Read the whole thing. (Again, if necessary). I wanted to call out a specific point about the above.
Once guns exist in widespread form, gun control policy -- whether having it or not having it -- is self-reinforcing.
People in gun control states see criminals using guns to commit mass murder; they are horrified and sickened and disgusted by guns, and guns in their state are very hard to get due to gun control laws they pass in response, and in order to stop mass murders you need to rely on the police who take 15 minutes to arrive when a mass murder with a gun only needs 3 minutes to kill dozens.
People in gun-rights states do not see mass murders on the same scale because in non-gun-free-zones, people are usually armed and on the scene when the attack starts and can respond in seconds rather than minutes. This limits the causalities and tells the people of that state that they made the right choice and that guns, rather than enabling the attacker to kill dozens, instead enable the potential victims to stop the attacker with relatively few people hurt. When a gun-rights state does have a mass-murder incident with a lot of victims, it happens in a gun-free zone such as Fort Hood (yes, military bases in the US are often gun free zones for most of the people in them).
Whichever path is taken initially is the path that gets reinforced. That's how we ended up with the vastly divergent camps and policies in the US, though the 2nd Amendment should have prevented that by enforcing gun rights throughout the nation.
This entry was published Tue Jun 23 13:51:30 CDT 2015 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2015-06-23 13:51:30.0.