America - Gun Control

[Yossarian]

Not familiar with rhetorical questions? I'd wager you're not because my original post was just that and you felt compelled to answer it where one wasn't required as I posed the question out of facetiousness.

So Geo offered prayers for the victims, and you had a hissy fit because … prayers killed the people or something???

They didn't keep them alive.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

You need to be careful thinking that the NRA buy their way through life. It is a misconception that their monetry contributions to law makers affect the structure of laws. They do have power and influence, but that has been attained because they have tens of millions of members and congress is careful about upsetting that many voters. If change is to occur, the anti gun lobby must be erradicated and a new approach taken that doesnt talk down to gun owners like they are nuts or red necks etc. They see the hypocrisy of Hollywood talking heads and they are not listening.

Yeah, I don't mean literally that the gun lobby buys the congress out. They do have a fair bit of influence in the political spectrum though. What complicates it with the NRA is that many Dems are also gun owners, so it's not as simple as saying that electing a Democratic majority will squash gun lobby influence. They have ears from both sides of the table.

I wouldn't listen to anyone in Hollywood, especially now their dirty laundry is being aired. If you're listening to cashed up celebrities living the high life carry on about a wealth gap and social issues you're barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I thought it would be obvious that a ban was part of it and in practice, not having ready access to semi automatic more rapid fire arsenal would almost certainly have resulted in less lives being lost in today's assault.

That's a fair comment.

Lets assume for the sake of your argument that by some miracle the USA decides to ban all semi automatic firearms.

The vast majority of these firearms are owned by people for either self defense purposes, or by gun enthusiasts, and not a lot of these guns are registered with any authorities.

So how do you you get someone to hand in a gun that they paid alot of money for, and who has an ideological stance that surrounds that gun, to a government they don't trust, when nobody even knows that they own that gun?

You may get someone who inherited their grandfather's old relic to hand it in. But for the vast majority, they wouldn't even consider handing in their firearm, knowing that it cannot be traced to them.

So even if your gun ban passes, you will still be left with hundreds of millions of untraceable guns in the community, with more pouring over the southern border literally every single day. I don't see how that stops people who want to kill other people, from easily doing so?

It sounds good in theory…. no guns means no killing with guns. But the theory doens't allow for the reality of how many guns will still be in the hands of ordinary citizens, to be used for whatever purpose they want. That's why this is so difficult to tackle, because banning something doesn't make the reality magically disappear .

So legislators create the next step/s, which must always include public education.

Let's say, upon a further (briefer and compensation somewhat reduced) amnesty window ending, harsh penalties be enforced along with property searches etc. Being targeted at rapid fire guns, it will not affect the majority and as such has the chance to get a good few gun owners on board, who in turn may help convince their fellows that it is a good thing. Again, education is the key.

I don't have any expectations on gun control actions being anything other than a long hard slog, both politically and legally. Still, their leadership can choose to get the ball rolling, or decide it is all too hard to stand up to the NRA and stick their heads in the sand yet again.

 

[TCL]

You need to be careful thinking that the NRA buy their way through life. It is a misconception that their monetry contributions to law makers affect the structure of laws. They do have power and influence, but that has been attained because they have tens of millions of members and congress is careful about upsetting that many voters. If change is to occur, the anti gun lobby must be erradicated and a new approach taken that doesnt talk down to gun owners like they are nuts or red necks etc. They see the hypocrisy of Hollywood talking heads and they are not listening.

Yeah, I don't mean literally that the gun lobby buys the congress out. They do have a fair bit of influence in the political spectrum though. What complicates it with the NRA is that many Dems are also gun owners, so it's not as simple as saying that electing a Democratic majority will squash gun lobby influence. They have ears from both sides of the table.

