Would it have?
Yes.
A change in our culture of violence would have. Because that would temper the DESIRE to purchase a gun, regardless of the legality of so doing. And would also temper the desire to resort to violence and killing, no matter what the chosen instrument.
The title of the thread should read: Let’s Play God - Would Better Gun Control Have Stopped the SC Shootings.
It’s not my title. It’s the one that was recommended for use in the thread that got shut down.
Yes.
I see, that makes sense. That is pretty much what that question is asking posters to do, however.
- @albert69 - I think it is understood that no one actually knows 100% what would happen. It is intended to promote discussion and debate. If we stopped talking about everything that couldn’t be known unless we were God, we would almost stop talking. For sure sports radio/TV in this country would grind to a halt! - fallenchemist*
Since when has better gun control stopped the hatred towards black people? I’ll wait.
Guns. Knives. Bombs. Fire. The racists have used them all.
I do not believe it would have.
You can’t look at gun control as something you simply switch on. A good example is the change in smoking culture in the United States. Serious efforts to “control” smoking began in the late 50s, early 60s. A cynic could have looked at the results in 1964 and said, “This isn’t working, it’s stupid.” But after 50+ years, American smoking rates have in fact decreased. And that’s 50 years of BAM BAM BAM getting the message every time you watch TV or get on a bus.
You could put serious restrictions on gun ownership tomorrow and easily not notice the effects for 20+ years.
So maybe a better question to ask is this: If the US had implemented better gun control way back in 1960 (and stuck to it, and communicated the message over and over through popular culture) might the killings in SC have been prevented?
And the corollary question: If we implemented tighter restrictions today, would our kids and grandkids notice a significant difference by 2070?
“Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/
Probably. Though it certainly wouldn’t stop them all. And perhaps if the guy’s dad hadn’t given him a gun for his birthday, that might have prevented it.
It would have at least made it much more difficult.
As one of the survivors in my DV shelter told me “I can outrun a knife, but I can’t outrun a bullet.”
No, as the shooter didn’t purchase the gun and it was a gift.
It’s possible that it would have considering the perp was able to purchase his gun, from what I understand, after his arrest on drug charges while he was still on probation.
It wouldn’t stop ALL hate crime but in this particular case the shooter seemed at least a bit tentative and indicated that he would take his own life. Cold blooded murder and subsequent suicide are much easier with a gun than a knife, canned goods (as was brought up on another thread) or a home made incendiary device.
Well, at least one spokesman for the NRA is arguing that greater access to guns would have prevented the killings. http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/nra_board_member_blames_charleston_pastor_clementa_pinckney_for_his_own_death/
Aside from flying in the face of decency, it is also flies in the face of research. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
It is now being reported the shooter was given money and purchased the gun himself. Does anyone know if that is true?
It would probably work just as well as Prohibition did at outlawing unauthorized alcohol.
The report is that he purchased it with money that was given to him for his 21st birthday. The cash was the gift not the actual fire arm.
The SC tragedy is the intersection of two of our most intractable problems: racism and gun violence. I wish i could say that I think that either will get fixed, but I don’t.