Question:
Billy Shears' letter suggests that none of the proposed legislation would have stopped Adam Lanza. How do we know that's actually true?
I didn't get into guns until this year, but my understanding is that the Federal ban served to severely limit availability. As such, the price of the affected guns that remained legal to own and transfer went up many times, effectively pricing most criminals (and non criminals) out of the market.
If the AR-15 Lanza had used cost $25,000, and not $1,000, it's not unreasonable to speculate that he might not have been able to get his hands on it.
Granted, I didn't know Adam Lanza, but as the news folks describe him, he wasn't the type to know where to get a stolen high dollar rifle. I don't doubt that he'd have been willing to break the law to get his hands on it, just that, if the supply were severely restricted, he might not have been able to, legally or not.
As an example, I'd submit the NFA. Gun enthusiasts consider it an occasion to get to shoot a fully automatic weapon. There's no technical reason for these to cost as much as they do - it's just that there are very few of them, and they're thus extremely exclusive and valuable to wealthy collectors. I seem to recall a similar situation with legally ownable ARs toward the end of the Clinton ban years.
Billy Shears' letter suggests that none of the proposed legislation would have stopped Adam Lanza. How do we know that's actually true?
I didn't get into guns until this year, but my understanding is that the Federal ban served to severely limit availability. As such, the price of the affected guns that remained legal to own and transfer went up many times, effectively pricing most criminals (and non criminals) out of the market.
If the AR-15 Lanza had used cost $25,000, and not $1,000, it's not unreasonable to speculate that he might not have been able to get his hands on it.
Granted, I didn't know Adam Lanza, but as the news folks describe him, he wasn't the type to know where to get a stolen high dollar rifle. I don't doubt that he'd have been willing to break the law to get his hands on it, just that, if the supply were severely restricted, he might not have been able to, legally or not.
As an example, I'd submit the NFA. Gun enthusiasts consider it an occasion to get to shoot a fully automatic weapon. There's no technical reason for these to cost as much as they do - it's just that there are very few of them, and they're thus extremely exclusive and valuable to wealthy collectors. I seem to recall a similar situation with legally ownable ARs toward the end of the Clinton ban years.