Repost... (since it wasn't answered in the other thread).
Why wouldn't much harsher restrictions lower the chances of this kind of thing? Where there are less guns in circulation, there are less gun deaths. Last time I checked, US murder rate was 4x higher than the UK - whereas the gun death rate was something like 80x higher, so it obviously has a big impact.
Sure - it'd be extremely difficult, especially if the number of civilian hand guns is correct (88 per 100 people?). But it does seem time to try to tackle the issue seriously. Tighter age restrictions, limits on how many and types of gun you can own - also how and where you keep them, and what they're used for. Gradually taking them out of circulation (or cutting off supply over time) would mean, at the very least, there were less accidental gun deaths.
There's obviously the problem where you don't want an undefended public unprotected against gun-wielding crims - so the Police would need to be armed for the forseeable future (or permanently?). And the amount of guns in the criminal community would have to be tackled too - how? I dunno. But surely it's worth giving it a try, rather than seeing this kind of thing happen 3 times a year or more?
No, it probably wouldn't remove the risk of this sort of thing entirely - but you could probably make big inroads into the annual gun deaths figure - and save many many lives.
So how about it?
We've tried prohibition with alcohol and drugs. Sadly not only does it not work for us, but it caused many more problems. (I.E black markets & more crime)
To a few more points.
-Logistically speaking, the gov. wouldn't be able to afford rounding up all the firearms. They can't even handle controlling drugs, much less controlling ~200 million guns.
- The whole bit of disarming the general population would end horribly. As I've said earlier, loads of Americans truly believe in the whole "From my cold dead hands" bit. Trying to disarm them would just be bloody.
- It would still do next to next to nothing to stop things like this from happening, seeing as how widespread firearms are and how criminals, the mentally broken, and the like do not follow the law. They'd either get a gun illegally or find some other way to cause mayhem (I.E bombs, fire, blades, blunt objects, etc.) and the people who follow the law would just be defenseless against it. Also there are areas of the US with strict gun control (I.E like Connecticut, Illinois, California), yet it hasn't done a thing to quell crime. In many cases, crime is worse in those areas.
- About the whole police bit, police are well armed enough, they just can't be everywhere. And (yet again) there are the logistical issues & recruitment when it comes to the police.
Now, one thing could be done, is if there's a "gun-free" zone (which is where most of these massacres happen), it better be backed up with some proper security. In example the high school that I went to and schools in my area have 2-4 police in the buildings. Some out here even have metal detectors and the like. There have been no shootings or any other act of extreme violence at these places. Main reason why these sick cowards go for vulnerable targets. You're probably not going to hear about a massacre happening at a NRA convention or a gun shop, mainly because in those places the people are very far from vulnerable.
Hopefully that answered some of your questions, Joll. Kind of sad to say that we live in a place with such violent, crazy people. But there's little one can do against them besides either deterring them, or defending against them. Banning or severely limiting guns will only cause more issues.
I think I'll step out now, before the drama train rolls in.
