That's only in the presence of proof either way, of which there isn't any.
The 'common sense' legislation that's been proposed may or may not help the problem, but there is no guarantee that either would occur. It's been proven over and again that there's no single bit of legislation that would have prevented the Newtown massacre, except for any legislation that would have prevented anyone in Adam Lanza's sphere of influence from having any firearms or weapons whatsoever. Further, considering the aim of the current crop of legislation is aimed at preventing firearms categorized as 'assault weapons' from sale, which account for a miniscule percentage of crimes, it seems misdirected.
More to the point though, is whether or not firearm legislation does anything for the good. Criminals vastly prefer unarmed victims. Making it such that less of the populace is less armed might sound like a good solution, but has not proven to be.
Kennesaw, GA is an extremely strong counterpoint. In 1981, they enacted a law encouraging every household to own a gun. Between the year the law was passed and the following year, crime had dropped something like 80%. In the 25 years that followed, they were able to celebrate the township's 25th anniversary of being murder free. Perhaps more interestingly than that is that it didn't prevent crime at all, but seems to have displaced it rather effectively. Crime around Kennesaw, GA is higher than crime in Kennesaw, GA, and is even higher than Georgia at large. This suggests, to me at least, that criminals will still be criminals, and crime will still occur, but where criminals know there is an armed populace, they'll seek out greener pastures.
Further, most mass killings occur in "gun free zones". The Aurora, CO theater shooter bypassed a number of closer or larger theaters to seek out one further from his house that specifically banned guns from being held on the premises. We can't ask him, obviously, because he's dead, but this suggests that he sought out the area where he was likely to go longest without being stopped, and also suggests that law-abiding citizens not intent on performing crime, generally obey the law, as there was nobody there armed to stop him.
So, while I don't necessarily begrudge you the complaints you have, that doesn't necessarily indicate that regulation would, in fact, do any good whatsoever, and could actually contribute to the problem.
Another counterpoint, is that one of the least likely demographics to commit any form of crime, but especially armed crimes, are people registered for concealed carry.
The 'common sense' legislation that's been proposed may or may not help the problem, but there is no guarantee that either would occur. It's been proven over and again that there's no single bit of legislation that would have prevented the Newtown massacre, except for any legislation that would have prevented anyone in Adam Lanza's sphere of influence from having any firearms or weapons whatsoever. Further, considering the aim of the current crop of legislation is aimed at preventing firearms categorized as 'assault weapons' from sale, which account for a miniscule percentage of crimes, it seems misdirected.
More to the point though, is whether or not firearm legislation does anything for the good. Criminals vastly prefer unarmed victims. Making it such that less of the populace is less armed might sound like a good solution, but has not proven to be.
Kennesaw, GA is an extremely strong counterpoint. In 1981, they enacted a law encouraging every household to own a gun. Between the year the law was passed and the following year, crime had dropped something like 80%. In the 25 years that followed, they were able to celebrate the township's 25th anniversary of being murder free. Perhaps more interestingly than that is that it didn't prevent crime at all, but seems to have displaced it rather effectively. Crime around Kennesaw, GA is higher than crime in Kennesaw, GA, and is even higher than Georgia at large. This suggests, to me at least, that criminals will still be criminals, and crime will still occur, but where criminals know there is an armed populace, they'll seek out greener pastures.
Further, most mass killings occur in "gun free zones". The Aurora, CO theater shooter bypassed a number of closer or larger theaters to seek out one further from his house that specifically banned guns from being held on the premises. We can't ask him, obviously, because he's dead, but this suggests that he sought out the area where he was likely to go longest without being stopped, and also suggests that law-abiding citizens not intent on performing crime, generally obey the law, as there was nobody there armed to stop him.
So, while I don't necessarily begrudge you the complaints you have, that doesn't necessarily indicate that regulation would, in fact, do any good whatsoever, and could actually contribute to the problem.
Another counterpoint, is that one of the least likely demographics to commit any form of crime, but especially armed crimes, are people registered for concealed carry.