Not just that but... as such draconian measures would start of a civil war and even if there was not popular resistance and a voilent, militarized state reaction, prohibition has failed in the US and there's already means for illicit gun smuggling and distribution.
Here's their article on the negative consequences of banning guns
It's also interesting that the "no getting rid of all guns would case problems" is among a list of literal Utopian goals of "What if there were no diseases or no starving people", and the article itself is more an exercise of "Look in order to get X there may be negative consequences to it".
A closer analogy would be if you went "Let's assume all guns magically went poof, would people still be violent?"
Though the comments... not that I recommend reading the comments... seem to run in the style of "Pointing out negative consequences is Privileged!" (Seriously). And specifically to gun control you have folks suddenly turning all gung-ho Drug warrior to justify how gun bans would be okay.
Instead of, you know, going "There may be negative consequences to the goal we want, which means we have to be careful about executing the goals we want."
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
This was surprising....
A common gun would tend to be... common
On the other hand the article admits time and time again, that these killings have been done without "assault weapons" (or even guns), that the background check laws in the above examples wouldn't have done anything because the killers had clean backgrounds, and makes a point that unless you want to "ban all guns and magically mak[e] the existing 300 million of them vanish" that the laws wouldn't do anything.
The Article has #2 as the Nice massacre, and points out that all the killing was done with a truck, and then mentions at the end the dozens stabbed to death in a mass killing in Japan.
And then there's this:
OK, I have to pause to address everyone who's been shouting, "assault weapons ban!" at their screen for the last 4,000 words. After all, should that crazy fucker have been able to buy these?
But remember, all we're talking about with an assault weapons ban is a limit on how many bullets they hold at a time before you have to reload. Would this particular shooting have turned out differently if he'd only been able to fire, say, ten shots before swapping magazines? Remember, he had combat training -- with practice, swapping magazines can be done in a couple of seconds.
And an AWB doesn't even cover *that*. What he's talking about is a magazine ban.
An AWB bans guns if they have a certain number of cosmetic features.