Cold Undead Hands
Little bit of a gun control strip. A big issue of late.
I’m a Canadian, so my opinions lean comparatively left on that issue, since we lack both a “second amendment” and NRA. While ostensibly not a “Canadian issue” it does affect us: 70% of illegal guns in Canada come from the States. The States is exporting gun violence. When Canada illegally exports things into the States, it’s normally limited to marijuana and only a dangerous to bags of chips.
Canada almost serves as a “control” for this sociological experiment. After all, Canada effectively shares a culture with the US: we watch their television shows & movies, listening to their music, and read their magazines. Our histories and the origins of our population are intertwined. A propensity for apologizing, watching hockey, and eating fries topped with cheese curds and gravy isn’t a significant cultural difference in relation to homocide lebve. And yet, gun ownership and violence differs significantly between our two nations, and we haven’t had a mass shooting in years. Something is causing this drastic disparity in gun violence, and it’s not criminals lacking access to guns, as the US is right there. I sincerely doubt a higher percentage of French speakers or presence of the Queen on our money is the reason Canadians aren’t shooting each other.
Real world issues aside, controlling magic spellcasting or magic items is an interesting thought for worldbuilding. How much would a monarch regulate spellbooks and teaching arcane skills. This seems like something people would control, like owning a sword, which was limited seven-hundred years ago in the city of London. Being able to cast fireball is akin to owning an automatic weapon.
If you have decided to become a murder then why would having to commit a lesser crime stop you?
Also the best tests for if gun control works are cities that change their laws, either for significantly more or less gun control. and in every case the city gets safer with less gun control (at least of the types of guns used for self defense)
All that gun control does is make it slightly more costly to have one if your a criminal, that is it. I have yet to hear of a way to make it impossible, or even hard, for criminals to get guns in the US.
Guns are tools, they are no more dangerous then the people who use them.
Gun control by city doesn’t work in the same way that gun control in Canada is hard: the ease of acquiring guns across a porous border. Unless you’re adding check stops at entrances to the city or state, local gun control is inherently flawed and not a good reflection of the actual effectiveness of gun control. That’s judging the security of the house with a reinforced back door when the front door is just a screen.
The advantage of gun control isn’t having violators also commit a lesser crime (although that can help, by reducing spontaneous shootings and accidents), the advantage of controls is limiting availability. Professional criminals (aka the black market) aren’t stupid: they’re running a business, and there’s no business in mass shootings or murder. Extremist acts just draws attention to them. They’re incentive not to sell to risky people, as that just makes them an accessory to any crime.
Plus more expensive guns puts them out of the reach of common criminals. If you have to pay a few thousand dollars for a gun, you don’t need to knock over a liquor store.
Explosives are also illegal and controlling them is mostly working. Mass bombings are incredibly rare. And unlike guns, you can MAKE those at home.
I’d spend a few words on this, especially on Josh’s remarks.
A gus IS inherently dangerous, as most people are prone to fits of anger, and those more prone to this kind of behaviour are also the ones purchasing guns. Then, having a gun at home means a danger for the kids who might find and misuse them (I heard it happens in the US).
Being Italian, I can bring you our experience: here gun control is applied, and that doesn’t prevent mobsters from accessing them. But those guy don’t do mass shooting, they shoot each others. Instead, gun control laws prevent the ordinary, anger-prone, pissed-off citizen from killing a bunch of innocent people just to make a point. And if this doesn’t ring a bell…
Also, a word on 2nd amendment: the perception I have of it is that it was established in an era where the weaponry available was the same for military and the citizens (aside for cannons, which by the way were slow to be moved and easily conquerable). There were no tanks, no helicopters, no aircrafts, no missiles, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. An improvised army made of volunteers could hold its own in a warfare scenario. Nowadays, it is not with rifles and handguns that ordinary people can defend against an army, be it invading from a foreign country or taking the freedom of a population from inside the borders. It’s just a cheap excuse to keep lobbies grow fatter and angry people satisfied in their deluded dreams of still being able to change things with violence. You really wanna hold a gun in defence of your people? Join the army.