That's just about the most rational thing I've read throughout this debate.
That's just about the most rational thing I've read throughout this debate.
That's just about the most rational thing I've read throughout this debate.
A move that is entirely symbolic. Restricting access to weapons while everyone around them remains armed will not make them safer.
I get it, they want to set an example and get the ball rolling. I'd be on board, except for one thing. There is no grandfather clause. That turns this well intentioned idea into a mess of problems.
The effectiveness of the ban is greatly reduced at the start, if existing weapons are grandfathered in, but the idea will fail if they don't. If the rest of the gun owners in the US start seeing seizures and disarmament of the population, it is going to appear very Stalinist/Hitler-like. They will begin stockpiling. NRA will regain strength, and other regions will be less likely to follow their lead.
How many gun owners are going to sign up for regulation, or list their weapons if there is a valid fear that the state seize them?
Gun control in the US can not be fixed or changed in a couple years. It is going to take a couple generations. Pushing harder will only slow progress.
Now is a good time to get things started, but I believe it will fail if a direct and intolerant conflict is forced.