Quote:
Originally Posted by chodadog
Perhaps. But why make it easier? The proof is in the pudding. We had one major spree killing in Australia. Gun laws were implemented very quickly afterwards and we haven't had another since. There's a statistic worth talking about.
|
I understand your point about not making it easier, I'm just not convinced that any gun laws would actually take weapons out of potential shooters.
Is the population of Australia 20 millionish? I think that's what I read. Similiar to Canada. Canada hadn't had a killing spree since Mark Lepine in 1989 (that I recall). Then, 17 years later, some guy used 3 legally registered weapons to kill one and wound 19 others. One spree happened prior to the gun law. One happened afterwards. That's not counting the "Little" sprees of only one or two people shot mind you.
The only two factors I see as a contributing factor to the length of time between major shootings in Canada is our population when compared to the US, and our culture. The US population is 10 times what Canada is and what I've read Australia's is. If you don't factor in culture, you have to assume they'd have 10 times the killing sprees we do. When you DO factor in culture, I personally would think they'd have a LOT more than that even. Besides the everyday shooting that we've become accustomed to reading about in the US (that ARE going to happen with gun laws because criminals aren't gonna turn them in), they really don't have 10 times the major killing sprees we do.
So, while I agree making it harder is one thing, I think your population has a great deal to do with the length of time between sprees. Probably moreso than any gun law.