Quote:
|
I think you have to ask yourself, how a given gun control law makes things better or safer. If that can't be quantified or the benefits don't outweigh the costs, then that gun control law needs to go...It seems that after a mass shooting, the default answer is more gun control even though there were already a number of gun control laws on the books. How does adding another gun control law make things better or safer?
|
One could also ask themselves what doing nothing does to make things better or safer. Obviously it does nothing.
Setting a higher bar for firearm ownership would make things safer as it would require more of an investment in terms of time, money, and training (mental effort) that will help to deter the curious but dangerously ignorant hobbyist, criminals, the mentally unstable and incompetent, etc. A more stringent and deeper background check will help to further weed out those who probably shouldn't have access to lethal weapons.
People use guns to kill each other because they are
convenient not just effective. Requiring more of a shooting education and investment in order to access firearms legally, will make them less convenient. Someone will make the argument that people are going to just kill each other anyway, even if they have to use a different method; that is besides the point. The point is that firearms will be less convenient to the unstable making mass shootings less feasible, and by making these compromises the firearms community will be protected.
"Setting a higher bar" should entail a firearm owners license with a waiting period of a short time, a more thorough and stringent background check, and the mandatory attendance of a class designed to teach one how to safely and accurately use a firearm. This will all be funded by licensing fees. One will make the argument that they shouldn't have to be charged to exercise their right, however by this logic, the government should supplement their ammunition costs.