Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

How can you assume the abolishment of some firearms will not have less shootings when it hasn't been tried, or has it?

 

It has been tried. Just look at the history of gun control in America.

 

Because all classes of guns that are "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected by the Constitution. No one has the legal ability to compromise on that, and the firearms that fall outside those protections have almost no impact on our homicide rate.

New Zealand didn't abolish "assault weapons". Maybe they're just nicer people than Australians.

 

What are you talking about? Oz didn't ban all guns - the ban only addressed about 20% of the guns in use by your citizens. The buyback only accounted for about 650k out of the estimated 900k, with another 50k bought back 20 years later in an amnesty push. Australia has more guns now than they did in 1996.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44105129

 

Absolutely insanity. You should probably be stripped of your citizenship just for suggesting it. They tried (did actually) something almost identical in 1986 with the Hughes Amendment, and as a result guns that today SHOULD cost $1,200-$1,500 (for an average quality one, less for a low quality one, more for a super-high quality one) now go for $25,000-$30,000 or more, take 6-9 months for approval to purchase, and are at least 30 years old. A handgun free society is not only not our goal, it's not even remotely Unconstitutional. Get your money back from your History/Civics teacher.

 

Might as well have it, just in case. Nothing says you have to use it except a genuine emergency. (I might be tempted on the range from time to time just for shits and giggles... ) I was in high school the last newly manufactured ones were available to civilians, but my understanding is the price difference was minimal.

 

Absolutely. Overall, crime RATES (make note of that term) are 1/3rd to 1/2th of what they were (in all categories) when I was in high school in the late 80's/early 90's, and in many cases are at or near all time historical lows period. You're crying about a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Likely worded that wrong.

From that link you provided-
"
"Far fewer people now have a gun in their home but some people have a lot more guns," Associate Prof Philip Alpers told the BBC.

Image copyrightEPA
Image captionThe police investigation in Western Australia remains in its early stages, authorities say
In the past 30 years, the number of households with at least one gun has declined by 75%.

However, Associate Prof Alpers said that those who already own guns are buying more and registering them at a higher rate.

What types of guns are in Australia?
The 1996 reforms prohibited ordinary Australians from owning automatic and semi-automatic firearms, and pump-action shotguns."

More guns owned by fewer people. People screened as having less risk of instability and more need eg farmers

 

So way are Australians who already have guns buying more? I mean a rancher only "needs" so many guns to protect cattle and sheep. Having extra guns is a sign of fear of the government or paranoia or both.

 

You continue to make some valid points. I still say that the US needs to at least attempt to adequately enforce the laws already on the books before adding new laws or placing any more restrictions on firearms. In most of the well publicized mass shootings of the past 20 years there were mistakes made, warning signs not heeded. Most could have been prevented with only a little effort on the part of those with prior knowledge. Columbine is one of the earliest and most well known. Read the history of that and tell me that everything possible was done to keep that from happening. Just like last years Douglas HS shooter Cruz. What good are laws if not utilized?

 

Yes, conceded. What does it take for laws to be enforced? Change police culture, freedom of police to random search esp past felons, the public pressurising politicians or evolution?

 

People kill people. Why do more people kill more people in the US? I don't know. Not sure anyone does. Some say it's because of guns. I say there is more to it than that. Approximately 2/3 of US gun deaths are suicides. What does that say about us? I don't think guns are to blame for suicide. I doubt there are too many people who happen on a gun and decide "wow, what a great time to kill myself" Suicides are generally thought about beforehand. Would some not follow thought if there was no gun? Likely. Would some find other means? Likely. If we knew maybe we could solve the problem. I don't want to live in a country where people can be randomly stopped and searched. I don't think anyone does. I would believe Conservative Republicans would have no problem with former felons being stopped; Liberal Democrats would likely find it a violation of that individual's rights. Interesting though they don't see taking guns as a violation of my rights. Maybe if we have felons who are likely to re-offend we should leave them in prison. If they are so bad maybe we should execute them. Where does parental responsibility begin? I grew up in a home with guns. Always one or two loaded. I learned to shoot at 5, was given my first gun at 12. I own several guns now. I have never shot anyone. Does that guarantee I never will? With crazy people, where does doctor/patient privilege end and public safety begin. There are always people who will find ways to kill. My father knew a man who came home and found his wife in bed with another man. He killed them both with a lamp. In 1927 Andrew Kehoe, a school board member, blew up the school house with a truck load of dynamite.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) Look what McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. As I have mentioned before, so many people die from so many other things why are guns singled out? Obesity has become an epidemic in America. Fat kids are everywhere yet nothing is being done to their parents. Smoking and second hand smoke kills thousands and yet parents are allowed to smoke in their homes. Why don't the people who want to take my guns go into those homes and save the children? Oh wait, that would be infringing on their rights.

