RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe has rankled some Virginia Republicans by repeatedly calling for greater gun control after Wednesday’s deadly shootings in Southwest Virginia.
“Clearly that gentleman should not have owned a gun,” McAuliffe said of Vester L. Flanagan II, who killed a two-person news crew on live television early Wednesday. “That’s plain and simple. That was a tragedy. Now I have no idea if any new gun laws would have changed that, we don’t know, but my job as governor is to do everything I humanly possibly can do to make our communities safe.”
Several Republican legislators took to Twitter to blast McAuliffe for what one called his “shameless politicization of tragedy” — particularly because closing the gun show loophole, a gun control measure McAuliffe mentioned, wouldn’t have kept the gun out of Flanagan’s hands.
“I thought it was extremely unfortunate that while the family is still in shock at this news and while a manhunt is still actively underway, that the governor saw fit to try to advance his legislative agenda,” said Deputy House Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah). “The even more unfortunate thing is that the agenda that the governor cited apparently has nothing to do with the facts of this tragic case. . . . If we’re going to try to fix problems that are the ills of our society, we should focus on things that are actually relevant to these tragedies.”
Flanagan legally purchased the Glock 9mm pistol used in the shootings from a federally licensed dealer in Virginia, said Thomas A. Faison, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Of course its political. What idiot thinks that tightening restrictions on crazies having guns isn’t political? how else is it going to happen if policy and laws aren’t changed?
What do people think a governor should do when a camera man and a reporter are executed on live TV? What is it he should say? Virginians want guns kept out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Now how are we going to accomplish this task? How else does change take place if not through the political process?
What screams out is the fact that these people DID buy their guns legally. The mental health community, the guns rights people and the legislators all need to get together and work out something fast that hinders the mentally ill from owning firearms. Too many Virginians are dying of senseless gun violence.
My ilk says enough is enough. Changes need to be made that allow responsible gun owners to have their weapons and at the same time prevent those with problems from access.
So far I have heard no solutions from the 2A-ers.
Seems to me that some people puport to respect life don’t really.
So far I have heard no solutions from the 2A-ers.
K, what exactly are the specifics from everyone else?
Don’t trying the ball back to me. You know pretty much what people want in the way of gun regulation. Start with background checks for ALL purchases, not just those from federal gun dealers.
I want changes in the mental health system also. Certain conditions should prevent people from being able to buy a gun.
There’s something to gnaw on as suggestions.
The gun huggers’ solution is more guns. That’s their answer to all the world’s problems.
Even with the strictest gun laws proposed Federally and within the State, it would not have stopped this guy from buying a gun. Sad but true…sometimes evil can not be prevented
He bought the gun legally. What would it take to have that not be the case? Change the law so that people with his kinds of issues have to go thru tighter scrutiny to be able to purchase a gun. The signs were all there. He was crazier than a bucket of bat shit.
What we need is legislators who have the stones to write laws that prevent mentally unstable people from being able to purchase weapons.
Look at the restrictions on people we suspect of being terrorists. The same thing could happen with the mentally unstable if there were legislators with courage. They are so afraid of offending mental health advocacy groups and the NRA that they are willing to see hundreds of innocents killed rather than seek solutions.
@Moon-howler
Don’t blame the NRA on that. The NRA has made no statements about mental health except to point out the limitations of HiPAA and the right of due process before rights can be restricted.
Seeking solutions? Is that what you call it when McAuliffe merely repeats Bloomberg’s talking points? Is that what you call it when gun control advocates are the ones that defeated the ONLY actual universal background check bill presented to Congress?
You say that the signs that this guy was crazy was obvious. To whom? After the fact, its easy to tell. Before the fact…who do you want to decide these things? Too many people saying we need to do mental health checks have advocated that merely desiring to exercise 2nd amendment rights is equal to being mentally ill. This has poisoned the well of any compromise.
We have laws to deal with the dangerous. However, those in power to do something, DON’T do anything. So… these are the same people that are supposed to enforce any NEW laws…. then what? Since there is no “gun show loophole,” and private sales are not a major source of crime guns…and doesn’t apply in this case, why bring it up?
The guy followed EVERY SINGLE law…and followed every single restriction popular with gun control advocates. He bought the gun, had a background check, waited to pick the gun up because he put it on layaway, and shot less than 10 times..thus a “reasonable” sized magazine of 10 rounds…as proposed by almost every gun control advocate would have been fine for him.
