopoly on compassion - that is not true. Nobody has a monopoly on compassion, we disagree on how to solve the problem of violence.
Case in point: it's "insensitive" to do anything pro-gun like a rally or gun show even over a month after the shooting, yet it's perfectly okay - even laudable - for Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg to charge in the day after the shooting, saying that Americans need to have their guns banned.
There's a double standard here. If it's not okay to politicize a shooting, then hold both sides to that standard. If it's okay to introduce or promote legislation immediately, then let both sides do it. Argue on merit, not on your personal perception of compassion.
Emotion is a terrible method for determining action on a state or national level. I will freely admit, on a personality test, I was ranked as extremely objective and detached. Things just don't shake me as much as they do others, so I get called heartless for being analytical and placing a clamp on my emotions when discussing solutions. Maybe it's a problem, but I'm inclined to see it as a benefit, as I can preserve my use of reason under the vast majority of circumstances, even when emotions run high.
Perhaps it is cold, but what it boils down to is cost versus benefit. What is the cost of a Feinstein-style ban on scary guns? The criminalizing of huge numbers of Americans, the deprivation of a great means of self-defense, the creation of a vast black market, yet another step down the slippery slope to full confiscation, and a dramatic and sweeping infringement on the right to bear arms. The "benefit" is that this specific class of firearm is marginally less likely to be used in a mass shooting.
We're on the same side, here. We want to prevent more deaths. Thai, I enjoy talking to you because I thought you realized that we aren't each others' enemies.