Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[HeyYou]

After all, defending freedom also means arming evil, like in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting.

 

 

 

 

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom.

 

2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society.

 

Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play.

 

Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records.

 

There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed.

 

Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh?

 

Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

 

Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither.

 

I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone. In fact, if you recall from the first post I made in this debate, that is exactly what I WASN'T going for. I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties. I understand where you are coming from, and that your right (and it is a right) to own a gun is one that you staunchly defend, but not everyone in this world should be given a gun; the proof is in the very roots of this debate itself. Yes, of course there are going to be complications with restriction and with reforms, like where we draw the line between who is and isn't a responsible citizen, who does and does not abide by the law, and how we can discern said responsible citizens from those who are not. The answer to your question is simple: this isn't an issue that can easily be solved, and there is no clear-cut answer, but leaving the law as it currently is, I believe, is certainly not the answer.

 

You have stated you think the laws need to change. I have put forth my position that changing the laws will have zero affect. Let me reiterate:

 

Most of the shooters have been folks with no criminal history, or history of treatment for mental instability.

 

A fair few of the shooters did not use their own weapons, but, weapons they STOLE from someone else, be it a parent, or sibling.

 

Most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. Places where the shooters KNOW no one else will be carrying.

 

I will grant that the Arizona shooter (the Giffords incident) DID indeed have a history of mental illness, but, due to privacy concerns, none of that was shared with law enforcement of any variety, to prevent him from purchasing his own weapon. (which he then used to kill several people......)

 

So far, from what I am seeing, changing ANY laws won't have any affect whatsoever on the availability of weapons to someone that wants to commit suicide by seeing how many folks he can take with him..... On the other hand, it appears that armed citizens, including teachers..... have, in fact, stopped the shooter, and significantly reduced the potential casualty count, on multiple occasions. Do you see my logic here?

 

Alright, fine, I'll admit to a structured argument when I see one. Considering all of the facts that you have brought to this debate, tell me this: what do you believe we should do? Leave the law as it is, do absolutely nothing, and ignore incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting? I see your logic, and I agree to most of it (said parents should have been more responsible), but someone has to take some kind of action here. And no, I don't mean with a gun. All I want to see is a safer nation; that's it, that's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking to take anyone's gun away. I'm not asking to sacrifice anything that would mean losing any freedoms we have today. All I'm saying is address these problems and solve this damn war between gun-lovers and those who'd rather see them put away. I admit, I don't have the answers, and I won't pretend that I do, but the law cannot stay the way it is today. It just can't; I don't see how it could.

 

I am not entirely sure there is a "fix" for this particular problem..... aside from a complete ban of all guns, and using the military to collect them, forcibly if necessary...... guns are going to continue to be part of the american landscape. That said, there are few things I would like to see happen.....

 

Biggest among them is cooperation among various departments..... folks being treated for specific mental illnesses should be prevented from purchasing weapons. (this would make only a very minor difference.)

 

Ban Gun-Free zones. 90% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones. If you can be pretty much assured that your targets won't have the capability to shoot back, there is a lot less motivation to NOT do something like that. Police response times are measured in minutes...... which is all the time it took for 27 people to die in Sandy Hook..... They are the mass shooters major concern.... (as no one else is going to have a gun...) Letting the teachers/administrative staff carry would have put folks capable of stopping the shooter right on the scene, before the first shot was fired. Not 10 minutes after the last shot was fired.... (they would need to have proper training/licensing....)

 

Change the 'good samaritan" law to include those that use deadly force is such situations.... There WILL be a time when an innocent gets shot by someone trying to take the potential mass-shooter..... On that note, whatever happened to the cops that shot 9 people in New York trying to get one guy with a gun?

 

Is it a perfect solution? Nope. It would certainly give folks thinking about doing this kind of thing pause though.......

[korun]

i'm not leaving in the US obviously, but your thinking

 

Ban Gun-Free zones. 90% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones. If you can be pretty much assured that your targets won't have the capability to shoot back, there is a lot less motivation to NOT do something like that.