What kind of laws prevent “unstable people” from being able to purchase weapons? How does one determine who these people are?
All I hear is “can’t” or “won’t.” Both are unacceptable. I have hated the NRA for years. This is nothing new. I don’t believe my original premise had anything to do with the NRA.
It isn’t unreasonable to have laws that make it tougher to pass a background check. You don’t want those kinds of laws. I do.
Warning signs–they were all over the place. Inability to get along with others, removal from the property when fired. Right there tells you something isn’t right. This guy had a paper trail a mile long.
Every time something like this happens, I read how “no law would have prevented this” and how “he bought the gun legally.” These comments are becoming bullshit. Gun advocates want to point at mental health. Yes. I agree. How we deal with mental health is part of the problem but easy access to guns by that community is the other side of the equation gun advocates don’t want to discuss.
Cargo. what do you think ought to be done about gun violence at the hands of the mentally unstable. Nothing or something?
Actually, he fired 17 rounds according to today’s WaPost. We don’t need magazines with that type of capacity. @Cargosquid
The NRA could do a lot more.
I’m not sure what any Governor could say that wouldn’t excite cries of “politicization” of the gun issue. If take McAuliffe’s statement on its face, it’s innocuous and probably would have agreement of 98%of the citizenry – a guy like that shouldn’t have guns. Of course, then comes the hard part.
To his credit, or discredit, depending on who you are, McAuliffe has tried to put some gun legislation in place. As I recall, it fell on deaf ears and circled the drain. I expect there was heavy NRA lobbying against whatever he wanted in place. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps they supported him.
There is a weekly mass killing, or so it seems. It has gotten so frequent that half the time I don’t get up and go look at the TV to even see who has been killed because I have been so desensitized from sheer exposure to wanton murder.
I have grown very tired of the post mass murder (my definition–any time a mentally unstable person kills more than one person in an episode) discussion always including that there is no law that would have prevented this killing.
This time all the warning signs on the shooter were out there. There just weren’t any laws that keep crazy people from being able to buy guns. That’s a problem. There also need to be laws that allow employers, neighbors, and local communities to identify people who have issues that cause them to do violent things. Somehow we have to have a process in place that allows red flags to be placed on individuals and that the individuals be prevented, at least at the first step, from purchasing firearms.
There need to be laws.
A couple of quick points here. First, let’s agree that gun controllers are not for gun control or even for less guns. What they are for is guns in the hands of only the goverrnment. History is repleat with government control and the outlawing of all sorts of weapons, be they swords, bows, or pikes and it never works out well for those subject to that kind of control – to include the 20th centrury. Worse, knuckleheads like McAuliffe, with his smiling, trust me, I am for you, self serving sense of I am smarter than you approach to big government believes that only government and government elites should be protected by government agents and have access to guns. Hey, i don’t need one either if I have armed guards out front. But that is for the rich not the lowly homeowner. If that does not sound dangerous and familiar go back to school. Second, what part of the word “people” and the word “infringe”, as in “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” do you controllers not understand? The 2A was not put into the Constitution by our forefathers to preserve the right ot hunt – or is that what you want to argue? And finally, I am hearing all this BS about new laws to keep mental cases from having access to guns, as if that was a “reasonable” compromise position. What? Are you not the same people that advocate for mainstreaming these folks and for more money for counseling? People, you need to ask what such a new law would do that does not invade privacy and does not result in these folks not getting the help they need. If you stigmatize mental counseling with a new government data base (without criminal activity) that precludes one from owning a gun, tell me they will still seek help and that the information will never get into an employer’s hands. Hey, I know, lets make counselors and teacher’s personally liable for missing a mental case and the filing of a report when the guy or girl starts shooting. Oh wait, a better idea, let’s set it up so that a neighbor can report you as crazy so that you can never own a gun for self protection.
Blue, you have gone off the reservation. You are focusing on why nothing would work. Well, your version of gun ownership without much screening isn’t working now. So lets just let the crazies kill us.
You ask “What? Are you not the same people that advocate for mainstreaming these folks and for more money for counseling?” I have never in this life asked for more mainstreaming. More counselling money, yes. More mainstreaming, no.
I also don’t give a rat’s ass if people are labeled. We already label people. We label people “habitual offenders”, “Felons”, etc. Felons never can own a gun again unless their sentence is commuted by the governor of their state. Yet, their prison sentence might be long over.
