| is pretty silly. Most crimes are committed using handguns, and handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. If the Federal government wants to do something effective about guns, handguns should be the target. Instead, "assault weapons" are targeted because of the most recent incident of mass shootings. It is never wise to legislate based on a single incident.
As for what can be done about limiting criminals' access to handguns, I suspect it is much like with drugs. Banning may make the price go up a bit, but it most definitely won't control access; criminals will still be able to get hold of handguns. Whether through strawman purchases, stolen guns, or possibly inventive paperwork, if there is money to be made, guns will be available.
Further complicating gun control (and any statistic relating to local gun control laws) is the ease with which guns can be transported into areas with restrictions. This particular Wiki deals with findings on gun crimes in Washington, DC, but the principle is the same. (To my great annoyance, this problem even reaches into Canada because of the impossibility of controlling such a small item as a gun, given the large volume of goods transported over the border). So in order for any gun restrictions to be effective, they have to be nationwide. And I don't expect the NRA to just let that happen, particularly while the Second Amendment is there for them to abuse.
Gun violence is a thorny problem in the USA, and has been made worse by a cultural affectation. I don't expect ANY legislation to make much impact in short order. Actually, I expect law enforcement, legislation and health care to be more effective, if they start focusing on individuals and their well-being, rather than on making money. Again, a sharp cultural shift from current trends. |