 

oh! are you sure? the guy at Sandy bridge or every where else think " yeah that must be cool here, a school, they will be a lot of child and teachers with guns.... i'm not a Psychologist, but i'm pretty sure, the guy just want to die and take numerous people with him or he's target would have been a precinct no?

 

and

 

Police response times are measured in minutes...... which is all the time it took for 27 people to die in Sandy Hook..... They are the mass shooters major concern.... (as no one else is going to have a gun...) Letting the teachers/administrative staff carry would have put folks capable of stopping the shooter right on the scene, before the first shot was fired. Not 10 minutes after the last shot was fired.... (they would need to have proper training/licensing....)

this is what NRA is saying :P, good people with a gun against bad one, so, ok may be 27 people will be alive or may be not, but there is and will be one thing still, 99.99% of 130 000.000 american will use there guns in self defense and 0.01% who can or will probably kill one of your kid/parent/friend

cool way of life for sure

 

btw you can't..try ..to Ban gun-free zone, if you give firearms to people who are leaving/working in^^

 

or i've missed something :)

@@

Edited December 26, 2012 by korun

[HeyYou]

i'm not leaving in the US obviously, but your thinking

 

Ban Gun-Free zones. 90% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones. If you can be pretty much assured that your targets won't have the capability to shoot back, there is a lot less motivation to NOT do something like that.

 

oh! are you sure? the guy at Sandy bridge or every where else think " yeah that must be cool here, a school, they will be a lot of child and teachers with guns.... i'm not a Psychologist, but i'm pretty sure, the guy just want to die and take numerous people with him or he's target would have been a precinct no?

 

and

 

Police response times are measured in minutes...... which is all the time it took for 27 people to die in Sandy Hook..... They are the mass shooters major concern.... (as no one else is going to have a gun...) Letting the teachers/administrative staff carry would have put folks capable of stopping the shooter right on the scene, before the first shot was fired. Not 10 minutes after the last shot was fired.... (they would need to have proper training/licensing....)

this is what NRA is saying :P, good people with a gun against bad one, so, ok may be 27 people will be alive or may be not, but there is and will be one thing still, 99.99% of 130 000.000 american will use there guns in self defense and 0.01% who can or will probably kill one of your kid/parent/friend

cool way of life for sure

 

btw you can't..try ..to Ban gun-free zone, if you give firearms to people who are leaving/working in^^

 

or did i've missed something :)

@@

If all he was concerned about was getting himself dead, he would have either simply shot himself, or, went someplace where there were lots of folks with guns. The fact that he chose a school, you know, a gun-free zone..... tells me he wanted to kill a bunch of other folks before finally killing himself. Please note: Most mass shooters have themselves as the last victims. Very seldom is it the cops that take him down.

 

Have a look at the Colorado shootings. Also a gun free zone.... A movie theater. Now, what if half a dozen folks there had ALSO been armed? Do you think the death toll would have been higher, or lower? I know if I had been there, armed, about the time I saw him whipping out a weapon, mine would have also been in hand, and the death toll would have been two. The shooters first victim, and the shooter. Bear in mind, I have military training with firearms.... So, I don't really qualify as the "average" american.....

[korun]

If you can be pretty much assured that your targets won't have the capability to shoot back, there is a lot less motivation to NOT do something like that.

this, i believe you were meaning that if there is no one with a gun around, mass shooters will chose another place, that's why i've said he must have chosen a Precinct,

 

If all he was concerned about was getting himself dead, he would have either simply shot himself, or, went someplace where there were lots of folks with guns. The fact that he chose a school, you know, a gun-free zone..... tells me he wanted to kill a bunch of other folks before finally killing himself. Please note: Most mass shooters have themselves as the last victims. Very seldom is it the cops that take him down.

then, yes definitly

 

Have a look at the Colorado shootings. Also a gun free zone.... A movie theater. Now, what if half a dozen folks there had ALSO been armed? Do you think the death toll would have been higher, or lower? I know if I had been there, armed, about the time I saw him whipping out a weapon, mine would have also been in hand, and the death toll would have been two. The shooters first victim, and the shooter. Bear in mind, I have military training with firearms.... So, I don't really qualify as the "average" american.....

