Quote:
Originally Posted by Armistead
(Post 1977298)
Our gun laws simply won't stop these mass school shootings. Years ago the big debate regarding the 3 day wait was due more to rage shooting, someone getting mad, felt they needed to shoot their spouse, etc. This kid that did this tried to buy a gun at Dick's Sporting and was denied. I think the fact he was denied may show his mother's guns were secure from him and he forced her to give them.
Cetainly we need to look at gun laws, gun dealers, we can probably do some things that will stop some street crime, spouse shooting, gun accidents, etc., but nothing we do will stop people like Adam.
|
I disagree that nothing you do will stop them. Reducing the capacity to kill numerous people in a short space of time may prevent killings on the scale that seems to have become routine in these matters. Removing automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the market reduces the ability for these types of incdients to occur. You may not stop people like these killing someone and likely themselves, but you are more likely to stop them killing 20 or 30 people at a time.
Since our gun laws changed in 1996 there have been no mass killings involving a firearm, prior to this we had 16 occur between 1989 and 1996. Also firearm related robberies reduced by 37%. Given these numbers you might think it is worth giving it a go.
I agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but people without guns kill fewer people. This is what gun controls buy you. They do not eradicate the problem entirely, but are an effective form of harm minimisation that reduces the number of future deaths by restricting the availability of the weapons that enable mass killings.
I think the reality is, that the economics of the equation is likely to be the biggest factor in the gun law debate. Put simply, there are too many guns out there for the USA to afford to be able to ban all semi-automatic weapons and carry out a gun amensty and buy back scheme as was done here in Australia. That was largely funded by a 1% levy on income tax to finance the compensation of gun owners whose weapons suddenly became illegal. Note these wepaons included all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump action shotguns. This buyback netted 600,000 weapons and cost over AU$500m.
A second buy back of illegal pistols netted around 50,000 weapons and cost around AU$50m.
Some back of the coaster sums shows a similar buy back in the US would cost well in excess of US$2B based on an average cost of $1300 per weapon and that would only take about 1.5 million weapons out of the market which is small dent in the market. It would also be argued that this would target law abiding owners whilst leaving millions in the hands of those who flout the law.
There is also the question of what a control scheme like this does to the gun manufacturers and the jobs that the weapons industry provide for thousands of workers.
I'll be very surprised if the US actually does anything meaningful in terms of gun control this time around as time after time the economics gets in the way of the saving of lives. |
