3 ms·
> but it seems to do the trick in keeping firearms out of the hands of crazies thus far. Yes you wouldn't think this change would be enough - because if you wa
by alberte 11y ago
> but it seems to do the trick in keeping firearms out of the hands of crazies thus far.
Yes you wouldn't think this change would be enough - because if you want to get a gun you can but for some reason it has.
- CamperBob2 11y agoIt's almost as if you can't infer valid statistical models from the occurrence or absence of extremely rare events.
- alberte 11y agoyes, unfortunately that is one interpretation of events, even so I feel more comfortable knowing that people like Martin Bryant can't get guns. I guess we'll just have to wait for more data points
- Gustomaximus 11y agoIt's never going to work absolutely, though the 4 main factors I see are fairly significant; 1 & 2: Licencing and checks stops people with a violent history purchasing/owning guns legally. If that personality decides they need a firearm to hurt people there is a month+ between their desire to do harm and actually owning a firearm. 3: Compulsory safes (and the police check each owner has an appropriate one) reduce the likelihood of a person accessing anothers firearm. 4: More dangerous firearms like handguns and semi-auto are harder to get yet again thus less prevalent stopping what might be a small shooting from becoming significantly larger. A significant shooting becomes much harder with a double barrel shotgun than an AR-15. Another benefit I imagine is restrictions would stop police feeling there is a potential firearm around every corner and may help calm down ongoing US cop shootings/mentality too.