A little item in the New York Times the other day pointed out that gun regulation proponents are trying again.
The prospects for any kind of legislation remain low. Unfettered gun propagation has a devoted, activist constituency. The rest of us just have common sense and a lot of other things to worry about.
Spitzer, a Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York, College at Cortland, uses an international relations analogy to discuss why gun regulation is a hot button issue. He explains
Look -- we have plenty of reason to know what a widely armed, fearful society looks like: think Iraq in 2006 or maybe Ciudad Juarez, Mexico where there were 39 murders over last weekend. (If past experience holds up, it will turn out that the guns used in the latter case came from the U.S. Maybe this country needs an international intervention ... ) More guns means more shooting people ... when emotions run high.
For the moment, sensible gun regulation in this country probably can't happen. The people who want to keep shooting care more than their adversaries. Spitzer is right that what looks like sensible defense to some people looks like offensive threats to other people. This one is a generational struggle: gun proponents -- according to Spitzer "overwhelmingly white males, [likely to] live in rural areas (especially in the South), are likely to be Protestant, and are from "old stock" (that is, have ancestors who came to this country longer ago than the more recent immigrant waves)" -- will perhaps decrease in influence over time. Or not.
The Tucson shootings, traumatic as they were, probably aren't enough to tip the balance against unlimited guns, for now.