 

i believe, really i do, 1st, you are well trained for, but, as you said, not like every one, 2nd, if people can't buy firearms anymore, no matter what kind of, the guy at Sandy Hook can't be armed like a Navy Seal, right?, so you have reduce even more the risk to see a mentally disturbed guy in the street with a gun.

In many countries, you can't have gun, there is still a black market of course, but it became really complicated to be mentally disturbed and the best friend of all the bad guys down town no?

 

I, also, believe and understand that is your roots and it will take many time to change

@@

Edited December 26, 2012 by korun

[sukeban]

Personally, the years have moved me from being very much sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment to being openly hostile.

 

Back in the day, I more or less bought that jive about an armed citizenry being some sort of a bulwark against abusive government (back in the PATRIOT Act days, this seemed somewhat more relevant [not that those provisions are off the books...]). However, time has taught me the simple lesson that if the government ever wants to send the black helicopters to your house and kick down the door in the middle of the night... your lame assault rifle with its 30-round magazines IS NOT going to help you. It's a simple matter of state capacity, of which the USA (and especially its military) ranks high. The government isn't a tin-can dictatorship like Assad, ergo any idea that you can "fight the man" over your homestead is entirely illusory. Better to resolve our problems within the democratic context rather than let things ever come to that (understatement of the century!).

 

So if guns aren't guaranteeing our political freedom... whatever ARE they doing (apart from thinning our population in alarmingly large numbers)? I'm no hunter nor a target shooter, but I guess those are legitimate "sports" to pursue if you are into that kind of thing. Outside of that, isn't there a statistic wherein gun-owners are something like 22X more likely to be shot by their own weapon than they are to make any sort of successful defense of self/loved ones/property? Aren't gun owners far more likely to blast their spouse/son/brother/uncle than they ever are to ward off a criminal or thug? So much better to call 911 or pick up a golf club and hide behind the door.

 

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that a motivated individual can find a firearm if they really set their mind to it, it is also true that otherwise benign domestic disputes escalate into deadly violence far more often in homes that possess firearms, not to mention the far more efficacious nature of suicide-by-firearm than a suicide attempt by any other means.

 

What I am driving at is that I agree with those folks that say the 2nd Amendment is passe and outdated. It was instated in a time when the United States didn't even have a standing army or navy, meaning that its militias were its bet and most reliable means of defense. Now that we have efficient bodies for administering our nation's political violence (army, navy, etc.), I fail to see how these colonial-era "rights" to a firearm remain in effect. I also fail to see how the Founders would condone civilian possession of the weapons presently arrayed in this country. This strikes me as NOT their intention at the time the Amendment came down.

 

******************

 

Rather than double-post, I would just add that the US is unique in several ways from European and other nations with elevated rates of gun-ownership:

 

First, we are very much multi-ethnic (and becoming more so each day). PC nonsense to the contrary, this can and will spike paranoia, as imagining the "other" is far more simple and in-your-face than it is in a country like Japan or Korea. Ask 10 gun-owners to imagine a criminal... any guesses as to what type of person they will imagine??

 

Second, we have far higher rates of poverty in the US than nearly anywhere else in the industrialized world. Desperate people do desperate things, like buying guns and using them to "make ends meet..." feeding into Reason #1 with an assist from the always-on, sensationalized media. Leaving aside crime, the economy for most people is utter trash. If you are a marginalized, atomized individual (see below) a) without a job or b) with a terrible job--you are unlikely to be happy with life, and also unlikely to be able to date or marry successfully. As with the Middle East, restless, sexless, unemployed men are bad, bad news.

