That would be kinda funny. Imagine “concealed carry” of a muzzle loader.
Repealing the Second Amendment would be a simpler action to take. A lot less legislation would need to be written, loopholes to be filled, people to be registered, etc. Instead, you would just make one change to a law.
That’s simply not true. Repealing the second amendment doesn’t suddenly make owning a gun illegal.
I don’t understand why full-auto is fine to heavily regulate, but semi-auto that are trivially different mechanically must be made available to anyone.
I had an interesting thought earlier. I wonder if an attempt has ever been made to restrict gun use by population density. Suppose you could pass a law to make it illegal to have a semi-automatic in an area with population density of over 100 per square mile. That would allow gun nuts in places like Montana to keep their weapons, but they couldn’t take them into cities. People that live in densely populated areas could still own them, but couldn’t keep them at home, which would allow them to still go hunting those deer Robin Williams used to talk about.
Hard to enforce? Maybe. It wouldn’t limit access to guns. But it would let law enforcement seize weapons found in populated areas and maybe prevent some mass shootings.
Not perfect, but might be something you could get support for. I don’t know.
How different would that be in net effect compared to Chicago’s gun laws?
No idea what those are.
Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular have historically had very strict gun control laws. Various legal appeals, in 2010 in particular, IIRC, have peeled that back quite a bit, but the history is still interesting.
There is (very) vigourous debate regarding the efficacy of those laws.
Following the Vegas shootings, NPR (and others) did some pretty good reporting on the topic. Bottom line was, “wow, this shit’s complicated.” It’s very challenging to make a truly compelling factual argument. Tons of effective political arguments, per usual, but that’s a horse of another color.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
What if they decided to have a social media and nobody came?
By the way, if anyone is curious, here’s the story of the largely forgotten original spree shooter:
Unruh immediately collected his Luger and ammo, a six-inch knife, and a tear gas pen with six shells, and cut through the backyard to the 3200 block of River Road. Dressed in a brown tropical-worsted suit, white shirt, striped bow tie, and Army boots, the lanky 6-foot, 164-pound Unruh shot at a bread deliveryman in his truck, but missed. He then walked into the shoemaker’s store and, without saying a word, shot John Pilarchik, the 27-year-old cobbler who was on his list, in the chest. Pilarchik fell to the floor. Still alive, Unruh fired another round into Pilarchik’s head. A young boy crouched in fear behind the counter.
And this is the Pulitzer Prize winning NYT story that came out of it:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/090749nj-shoot.html
The prestigious Berger Scholarship is named for the piece’s author Meyer Berger.
Wow this was bad
They had nearly perfect drills and responses, plus an armed guard on campus. None of it mattered one bit.
Most south Florida schools have a policeman/sheriff stationed on campus. Here in Palm Beach county the school board has its own police force.
I wonder how that is supposed to work. These ‘armed guards’ are supposed to win a one-on-one gunfight? In an area filled with students and opposed by an often suicidal, better-armed attacker? What is it we expect the guards to do here?
Like, if nothing happened after Sandy Hook, I have no hope of anything being done after this.
This is shameful.
Guns should be harder for unstable people to get, period.
TheBath School massacre in 1927 is still the deadliest attack on school on US History (44 killed). It made the front page of the papers the next day, but disappeared from headlines quickly. There were no calls to ban shotguns, pickup trucks or dynamite. People said wow that’s crazy ass evil thing to do and went on with their lives.
I think a significant factor in the increase of mass shootings is the media and social media attention. I’m glad that Anderson Cooper doesn’t use their names, and I really wish the rest of the media would follow suit.
I don’t think that is a coincidence that in the middle east, where fully automatic weapons are easily obtainable, and even RPG are commonplace, that most deadly terrorist attacks are almost always car and truck bombs and the same thing is true in the US.
As awful as these attack with guns are it could be worse. Cars and trucks are easier to obtain for most teenagers (borrow or steal are always options if they don’t own one) than guns. Pack them with gasoline, or dynamite, or chemicals, or fertlizer, and broken glass, nails, ball bearings. Drive into a playground or the parking lot for football game, hit some pedestrian, and then denotate, double digit deaths will be common. Or figure out some way of getting a crowd around the car and denonate it remotely and kill even more.
I can easily envision US schools turning into mini green zone areas with concrete barricades and prohibitions about parents and students driving to schools.
That’s odd, I can’t even remember the last significant “school bombing”, but shootings happen every few months.
Terrorist bombing incidents are fairly rare in the US, but common in the rest of the world and as a rule for more deadly than mass shootings. As this list shows.
A car bomb in a busy place pretty much kills everyone at said place or close to it.