Who do I trust more with a gun? A convicted felon who has served their time or a bat-sh!t loony with tree elves whispering in his ear?
You actually make my point–many gun owners want more restrictions. We accept that not all people should have access to weapons. You think we all fit in a class. That is not true. Far from it.
As for infringe….I also bet you are one of those anti 14th amendment folks who think that the framers of the 14th didn’t have any concept of illegal immigration or how really obnoxious illegal immigration could get. I think I am one of those folks who think that the framers had no idea what big weapons the human race would create.
Does that make us even? What part of “born” don’tcha get?
Don’t disagree. The NRA a could establish a large presence of advocating for stronger mental health laws. We are paying cops to babysit disturbed people until an unpaid volunteers will commit to on of 80 beds in the area. If no beds cops drive all over the state to deliver. Why? It’s easier to get money for coos than mental health therapists.
The NRA could go the route of responsible gun ownership and moderation just like Coors and Bud did.
Who’s “same people”. I want them locked up. That requires counseling and evaluation. Who should do that? Jail guards and cops? What’s happening now. Isn’t working.
Blue: I invite you to research the history of gun control in Australia. After 10 years of out-of-control gun violence and the last straw “Port Arthur”, Australia implemented gun controls. Since then, gun violence, including self-inflicted have plummeted. One’s chance of being involved in gun violence in that country is down by 50% since gun control was initiated.
Taking a poll here. How many people on this blog own at least one gun? Show of hands.
I own a gun.
I also am not afraid of my government. (even though there seem to be a lot of people willing to put someone in power with a personality like Hitler)
I own two guns.
We have three.
Suppose we agree that society must do everything possible to stop the Flanagan’s of the world from getting weapons. Let’s try to figure out how the law should be written. Do we require all gun purchasers to visit a psychiatrist and present a clean bill of mental health to the gun shop? Do we require a background check that includes interviews with friends, neighbors and co-workers? How exactly does everyone propose that a new law be written to prevent this from happening?
Kelly, I think you might have been being sarcastic, but actually you have at least started the conversation. That’s a good question. Obviously, we don’t want to have interviews with friends, neighbors and co-workers from happening. However, could a person get pre certified? For instance, suppose I wanted to avoid more in-depth security because I routinely bought guns. Why couldn’t I pass some pre screening that gave me a frequent flier pass. Like a doctor, my boss, and 2 neighbors said I was a responsible human being. I am not suggesting that this would be the way to do it but how to frequent fliers for real get pre screened for security?
Perhaps that is where we should start. After all, isn’t this really a security issue we are talking about? Why do we have everything built into air security and nothing into walking around security. These killers really are domestic terrorists in my opinion.
As I suspected, the people who have been the most outspoken about increasing gun security are gun owners themselves, not timid, rabbitty, people afraid of their own shadows.
It seems that the NRA crowd is trying to paint us as simpering fools who wouldn’t touch a gun, much less own one. They seem to want to box us in with the people who want to erase the 2nd amendment from the Constitution and round up everyone’s gun and destroy it.
Obviously, we aren’t part of that crowd. My suggestion is to include us in the conversation before the true gun haters take control.
More beds for mentally ill
More therapists to see them and diagnose/commit
Better reporting of those adjudicated
Change the rule that allows a gun purchase to be made if there’s no response on a background check for three days.
And for gods sake allow restraining orders especially in the situation of domestic violence.
That would be a start.
An appeals process should be in place also. A person who attempts suicide because their child was run over by a bus should not be prevented from gun ownership forever, even though he or she was involuntarily committed.
I think Kelly’s ideas are worth considering. I do think background checks that sort out people with anger issues or other factors that might lead to misuse of lethal weapons are not a bad idea. Does anyone disagree with McAuliffe’s statement that this guy in Roanoke should not have had deadly weapons? Of course not.
You were saying….
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts
Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
Reasonforforce ^
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one
It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent
I’m not sure that this guy was mentally ill. What if he’s just a mean SOB? How are you going to write a law to stop the mean SOBs of the world? Sociopaths are notoriously difficult to uncover.
You pro gun control people need to play let’s make a deal if you want to draw 2A activist support. Take a look at the Swiss model that was used until 2007. People actually had machine guns in their homes and the military issued them ammo. They had (still have) one of the highest rates of firearm ownership coupled with the lowest rates of gun crimes. The difference is, they’re a real “militia” under command of the military. They have close and current contact/training activities, etc.