 

Third, we have terrible mental health services (and healthcare in general). Due to de-funding and the work of the ACLU, we have extremely unwell people walking amongst us whereas a generation ago they would probably have been institutionalized or at least under more rigorous supervision. Mental health care is also scoffed at and demeaned, especially amongst men, as it violates the "strong, silent" trope of traditional American masculinity.

 

Fourth, we have an increasingly atomized society, wherein the individual spends far more time by themselves and with their chosen media sources and recreation than they do with other people. Do you know your neighbors? I do, but most people I know don't. If you don't know and aren't friends with many other people, you are very able to ascribe your worst thoughts to them. Combine this with mental illness = not good.

 

Fifth, gun culture and the fetishization of weapons. This one is low-priority since the US exports most of its media to other countries and they don't behave as we do. Still, given the above, when a disaffected young man spends 12 hours a day playing CoD, they might begin to think "it ain't that hard" and begin to objectify other human beings. Given that slaughter is glorified in this country, said dude could also view this as his only means of ever "being something"--achieving immortality or proving some bizarre point via wanton slaughter.

 

Sixth, the guns themselves. I've never tried to obtain a firearm, but I have no doubts that it is relatively straightforward. Beyond WalMart, the infamous "gun show loophole" appears to allow buyers to circumvent most/all laws when purchasing at a designated event. You could be Timothy McVeigh or Muhammad Atta--the seller doesn't need to care if the price is right. Then you can go to WalMart and stock up on all your ammunition needs and maybe grab a scope or two/three/four/infinite while you're at it.

 

Seventh, we have a large, relatively free, relatively porous country that is simply not able to be policed as diligently as other places. Back in the day, this was papered over due to our higher levels of social cohesion and economic parity, meaning that communities were able to intervene before problems arose and/or people were simply more unlikely to commit heinous acts because their lives held more purpose (job, romance, place in the community) than they do today. If you are a mentally unstable, single, unemployed male living in a broken home and utterly removed from contact with other people and without a reasonable expectation that your life will improve... that is not good. For anybody, the individual or his society.

 

I would also point out that mass shooters are now ALMOST always young(ish), white, men. This is statistically significant, and it points to the sociological and societal problems that I outlined above (and more, surely). Beyond the boiler-plate discussion about guns, addressing the above would likely also help cut down on the incidence of these wicked and senseless acts.

Edited December 27, 2012 by sukeban

[Beriallord]

I'd place slightly stricter requirements on who can buy firearms legally, but I'd allow citizens to own fully automatic weapons. What I mean by that is anyone charged with a violent misdemeanor, including assault, or some form of criminal threatening shouldn't be able to purchase firearms, including anyone who is criminally insane. That means some communication would need to be involved in government, to determine which people are not eligible to purchase firearms.

 

Also in the case of the sandy hook shooting, where the mother made no attempt to secure her firearms from her crazy kid, she should be charged with accessory to murder had she survived. I'm talking hypothetically for future such cases. This would place some responsibility on gun owners to secure their firearms. If she had locked those guns in a safe with a combination lock, this probably would have never happened. Laws that make people criminally liable for not securing their firearms from mental nuts who proceed to murder people, would encourage more people to secure their firearms.

 

Technically you can already own fully automatic weapons providing you can pay the price tag, but you also need to register your ownership of it with the federal government. That is different from normal guns, because you can typically buy a gun second hand from a friend without getting it transferred, and its not illegal. But if you did that with a fully automatic weapon, and didn't register it, that is a federal weapons charge, which could get you 10 years in prison. The prices are heavily inflated on fully automatic weapons that were "pre-ban", because the law isn't retroactive, and more guns that fit the criteria aren't being created due to that. For example, I know someone who owns a fully automatic BAR, its an absolute beast of a rifle, and there are also some pre-ban Tommy guns out there. You could expect to pay around 20-30k or more for one.

