Tue, Dec 18 2012, 10:52 AM EST
>Yet still, mass shootings are far more often committed with handguns rather than anything that would fit the definition of an assault weapon
Well then let's focus on how to limit the spreading of handguns. For starters, a limit of two per person and a requirement to regularly present two guns with the correct serial number or face a hefty fine would be a good idea. As I've pointed out, more handguns means more gun deaths, across states and decades.
>There is still no logical reason for anything resembling an assault weapons ban.
Worst-case scenario: it doesn't work and a whole bunch of people get money from the government they hate paying into.
>On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
>Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
>At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
This post is long. Click
to read the full post.