I suspect you would get a lot more traction if you stole some of these ideas. Say we are going to make the bar a lot higher with respect to ownership (screening, ongoing training, background investigations) BUT, those that clear the bar can have damn near anything they want. In other words, repeal the National Firearms Act in exchange.
I suspect you’d attract a lot of 2A support if you laid out something like that.
Generally speaking, I would rather have someone like Steve have more weapons in exchange for fewer people having access to guns, if that makes sense.
I don’t have a problem with that, Cato, if, as in Switzerland, the people who have those weapons are under direct military command, training and discipline. Switzerland’s neutrality comes at a price – it is (or at least was until very recently) a highly militarized society with mandatory national service.
Let us go to FactCheck.Org and see what they found, shall we ? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Petition Congress to organize the militia.
We already have the Constitutional authority for this.
An organized militia would be a great supplement to law enforcement, be great first responders in disasters, provide a widespread organizational ability which would enable citizens to coordinate effort, would provide for training in small arms and small unit tactics, first aid, and provide a general manpower pool as needed. Citizens would see that responsibility comes with citizenship.
Isn’t that what the national guard is?
Not sure I would want a bunch of militia types running around “helping” the cops. I bet they wouldn’t think too much of that idea either.
Oh boy, like the VDL???!!!!! Howling here..cops RUN from them. It’s like wanting to be on jury duty.
@Lyssa
Or a root canal without anesthesia….
Yeah, Cargo – what am I missing? I thought we had an organized (“well regulated” is the constitutional term) militia called the National Guard. You want something else in addition?
You’d need some way to maintain close and current contact with individuals with those weapons to make sure that they maintain proficiency, don’t lose their minds, aren’t agitating overthrow fantasies, etc. Sort of what we do today for people with security clearances.
Whether you call it a militia or a bowl of oatmeal is immaterial.
Families and friends need a vehicle to able to notify authorities if a person becomes unsuitable for weapon ownership. It does happen. Ask Lafayette.
Actually I wouldn’t be opposed to a weapons safety security clearance but I expect that might be a little tough for the 2A-ers
Maybe all the Austrailians with guns left their country and families and came to the U.S. because they were opposed to the new laws. I mean seriously, visit my family or be able to wear my gun? No brainer. The gun wins.
I think we should screen everybody that has a gun or wants to have a gun, to include the military and the police. That way we can prevent those who have never broken the law from ever breaking the law. My guess is that there will be a net loss in lives due to the reduction in the right and ability to protect ones self, but t least those who would kill will have to use a knife or a car or an airplane or some other IED. And I want to maintain the lists of those who have turned in their guns, with address, and those that have been determined ineligable to own a gun. Indeed, I would also voluteer to be on the team that would determine if you are potentially sufficiently dangerous – mentally, emotionally, politically, to not be allowed to have a gun. This is the only reason for the registration of firearms so lets get on with it and begin the labeling.
The comment is too stupid to even comment on. Blue, only legitimate comments will be considered here. What you said was basically a waste of intellect.
Ah, so you are speechless as to the implementation of your solutions.
No, I am not speechless at all. Your rewrite of any solutions I might have tossed around are absurd.
Cops and military do go through screening just for starters.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
No one offers those as ideas. This is the problem.
Absurd? Absurd. Background checks are screenings used today to assure that a felon or intitutionalized patient is not “allowed” to purchase a gun. To do more suggests more screening to keep guns out of the hands of other potentially, but as yet law abiding, criminal gun owners. So yes, I want to be on the team that has responsbility for interviewing neighbors and others – like local law enforcement personnel or school officials – to see if you are sufficiently stable so as to not be a potential criminal and if we find that you are not sufficiently stable, require that you surrender your guns or issue a no fly rule that would prevent you from ever legally owning one. This is nothing more than is already done for a security background check for a government job. I am sure you trust the government to do the right thing here as it is applied to the general population and that there is no danger in it – I mean ask any eurpoean over 60 what their experience has been.
You must be right then Blue, simply because you say so. Nothing can be done at all so we will just let crazies get hold of guns and kill us all, randomly even.
Sorry. I really just feel you are absurd.