 

I asked a gun dealer how much a Glock 18c would cost, if hypothetically any citizen could buy one, and he said around $1100. Its an SMG version of the Glock 19, which is fully automatic. I don't see anything wrong with law abiding, sane people owning them. The only way its legal to own those currently is if you are a licensed gun dealer. Even a police officer has to get permission from the police chief if they want to buy one.

 

Full gun control will never happen in America, because there are 10s of millions of people who simply won't give them up, including myself. They don't have the manpower or the resources to make millions give up their guns, and using the military to do that would be unconstitutional, and it would probably create divisions in government, as well as lots of cases of insubordination. I don't care if they are 10 sandy hook shootings in 1 year, I'd still be against them infringing on the second amendment. As Charlton Heston said, they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

As for the ones advocating full gun control, would you put your life on the line to volunteer to go knocking on doors asking law abiding citizens to relinquish their firearms? Only reason I'm asking this because I don't know many who would. I've asked several military veterans if they were ordered by government to confiscate firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens, would you follow orders? Every single one of them said no, and not just a maybe, it was an adamant no. And I know 2 who told me they would personally turn their guns on the ones ordering them to do it.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Beriallord

[Brutii]

I have always found america's gun laws confusing and pointless. Presumably, by the time you realise someone has an intent to rob or harm you, they are close to you. So you draw your gun, they see the tables have turned, your not as harmless as they thought. Their adrenaline now kicks in and they open up with a punch and grab your gun. They are scared because you just pulled a gun on them, their natural survival instincts have kicked in, they aren't thinking straight or logically anymore. They shoot you with your own gun. What started as a robbery becomes a murder.

 

This is just my POV and may be completely wrong. But from what I hear, america breeds murder because there is so little regulation on such lethal weaponry. Apparently it's easy to get a gun over there.

 

Americans seem to think it's a god given right to own guns, and that they should be allowed to run around with them. Presumably because others in their country own guns. So Person A owns a gun becuase Person B does. Person B owns a gun because Person C does. Person C owns a gun because Person A does. Vicious circle.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I assume this basically means:

 

deterring tyrannical government

repelling invasion

suppressing insurrection

right of self-defense

participating in law enforcement

a militia system

 

Let me review

 

Deterring tyrannical Government: Perhaps the most stupid idea. If the american government decides to be ran by a tyrant and decide to kill you, your gun isn't going to do much against a spec ops team or an Abrams battle tank. And who says they will even wake you up? Why not sneak in and slit your throat?

Repelling invasion: Again silly. If your country is invaded, do you think you and your neighbors can step outside and fight off an army of trained military soldiers? Even if, somehow you managed to fight of a well equipped infantry, what will you do against Choppers and Tanks.

Suppressing Insurrection: A more normal one, possibly, helping you stop rebellion. But your armed to repress insurrection, the rebels are now also armed because of this amendment.

Right of self defense: Okay, but the person trying to kill you is also armed with a gun because of the amendment. They will probably fire first and kill you first

Participating in law enforcement: A civilian is more likely to get in the way of a police force than help. They could also be arrested should they attempt to handle a situation before the police arrive. Also, should they try to handle, say, a house robbery, then you have one untrained person against one or more criminals who may also be armed who have other civilians in the house. So they may have numbers and hostages. They also have all the cover. Your not going to do to well. Instead of trying to help, the civilians should call the police and let SWAT handle it.

A militia system: Ah, militia. People called to defend their homes and country. This is a good system. But why do they need to own the guns? Why not just be armed by the government when they are called up?

 

In the times of old, like colonial and cowboys, when the army and police couldn't respond with speed and weren't as organised, all the above made sense. Now the police and be on the scene quickly. The Police are organised and can take out the threats, the military can respond quickly if there is a massive threat. The 2nd amendment is outdated. Now you will say "But the criminals have guns as well and will kill before the police respond." If you regulate guns more so that there are very very few legal owners, then your average run of the mill criminal WON'T have guns either.

