|
The US has very weird gun laws. Most of the proposed legislation responding to the past decade of mass shootings as well as ATF rulings focus on restricting rifles by disallowing various features or imposing other forms of inconvenience on owning a rifle. Overwhelmingly, however, shooting deaths are the result of handguns, not rifles, and there is almost never any pistol regulation. The FBI's 2020 statistics list 8029 handgun fatalities, 4863 unspecified gun deaths, and 455 rifle deaths. Compared to other forms of homicide ( knives ~2k, unknown 1k, unarmed 600, clubs 400 etc.) this strongly suggests that the way to reduce gun violence in the US would be to regulate pistols, but at both the state and federal level this is largely not what is happening. Why are pistols much more utilized in killing than rifles? A few reasons. First, they're small. Yes, it's obvious, but if you are walking around in public with a rifle people will notice, and you attract attention. Pistols are easily held in a pocket or nearby in a glovebox for example. Second, there is relatively little difference in killing power between a pistol and a rifle when you are at close range and you are not shooting an armored person. Finally, pistols tend to be cheaper (though this isn't universal - you can assemble a reasonably functional AR for 200 dollars, if you are willing to build it yourself and shop for bottom of the barrel parts). So it's been baffling to me to see the major pushes towards inhibiting rifle ownership when statistically, it's not what kills people.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:56 |
|