Is it time to talk about gun control yet?
Every time there's a mass shooting, there's a knee-jerk reaction to ask this question. And there's always a knee-jerk reaction of "hands off muh guns!"
But once you get beyond the initial reactions of shock, horror, grief, etc, if you're in favor of more gun control, you have to get down to brass tacks and make specific policy proposals. And then you must explain how exactly those specific proposals would prevented the tragedy.
It could have been worse. The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?
I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws
It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.
I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.
Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.
With respect to "silencers," while they reduce the intensity of the sound coming from a rifle, the noise is still pretty loud, just less "bang"y. It's still very clear where the sound is coming from. Silencers aren't really a significant contributor to crime in the base case, because 1) they're expensive, 2) you can still hear the gun, and 3) they make the gun longer and heavier. Also, it's not actually difficult to make your own suppressor--an oil filter ($5) and a thread adapter ($7) are all you need to make a rudimentary (and illegal) suppressor. If suppressors were going to help someone get away with a crime, you'd see all the gangs in Chicago running around with 'em. In fact, in many places in Europe (certainly no bastion of gun rights), you can buy a suppressor over the counter with no paperwork whatsoever, and they don't seem to have a problem with criminals using them.
On the "shield people transporting guns across state lines" issue, the problem is this: per federal law, you can transport a gun you lawfully own across states lines without local/state authorities messing with you, including through areas that have stricter gun laws. To be clear, this is a situation where the gun is unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk of your car. Some states (especially NY and NJ) have decided that they don't like that law, and they will use any excuse to try to throw you in jail. Stop for gas? Ooh, suddenly you're not just passing through, and they think you're fair game. They always lose, but the innocent gun owner gets detained and often brought all the way through trial and ends up having to pay lots of lawyer's fees, even though the law is clearly on their side. The proposed law would add some teeth to the federal law by making the arresting state or local government pay for the defendant's legal fees in these cases.
Regarding concealed carry reciprocity, the issue is similar--otherwise law-abiding people (who pose no threat to anyone) are getting caught up in a patchwork of laws, to nobody's benefit. It's worth pointing out that people who go through the process to get a concealed carry permit are, by definition, law-abiding people. In fact, they have about the lowest crime rate of any group of people in the US. Or put another way, you simply don't hear stories about CC permit holders committing crimes.
Gun rights on public lands - a good chunk of the law is about expanding hunting access to public land. I'm not sure what the objection here is.
"surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have" Here's where the rub is. The devil, as they say, is in the details. There's a very understandable urge to "do something," but we must be sure that 1) the "something" will actually prevent future tragedies, and 2) the "something" won't cause more problems than it solves.
There is no "gun control" debate. At all. Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won. A complete, total victory.
reductio ad absurdum much? Gun laws in the US on a federal level haven't changed much in the last few decades. There's the machine gun ban of 1986, and the now-defunct assault weapons ban in 1994, but not much else. On a state level is where you've seen changes. Illinois now has concealed carry, Connecticut and New York (and a few other states) have passed some laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, and a few states have widened concealed and open carry laws, but by and large the landscape hasn't changed dramatically.