Sure, some could get guns through the black market, but I think the guy at Sandy Hook was off his nut. Depressed, unstable, confused. with new gun laws it would be impossible for him to get a gun legally and easily, so he probably would have entered without one. This he would attack the children and teachers with another weapon. A knife prehapes. Sure, some may still die, but less would, and one of the teachers may have had the physical strength to overpower him. With a gun, the teacher daren't make a move because the teacher fears being shot, with a knife, the teacher knows that he can close the distance and fight the man. Thus there would have been less deaths, less distraught parents, less teachers thinking they'd failed to protect the children and a better ending. It would still be sad, but at least less death.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Brutii

[HeyYou]

I would point out that the Sandy Hook shooter was dead before the cops arrived.....

 

Police response times are not the best. Given the financial state of our economy, police and firefighters are the first to get layoffs. Even so, the BEST response time I have seen would still be a minimum of three minutes.... (and that's only because the cop shop is four blocks from the school....) a lot can happen in three minutes. Much better to have armed folks already on the scene.

 

No gun law is going to take guns out of the hands of folks that want to do this kind of thing. I don't quite get why folks think there is something magical about a law, that everyone automatically obeys it. I would point out that murder is illegal, yet it happens many times a day.... even in gun-free countries.....

 

As for the robber taking my gun away from me, and shooting me with it..... That's actually kind of funny. I think you watch too many martial arts movies..... about the time said robber even twitched toward me, I would be pulling the trigger...... so would most anyone else....

[Brutii]

I would point out that the Sandy Hook shooter was dead before the cops arrived.....

 

Police response times are not the best. Given the financial state of our economy, police and firefighters are the first to get layoffs. Even so, the BEST response time I have seen would still be a minimum of three minutes.... (and that's only because the cop shop is four blocks from the school....) a lot can happen in three minutes. Much better to have armed folks already on the scene.

 

No gun law is going to take guns out of the hands of folks that want to do this kind of thing. I don't quite get why folks think there is something magical about a law, that everyone automatically obeys it. I would point out that murder is illegal, yet it happens many times a day.... even in gun-free countries.....

 

As for the robber taking my gun away from me, and shooting me with it..... That's actually kind of funny. I think you watch too many martial arts movies..... about the time said robber even twitched toward me, I would be pulling the trigger...... so would most anyone else....

 

The time it takes you to draw the gun, raise it, aim then fire. Without aiming you've wasted your shot. There are people can run quite fast. Maybe I do watch too many martial arts movies, but there are things people think are so simple. And are the people with the guns, average people, willing to pull the trigger? Your quite possibly holding the fate of someone in your hands. Are you prepared to kill somebody? Plus, the criminal could be close, how many people brush past you everyday. Many. Going to walk around with the gun out pointing it at everyone who walks past you?

 

I don't think people will magically obey it, but by passing gun laws, you make weapons harder to acquire. Sure, some people will get their hands on them, but there will be less of them. By stopping guns going to average people, the criminals would have to steal weapons. Yes, some would do it, but nutters who go around shooting kids might not bother. I think it's clear he didn't intend to survive, he just wanted to take other out with him.

[Ghogiel]

I don't think people will magically obey it, but by passing gun laws, you make weapons harder to acquire. Sure, some people will get their hands on them, but there will be less of them. By stopping guns going to average people, the criminals would have to steal weapons. Yes, some would do it, but nutters who go around shooting kids might not bother. I think it's clear he didn't intend to survive, he just wanted to take other out with him.

It would take decades for the scarcity of that item to really start making them prohibitively expensive and difficult to acquire.

 

And lets face it, decades is too far for a politician think in terms of. And will probably never truely happen anyway because the populace in the US is generally in favor of gun ownership. At most it would be you aren't allowed to stroll around carrying guns in the street. Homes, I'll bet they wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

 

In the UK it's different, the populace here is heavily in favor for gun control, which is why politicians are also in favor of it. The UK has some of the lowest violent gun crime rates in the entire world so there is no incentive to do anything different here right now.