Hmm.
I don't like to debate much, so hopefully I can say what I need to and be done.
The greatest issue that faces any statutory legislation is enforcement. You can write any law you want, you can even outlaw leaving the toilet seat up. Who though, will be there to apprehend those that do it? "We just have the police do it, silly face." Police officers cost money. Police equipment costs money. Jails and prisons... cost money. The second point, any campaign against any one thing,takes those resources. This naturally reduces the resources that can be applied to say, emergency calls.With the prolific number of firearms in the U.S., further regulation, and confiscation (which confiscation is being asked for) would devote an enormous amount of resources, and thus funds towards this one endeavor. Secondly, there is a large industry in this game. You remove the industry, you lay off those who used to earn from it. This means increased unemployment, and in the fields that are currently employing those who would be otherwise unemployed, skilled trades. Increasing unemployment naturally increases the number of people under the poverty line. Interestingly enough, from what financial demographic does most violent crime occur? ... Those under the poverty line. "It's okay, I know this guy on welfare, and he does just fine." That's great, but welfare costs money. "Well, they're going to start taxing the rich more, so we'll be getting more money anyway." This could be an argument if it was simply a single company shutting down, but it's an entire industry. Those at the top of these companies will have nowhere to go either. The companies can't liquidate the equipment, because they are tooled for items that are now illegal. Therefore they still have loans and overhead, and no margin. If they have no income, no income taxes. If they file bankruptcy, the Federal reserve eventually takes the hit..... more money.
All of the sudden, it's a whole lot more complex. "Peoples lives are so much more important than these worries." People's lives are incredibly important. Which is why we have to be wary of quick fix ideas.
There was an Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994. Remember how there were fewer incidents of mass killings in the late 90's?....... Neither do I. Oklahoma City, Ted Kacynski, .... Columbine. Columbine is interesting as one wasn't even old enough to acquire a long gun, much less a hand gun. It was illegal. They modified a shotgun, illegally. Yet, they were able to get the weapons and ammunition. Laws are simply ink on paper, unless they are followed and enforced. Since law enforcement is limited, they can't possibly check into every nook and cranny. Which isn't against them, law enforcement personnel are just the few among many out there. Here's a list of the high profile shootings from 96' to present (keep in mind some of these occurred in countries with EXTREMELY stringent gun control statutes)
Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com Even if you aren't a detective you can see patterns. Two that come up immediately: Location and age. The shootings occur in areas (at least in the U.S.) that are gun free zones. The majority of perpetrators are under 18 years of age.The second point is very troubling, but the first point is understandable. If there is a choice between not knowing if there is someone there that can oppose them, and knowing there isn't, which one will they choose?
I've heard of the idea of arming certain teachers, and the like. Not a bad idea, as long as it's of their own accord. They have to understand the weight of that responsibility, to be the immediate response in that type of situation. To further it though, it should also be well known that they have them, so as to dissuade the actions from occurring in the first place. The prerequisite for all of this though, is education. It's bee presented as "This is all you have to do, and it'll be fixed." just as much as much as harsher gun control. The point that rings true is the example of Switzerland. approximately 50% of the country's populace owns a firearm. They enjoy one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. It's not just because they have guns though. They have guns knowing both how to use them, and to respect them. They do this through mandatory military service. Obviously, The U.S. population is far too large for that sort of measure, that specific strategy wouldn't work. What is boot camp to the military? It's school. Education from a younger age as to what a firearm is, and a real testimony of the dangers involved when they are disrespected as tools that can cause harm, can have a pretty big effect. In Switzerland it works because the firearm says "respect that I'm armed", but so is everyone else. Yes, we should respect everyone in Christ's love, alas, not everybody shares in his love. A threat requires imminence and guns don't have it as they're inanimate objects. They cannot be a threat in this case. If they were dropped from an aircraft and accelerated to terminal velocity and someone was standing in their path....Then, they would be a threat. They are as much a tool to dissuade would be attackers, of any violent crime, as they are to maim or kill.
In the same breath (okay, a REALLY long breath) I wish weapons weren't required at all. I do wish that the Love for our brothers and sisters resided in each and every person in this world. War and violence are consequences of the sin inherent to the race of Adam. Come quickly Lord.
