This post is the first in a long series of planned blog posts about proposed gun control measures to reduce the risk of mass shootings.
Link to Serious Example of this Proposal: https://www.nytimes.com/…/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
1) What problem does it solve? Mass shootings
2) How well does it solve the problem?
Affirmative Answer: Australia!
“In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.
“Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.
“Since 1996, the number and rate of homicides — defined as murder and manslaughter — has fallen. Below is the chart that appeared in our 2009 Ask FactCheck article, showing a 20 percent decline in homicides from 1996 to 2007.”
3) What new problems does it add?
4) What are the economic and social costs?
Negative Answer: An unarmed citizenry would be unable to oppose a tyrannous government.
5) Given the above, is it worth the costs?