I wouldn't listen to anyone in Hollywood, especially now their dirty laundry is being aired. If you're listening to cashed up celebrities living the high life carry on about a wealth gap and social issues you're barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

I would imagine the NRA would make rather significant campaign contributions as well. But their member numbers is what really gives them the power.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I see there is another mass shooting in a church in America…I honestly think that a complete reformation of the act that allows possession of firearms has to be imminent..
much more stringent licensing and the purchasing of firearms must be first and foremost..that leaves the problem of the firearms that exist at the moment in the hands of millions of citizens,black marketing and private sales of weapons would be rife,however if the USA had a buy back scheme,much like ours was it may remove a large number of these weapons out of circulation.
Then we have the old 'right to bear arms ' syndrome,which many would want to stand by making it difficult for reformation to take place..this is a very tough problem to try and find a solution to because of the very political backlashes it would create..
I personally think it is a situation that will have to be taken by the throat and addressed in a powerful manner and whoever does it will probably ruin their political career.

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon could actually try and create a legacy.

Indeed he could FG,however from all the arguments for and against gun control,I really think that legislation could be passed to halt the purchacing and indesciminate ownership of volatile weapons..More should be done through education in schools about the deaths and grief that shootings cause and why it would be hard to purchase weapons as easily as they can be..having said that,therein lies the problem of the amount of weapons in the country at the moment and how easily they can be attained,Abe and others all have their specific opinions and thoughts in regards to this topic,I myself will stick with educating the community of the dangers of owning these weapons especially in the wrong hands,and why it is imperative to have much tighter and stringent laws put in place to protect not only the community but the country as a whole from itself..
Iam by no means anti gun….I honestly think they should be in the hands of specific people like,police,security defense forces etc...
As I said before,if someone wants a gun bad enough they will get their hands on one,however the tougher the laws the harder it would be to get them..
\
\
I really don't know the answer to this problem,it will be in the hands of the Government to act upon..but while there are so many people hell bent on owning guns and being able to buy them from anywhere,then we will keep hearing about these disgraceful acts of murdering innocent people..

But you do know the answer Zig and have stated so above. Education is always the starting point and leadership a key requirement. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has a chance to put his stamp on something or at least go down swinging with many new supporters, well at least on this topic.

 

[Harvey]

As sad as it is, you cannot waste your energy on mourning victims of mass shootings in the US. It only seems to be the victims and those immediately impacted that will speak up for change. The majority just adhere to the status quo with a small number of loonies justifying that everyone having multiple guns is an opportunity to stop this happening (rather than the cause) and a smaller group of nut jobs suggesting that it never happened and is part of some conspiracy to take their guns away.
Maybe at some point a majority will realise that the combination of the number of firearms and nut jobs in the country places everyone they know at risk, but I don't see that happening any time soon

 

[earl]

Aside from the fact that neither semi automatic weapons nor 'automatic enablers' are illegal, and there are more than 300,000,000 firearms currently in circulation in the USA (increasing by the day), in practice how does a buy back scheme stop a crazy person killing people with a gun?

So why are you setting a different standard for gun control laws than other laws. Has the DHS stopped terrorism. Has speeding fines stopped speeding?

No.

But both have gone a hell of a long way to mitigating the effects of such activity.

You can't argue with the pro-death by guns people. They are clearly in the wrong but they keep going. It's crazy stuff.

Logic can't exist in tandem with being pro-death by guns.

Less guns = less killings. Simple.

 

[earl]

note. neither did you

Now your catching on.

Because i don't believe there is one. You can't legislate against human evil.

I agree. That's why I suggest we don't try to stop pedos hanging out in schools. Or have RBTs to stop drunk drivers. We can never stop evil, so why even try?

Nobody is suggesting there is a perfect solution to stop shootings, but maybe you can minimise them.

We need more pedo's in schools and we need to ensure that everyone can't drive unless they are drunk. They will ensure everyone is prepared for pedo's being in schools and drink driving.

It'll fix the world.

 

[earl]

Not familiar with rhetorical questions? I'd wager you're not because my original post was just that and you felt compelled to answer it where one wasn't required as I posed the question out of facetiousness.

So Geo offered prayers for the victims, and you had a hissy fit because … prayers killed the people or something???

Had nothing to do with what Geo said. I was mocking the default stance that seems to roll out after every shooting.

The only thing that was missing was the "now it is not the time to politicise this."

Our prayers are with the victims… The original Slacktivism.

This is beautiful this isn't it. Let's not look at ourselves because we are a big part of the problem and let's go and pray to God.

A complete lack of integrity.

