The problem is this. When it comes to gun control and stopping shootings, it's a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Originally Posted by Auraninja
Let's say there is a complete and outright ban on all firearms in the future (hypothetical scenario, SOMEHOW the planets align and Congress agrees to this). The general consensus among gun control advocates seems to be that this would make the US like Canada and reduce the crime rate, leaving guns only in the hands of the military and maybe the police.
The problem is this would cause cartels that sell illegal drugs to start selling illegal firearms (some of them already do). And unlike the current system which does at least SOMETIMES employ background checks and other security measures, cartels don't care about any of that as long as they make money. Cartels are already doing other things illegally, so doing this as well wouldn't be that much different from what's already going on with them.
On the same note, if you ban individuals under investigation from purchasing firearms, that's well and good. But then you run into the issue that they could just have their family members or friends buy the weapon instead. They may be under investigation, but that doesn't mean those people are too.
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the prospect of gun control (I don't disagree with it. We definitely need tougher gun laws.). I'm just saying it's very difficult to police this, because there are so many ways around it. And that's IF everyone's willing to enforce it. As history has shown us, this is not always the case.
Rules of fansites:
1 - You can either be right, or you can be happy.
3 - If you think someone is lying about being an expert, they are.
5 - If you think someone is lying about knowing people who work in the industry, they are.
14 - All sources are one-sided.
27 - There's no such thing as an honest politician.