badgenome said:
I do find it a silly thing to do, honestly. There was going to be an exemption for transfers of firearms among family members, anyway, and according to surveys of people convicted of gun crimes the most common source for weapons used in crimes is... families and friends. It's pretty similar to how the proposed assault weapons ban targets a lot of scary-looking weapons based on completely arbitrary features that don't at all affect the lethality of the weapon in question, and these weapons are used very, very infrequently in shootings, while handguns - which kill many more people every year - are pretty much left alone. I think prohibition is pretty much always bullshit from the start since it really only affects people who actually care about the law. But your argument does seem to be a popular one, that if it can even save one life then it's worth it to try. I just don't think that's a very sound basis for any type of legislation. "Well, we're going to restrict your behavior because it might help, although there is zero evidence that it will." Besides, that kind of hypothetical is a total wash because, of course, you can't prove that the very same legislation wouldn't cause people to be murdered because they couldn't legally obtain the weapon that might have saved their lives. Is the one life worth less than the other? |
Well, what would be a better solution?
How about hold the people who supply the gun as accomplices?