What is absurd is that guns kill, that fewer guns will result in less crime, that increasing the number of gun free zones improves the security of those in those zones, that the right to self defense is not a natural law protected under the Constituion, that historically speaking governments that have eliminated the private ownership of guns did not become totalitarian, that taking millions of guns away from law abiding citizens will have an impact on crime or even that the cost of any additional rule, regulation or law designed to limit gun ownership is worth the impact it will have on us as a nation.
@blue
What is really absurd is that no one has even mentioned or suggested any of the things you are spewing about.
You are having a hissy fit over things “someone” has said “somewhere.” If I were to follow your course in your last sentence, I would assume that you wanted the crazies to have weapons rather than to limit gun ownership of one person. I know you don’t mean that.
Its like drugs. If we would just regulate them better the problem will go away.
Blue, no, guns aren’t like drugs. News flash.
when are you going to run out of absurd statements?
A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) study covering the period of time from 1994 to 2009 found that Americans purchased approximately 118 million new firearms, and the 1993 “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate of 6.6 per 100,000 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by the year 2000. It eventually fell all the way to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011. That is more than a 50 percent reduction in “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” the very crimes that mental screenings and more stringent background checks are supposed prevent.
Then, in 2009, Obama took office and gun sales began their climb to record levels, which made covering the gap between the 118 million guns that had been purchased by 2009 and the “170 million new guns” that Americans would own by 2015 an easy gap to bridge.
The overarching message is simple—more guns, less crime. Its all about risk. As has been discussed here before, violent crimes against women is significantly lower in states where concealed carry is permitted due to risk. Robbery is lower in concealed carry states due to risk. Assults are lower in concealed carry states due to risk. It is absurd to think that additional efforts to eliminate or further restrict accesss to guns so that crimes of convieniance – or mass murder for that matter – are easier or less riskly to commit will continue that trend.
No one has advised that women not arm themselves. I am all for it if they pass a background check and secure their weapons.
You are assuming a cause/effect relationship when none has been proven.
It is not absurd to think that restricting access to weapons by the crazies won’t have a positive impact.
You are really the energizer bunny here, aren’t you. Surely you aren’t this obtuse. The only thing we have been discussing is finding a way to keep unstable people from getting their hands on weapons and killing multiple people. Let me ask you…if someone could come up with a way to keep nutzoids from guns, would you support it? Do you want crazy people to have guns?
I am sort of thinking that switchblades are “arms” as much as a Grenade launcher. Shouldn’t the 2nd amendment protect those also?
Crazy people do not have legal access to guns now. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is already unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” Virginia prohibits the purchase, possession or transportation of any firearm by any person adjudicated “legally incompetent,” “mentally incapacitated,” or “incapacitated,” whose competency or capacity has not been restored and the purchase, possession or transportation of a firearm by a person who has been involuntarily committed, during the period of commitment.
So, what else do you want to do to further limit the number of guns or access to guns that does not reduce the incentive to seek help (stigmitizes), cannot be adjudicated and reversed and would otherwise be supported by the mental health industry? And again, given the low statistical incidence of gun crimes given the number of guns and the number of crimes committed with and without guns – and their concentration in certain parts of our urban communities, what would you do to the entire mental health community given their statistically small involvement in these horrors. How much more would be an appropriate government expenditure to control these low probabilities and how much freedom are you willing to give up? Do you have an unregistered box cutter in your home?
Involuntary commitment is actually fairly rare. There are other people out there who check in and out of mental facilities who are perfectly free to buy weapons.
You seem like one of those people who shut down instantly, rather than try to solve problems. Its easier to think of 10 reasons why something won’t work rather than seek a solution why it would work.
I don’t know all the laws involved with mental commitment nor do I know all the gun laws. That is why it seems logical to me that both industries would work together towards solutions that would reduce the incidence of mass shootings.
All sorts of people who are nuttier than a bucket of batsh!t get legal access to guns now. Take Cho for example. You want to argue that that nutburger was sane?
That fellow in Texas pumped 15 rounds into that officer’s body. We have to ban high capacity magazines, I tell you.
@Starryflights
High capacity magazines do not commit hate crimes, assholes do.
@Moon-howler
As a freshman’s family who was impacted by the killings and was on site at Burruss, I take Cho very seriously. Asked repeatedly what you would do to deny those in counseling access to guns, I still have not gotten an answer.
Being in counselling doesn’t deem one to be crazy. Let’s get sensible. Let’s see what I would do about Cho.
