Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.
Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.
Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.
Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.
Laws against murder, robbery, arson, sex crimes and terrorism obviously don't prevent those things from happening, so why should we bother with laws concerning any of these things. They are just another way to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.
Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.
Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.
Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.
While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.
Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.
Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.
Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.