Clearly, we all have a point where we know that there is too much violence. In the past few weeks the outrage meter has been pegged, and for reasons that are entirely justified. But what about the other end of the scale?
From my experience here, I know full well that when it comes to guns, there are those on the liberal side of things who are just as authoritarian and shrill as the most reactionary of conservatives. The ad hominem attacks, the lack of logic, the "its different" defense, and so on. If you're one of these people, go rant somewhere else. Please.
My first question is this: How much violence is "enough"? How much bloodshed is an acceptable amount to you? This is not a snarky question. Think about it.
In your mind, how many murders should a madman be allowed to commit, how easy should it be, and what qualifications should be required? If you want to just ban high-capacity magazines, you are effectively saying that your preferred clip size of X is your "acceptable" number. If you want to totally ban conventional firearms, it means the number of murders you find acceptable is some multiple of six, the number of shots in a muzzle-loading revolver. If you want to ban all firearms, your answer is at least one, since there are bows and crossbows and big knives and replica swords and such, and you are implying that only big strong men should be the ones who can do it most effectively.
Sane people do not do these things, so your answer is effectively deciding what qualities and methods and potential body count is acceptable for a person who is insane and prone to violence. Is your answer "as long as the guy has to work for his kills and two or three heroic bystanders can tackle him, then I suppose a couple deaths and a handful of mutilations per madman is okay"?
However, if you are halfway rational, your answer to my question is "Zero. No amount of mindless, pointless bloodshed is acceptable".
The second question is: Do your comments and reactions to the latest tragedy move public dialog towards your "acceptable" number, whatever that number might be? Because if nothing you say and propose deals first and foremost with the people who perpetrate these crimes, then the number you are working towards is not zero. I am genuinely interested in your answers.