I would make laws different so that Fairfax Co. Schools could let Tech know that Cho had a rough track record and that he was a threat to himself and others. That kind of information shouldn’t be kept under wraps. Additionally, when Nikki Giovanni refused to teach him, not only should red flags have gone off, there should have been sky rockets. Student counselling had an obligation also.
I don’t know how to write the law so that rights aren’t trampled. I just know that being alive is more important than someone else not having their crazy shared. That’s why lawmakers, the NRA, and mental health folks all need to collaborate. I would also throw in a few institutional folks both public and private. One group shouldn’t be solving it all at the expense of another.
I watched an Australian comic discuss gun control. He said that the gun used in Sandy Hook (a Bushmaster) is able to be purchased at Walmart in the U.S. for about $3600 and they deliver it to your front door. Since the Australian gun ban, you can only buy guns in Australia on the black market. A Bushmaster there costs $36,000.
The punch line was “if you can afford $36,000, you don’t need to be a criminal”.
Usually, those among us that are insane, or spewing hate, or are ardent racists, aren’t well paid. If guns were more expensive (listen up gun manufacturers), then maybe, we can reduce the number of guns in the hands of the volatile.
@BSinA
I went back and took a closer look at Australian crime statistics after stringent gun control was enacted. It is true that the death rate attributable to guns has decreased significantly, but almost all the decrease is due to fewer suicides. There is no statistically significant change in the murder rate since their drastic gun laws went into effect.
I plan to evaluate their crime rates related to home invasion, burglary, and violent crimes other than murder. I have not had a chance to do that yet.
My hypothesis is that humans will continue to kill each other with or without strict gun control, just as they have for for millennia. During wars and natural disasters, we see how quickly the norms of civilization can break down.
It seems very unlikely that stronger gun control will result in less violence.
Its more difficult to do mass murder without guns.
I don’t think the criminal element of gun violence will change either. I do think if psychos can’t gain easy access to guns, they wont be able to wreak as much devastation and destruction.
We can increase the cost of guns by eliminating the subsidy society gives to gun owners. If guns required insurance that paid the medical cost of gunshot wounds and a life insurance payout to victims families then guns would be more expensive and there would be fewer of them. Gun owners love their government subsidy and are unlikely to agree to give it up and as a result all of us pay the cost of gun violence.
@Ed Myers
Yes..yes…you’ve brought this idiotic idea over and over and you’ve been debunked over and over again.
Please learn some new delusions.
@BSinA
“I watched an Australian comic discuss gun control. He said that the gun used in Sandy Hook (a Bushmaster) is able to be purchased at Walmart in the U.S. for about $3600 and they deliver it to your front door. Since the Australian gun ban, you can only buy guns in Australia on the black market. A Bushmaster there costs $36,000.”
Such an authority….not.
Walmart will not deliver a gun to your door…period. And they run about $600-900.
And guns are not banned in Australia. Restricted….but ownership levels have returned to previous levels.
Violence does not end with fewer guns, but the level of violence decreases. Suicide attempts do not go down but the number of successful ones decreases, which is a good thing. Fights are not diminished but the number that result in death decline when guns are not available to settle the score. But eliminating guns is not doable.
What makes modern guns unique as a weapon is the distance of impact and the speed of delivery. When you had only one shot and it took a minute to reload one was careful with aim and gun fights were in close quarters. Bystanders were less likely to be collateral damage. When you have 100 bullets at your disposal with 3 times the range it is easy to waste them in a hail of lead. In a crowded place non-combatant bystanders get killed. Since gun owners can’t seem to keep the bullets under control we should restrict bullet range and the quantity of bullets able to be fired per gun to help gun owner be more responsible. Bullets that are lethal beyond a range of 20 yards are defective and should be recalled and replaced. That would end drive-by shootings. Limiting the number of bullets per gun prevents gun-based mass murder. Potential victims are unlikely to remain compliant and within 20 yards while a perp is reloading.
You can’t keep guns out of the hands of crazy people but you can make bullets less dangerous when they are in the guns of crazy gun owners. It doesn’t take much to put 20 yards distance between myself and a crazy gun owner so I would be less interested in preventing gun owners from toting their guns around if those guns had a much smaller radius of lethality.
We can’t keep guns out of the hands of crazy people but we can make it more difficult for them to obtain guns.