The federal gov't and state gov't have been so effective at Drug Control, that I'm sure they'll be just as effective at Gun Control. And of course just like how bad guys don't have access to illegal weapons now, I'm sure they'll never get access to any gun if Gun Prohibition comes into play. Just like how during prohibition none of the bad guys got access to booze.
Here is what I wrote on FB to a friend who insisted that I engage in the discussion of gun control NOW and stop avoiding it:
Since its not too soon for you, food for thoughts: Israeli teachers are allowed to carry and don't have these attacks. This pieve of **** deliberately targeted an elementary school: school zone = "gun free", young kids = "defenseless."
The kid stole the guns from his parents, who owned them legally, but in a state that has some of the most strict gun control laws around. He also had body armor (highly regulated in CT.)
Of course drugs are illegal (highly available and consumed) and during prohibition so was booze. In a country with borders like ours its also impossible to keep out illegal guns. Net result: the only people with guns will be the police and the bad guys.
Now we add in the history of private gun ownership: it's been critical in ensuring the safety of private citizens for the last 100 years (at least) in areas where police were incompetent, indifferent, or even involved in the the criminal element. The history of gun control in the US originates, like many progressive ideas, from racism. Control the guns, limit the ability of southern blacks to defend themselves, make them easier to control and force to submit. That's why MLK Jr favored the individual right to keep and bear arms. And exercised it himself.
Like many regulations this would unfairly target the poor and middle income earners - outright gun bans would have loop holes for collectors and private security, etc. Loopholes the wealthy with their access to lawyers would exploit, or would hire private security to avoid. Politicians of course will still expect to be protected by their escorts of police, military, secret security, and personal private security. As usual the elit would avoid the law. Just like the wealthy are able to get prescriptions to expensive drugs, while the rest have to go on the streets.
You would tell us now is the time to press for changes, only a tragedy like this can remove the vail and get our politicians motivated to finally do something. I think this may be true. But that this something will be good is a highly dubios assertion. In the days after 9/11 there was a low road to do something - we were warned about over reaction and targeting all foreigners or all Muslims or all men looking like they might be from the ME. And these were wise warnings (and turned out to be superfluous). But momentum did build to give us to lasting legislative acts of emotion: TSA and the Patriot Act. TSA is an abject failure. The Patriot Act is more of a mixed bag, but even there I think its clear the law went to far and left too much room for both Bush and Obama to expand executive power.
well that's certainly helping the problem isn't it.
Drugs are readily available in the UK and Australia. Guns aren't.
People don't get murdered, die or shot up in cinemas or schools. I wonder why?
Are Americans crazier than the British or Australians? Or do they have easier access to guns?
Again, this kid got the guns from his parents who legally owned guns. Fine, they legally owned them.
Why do they need to legally own them? Why were the guns there and why did they have a need for the guns?
You can make as many excuses as you want but it works in other countries so it could work in the USA. It would take time, but more guns is not the answer. The USA has been trying that for the last 25 years.
Make it harder for ANYONE to get guns and eventually, the gun population will decrease and subsequently, the murder rate will too.
Less guns=less murder.
It's not that freakin hard.