Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anngella
Agreed.
It would be impossible to have either extreme - with this kind of thing you have to meet in the middle. Otherwise you're just being unrealistic and there won't be any changes done, just pointless bickering.
|
the California method is exactly what you propose, only extreme. Extremely limited sales of handguns, extremely regulated dealership access, and now, extreme regulation of handgun ammunition sales. The entire thing makes it very difficult for a person on the street, who is looking for a firearm to commit crime, to gain access to a loaded handgun. After all, you dont rob somebody with grandpas strap, you have to get one from the street which is "burned"
it must be unregistered to anyone known, it must be as new as possible, and you must also be able to get ammunition, generally the dude selling the guns does not sell ammo, it is not big five. The regulations of handgun sales and distribution to citizens in California has at the same time regulated the availability of black market handguns, which as I have continually repeated, is in decline. This is the evidence that extreme regulation legally and also socially [many people in california, after so many years of gun violence, actually want nothing to do with them and feel ownership of guns is more dangerous for the family] can and does restrict the flow of weapons into the streets and the hands of criminals, meaning the average Californian is less likely to need a gun against a criminal attempting to harm them because the criminal is less likely to have a gun as well.
This is not idealism, this is the reality of California's experience with extreme gun control. We are by far the most European of any states in the US with our own personal stance against handgun ownership.