Column: President's plan won't stop mass killings

• Impact of the presidential anti-gun initiatives will feel like bailing out the Titanic with a paper cup.
• The groundswell in the wake of the Newtown%2C Conn.%2C massacre is understandable.
• But mass killers are often so determined that it is difficult to stop them.

President Obama's anti-gun proposals -- including universal background checks, an assault-weapons ban and curbs on high-capacity magazines -- will do more to reduce everyday gun violence than prevent mass shootings.

Unfortunately, there are already many extraordinarily lethal weapons in circulation. Moving forward will feel like having to bail out the Titanic with a paper cup. And, without minimizing in any way the well-meaning groundswell in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., it is sad and ironic that it took the violent deaths of so many children and teachers to get us to this point.

When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, he had a strong gun control platform, but then disappointingly did nothing during his first term. He even hesitated during the 2012 election season to deal affirmatively with the gun issue, including his non-committal response to a debate question about the assault-weapons ban.

Many of the president's proposals for gun control may very well take a large bite out of violent crime. But in terms of lessening the incidence of mass murder -- the very kind of event that prompted the Obama administration to be so proactive -- at best it will be a nibble.

Mass killers are unwavering in their determination to carry out their mission; there is little that we can do to prevent them. If unable to purchase the necessary firepower, they will resort to stealing or borrowing a weapon, one of the millions in circulation, to achieve their objective. And let's not forget that the two largest mass murders in recent years were perpetrated without guns. In 1995, the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City killed 168 people, and in 1990 an arson fire at the Happy Land social club in the Bronx, N.Y., killed 87 people.

Despite the difficulty in preventing mass murder, by taking this action we will likely have an impact on the much larger volume of crime that is more easily preventable. In essence, we are doing a good thing, but not for the best reason.

At this juncture, America actually -- and fortunately -- is far less plagued by gun violence than two decades ago. The rate of murder, and gun homicides in particular, is about half what it was at the beginning of the 1990s. Of course, those days involved a surge in gun violence in the street, not in schools, and in poor urban neighborhoods, not in bedroom communities such as Newtown, Conn.

Of course, the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre claimed the lives of innocent young children -- first-graders -- not ruthless gang members often heavily involved in illegal drug trade. But where was the outrage and the determined response back in 1989 when scores of young children were killed or injured at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif.? It is a tragedy that many Americans have forgotten.

In Wednesday's White House event, Vice President Biden spoke of a "moral obligation" to take action following the horror at Sandy Hook. That's terrific, but where has that moral obligation been hiding? And why did it have to take the massacre of so many young children of affluence to bring it to the surface?

James Alan Fox is the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University and co-author of Violence and Security on Campus: From Preschool Through College.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions
from outside writers, including ourBoard of Contributors.