Should the guns be sold or destroyed?

Tweet

On 1st October 2017 Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of people attending a country music event in Las Vegas. 58 people were killed before he turned his gun on himself. It was soon made clear that Paddock owned a huge arsenal of weapons - some 50 guns plus other equipment such as sights and "bump stocks". It has been decided that the whole of Paddock's estate - worth a total of $1.4 million - should be distributed to the families of his victims, a decision that most people would surely agree with. However, a question has arisen over what should be done with the guns. Should they be sold and the proceeds added to the estate? The value has been estimated at more than $62,000. Or should the arsenal be destroyed, meaning that the victims would lose out? My view is that destruction is better than sale in this case. For one thing, the amount in question is not a huge sum in proportion to the total estate, especially when split into 58 portions. For another, if the guns are sold they will still exist and be held by somebody else - and capable of causing more mayhem in the future. What do you think?