Funny how things are in America. I live in a very rural area; a couple neighbors close then no one for half a mile or so. While typing this I heard a loud thump. I didn't know what it was and was not able to figure it out. Probably something at the neighbors across the road. The point being I got up to go investigate. I picked up my .380 pistol, grabbed my AR, stuck an extra 30 round magazine in my pocket and went outside. Something like that is considered normal where I live. Some might call that paranoid, I call it precautionary. Though I have never had a problem, one of my neighbors homes was busted for illegal drugs a few years back, sending two to prison. My other neighbor claims to have had things stolen. A cop where I live is twenty minutes away if a person is lucky.

America, what a country.

More ramblings.

Rich

 

Rich, thanks for your ramblings. You've been patient telling me how it is without demands for statistics which can cloud the skies of opinions. Better to be thrashed with education than a naughty corner.

Everything is different here. Not only a life without guns but the burglaries are usually only read about, assaults you'd have to look for one.

Being ex RAAF, prison warder, dog ranger, investigator I've got experience with 7.62mm slr, smith and wesson 38, carbine, 40/40 deer rifle all in the 1970's-80's. But it is easy here to leave that life behind unlike your precautionary routine you need.

I think that has been the revelation for me from our exchanges. That as much as I believe in Americans as our brothers in arms in many wars, we are living a totally opposite life in terms of gun culture and risk of immediate threat. That there is unlikely a resolve until technology finds ways and who knows what that will bring.

So signing off now. You said: "Something like that is considered normal where I live". I respect those differences.

 

First, ultimately for what purpose?

Second, the definition of firearms suitable for both hunting, and personal protection, has been evolving for decades. The AR-15 platform, for example, was originally marketed to the public as a hunting rifle by the Colt Manufacturing company. It is even chambered in what is ultimately a small game hunting cartridge. It is suitable for use in both roles, and readily adaptable to utilize a wide variety of magazine capacities as well as ammunition calibers.

To adequately address the matter, one has to recognize and accept the fact that firearms which were used for hunting purposes more than a century ago are not the standard by which anything can be measured and determined today. The matter has changed significantly, and both sides have to recognize the reality of the modern era they live in.

 

Primarily among them, a willingness on the part of the prosecutor to invest the time and effort to seek out a conviction. It can take months to try a single case and observe all the rules of due process, and there is never a guarantee of a guilty vote by the jury, making some cases simply not worthwhile pursuing.

In the united states, of all the tens of thousands of individuals who have knowingly provided false information on background check forms when attempting to purchase a firearm, less than one percent of them are ever referred by law enforcement to prosecutors for consideration of prosecution. The prosecution rate is far lower than that, and the successful conviction rate far lower even still. The justice system of the united states simply does not have the appetite for pursuing justice.

Even if there was a greater appetite for such, the prisons in the united states are already overcrowded with those who have been arrested and prosecuted on drug-related charges. The united states must pick and choose which offenses it wishes to prosecute and provide space for. There is simply too much crime to address, and more laws simply create more crimes.

 

It has been tried in some areas of the U.S. with no measureable results in the reduction of violent crime.

One of the major problems is the firearms used in the majority of crimes are never the same ones the anti's want to eliminate.

 

Yeah, oh so safe since the Illinois' vaunted FOID card investigation failed to turn up that the shooter was a CONVICTED FELON.

NO gun law would have stopped what happened in IL. Too bad none of the victims were allowed the option of defending themselves.

 

How was the previous felony conviction not noticed by the national instant check system?

 

what's a 40/40 deer rifle?

 

My best guess is that somebody didn't enter his felony conviction into the system in a timely manner. The strange thing is that on the second check (when he applied for a CCW permit) they found the felony. Illinois is one of the states that does it's own NICS, I believe, using the federal data, but not the federal system.

 

He SHOULD have been in prison right now if the state had done it's job.

 

That was 41 years ago. I cant recall much except, googling it, it was likely a 44-40. Was lever action.Been a long time.

 

That's the big question, isn't it?

Oh, but "gun control works".... right?

 

He probably means .30-30; that's one of the most popular lever-action hunting rifles of all time.

He might mean .44-40, but...

 

I'd think a .30-30 would be more commonly used for deer than an .44-40. At least by me, anyway.