 

[Abraham]

Not familiar with rhetorical questions? I'd wager you're not because my original post was just that and you felt compelled to answer it where one wasn't required as I posed the question out of facetiousness.

So Geo offered prayers for the victims, and you had a hissy fit because … prayers killed the people or something???

They didn't keep them alive.

Neither did drinking 8 cups of water a day.

 

[earl]

Will it eradicate mass shootings? No.

Will it stop gun crime altogether? No.

**Will it reduce the availability of weapons in circulation? Yes.**

**Will it reduce overall gun deaths? I think so.**

If it saves even but one life, it's worth it IMO.

This is exactly the point. The first step is being honest about the problem and that requires admitting that guns are a massive enabler of heaps of deaths.

Then you start trying to minimise access to guns. Then over time the gun crime will go down and heaps of lives will be saved.

This isn't a grey issue. It's not something that is open for crazy debate.

You can do something about it. All it takes is some political will.

 

[TrueTiger]

I see there is another mass shooting in a church in America…I honestly think that a complete reformation of the act that allows possession of firearms has to be imminent..
much more stringent licensing and the purchasing of firearms must be first and foremost..that leaves the problem of the firearms that exist at the moment in the hands of millions of citizens,black marketing and private sales of weapons would be rife,however if the USA had a buy back scheme,much like ours was it may remove a large number of these weapons out of circulation.
Then we have the old 'right to bear arms ' syndrome,which many would want to stand by making it difficult for reformation to take place..this is a very tough problem to try and find a solution to because of the very political backlashes it would create..
I personally think it is a situation that will have to be taken by the throat and addressed in a powerful manner and whoever does it will probably ruin their political career.

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon could actually try and create a legacy.

Indeed he could FG,however from all the arguments for and against gun control,I really think that legislation could be passed to halt the purchacing and indesciminate ownership of volatile weapons..More should be done through education in schools about the deaths and grief that shootings cause and why it would be hard to purchase weapons as easily as they can be..having said that,therein lies the problem of the amount of weapons in the country at the moment and how easily they can be attained,Abe and others all have their specific opinions and thoughts in regards to this topic,I myself will stick with educating the community of the dangers of owning these weapons especially in the wrong hands,and why it is imperative to have much tighter and stringent laws put in place to protect not only the community but the country as a whole from itself..
Iam by no means anti gun….I honestly think they should be in the hands of specific people like,police,security defense forces etc...
As I said before,if someone wants a gun bad enough they will get their hands on one,however the tougher the laws the harder it would be to get them..
\
\
I really don't know the answer to this problem,it will be in the hands of the Government to act upon..but while there are so many people hell bent on owning guns and being able to buy them from anywhere,then we will keep hearing about these disgraceful acts of murdering innocent people..

But you do know the answer Zig and have stated so above. Education is always the starting point and leadership a key requirement. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has a chance to put his stamp on something or at least go down swinging with many new supporters, well at least on this topic.

Actually Bryce,if Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon really wants to make an impression of being a good President,he has a golden opportunity here to completely reform the gun laws on the back of these horrendous events,Las Vegas and now this Church are to close together for people to think that they are rare occurences.Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon can forever be remembered as the leader who completely reformed the gun laws for a better America.Its up to him and his party to make a bold decisive move…
He has also got to sort out Kim jun of North Korea,his people starve and diminish while he has billions and many mansions to live in..thats a story for another time...

 

[Tim Sheens]

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon could actually try and create a legacy.

Indeed he could FG,however from all the arguments for and against gun control,I really think that legislation could be passed to halt the purchacing and indesciminate ownership of volatile weapons..More should be done through education in schools about the deaths and grief that shootings cause and why it would be hard to purchase weapons as easily as they can be..having said that,therein lies the problem of the amount of weapons in the country at the moment and how easily they can be attained,Abe and others all have their specific opinions and thoughts in regards to this topic,I myself will stick with educating the community of the dangers of owning these weapons especially in the wrong hands,and why it is imperative to have much tighter and stringent laws put in place to protect not only the community but the country as a whole from itself..
Iam by no means anti gun….I honestly think they should be in the hands of specific people like,police,security defense forces etc...
As I said before,if someone wants a gun bad enough they will get their hands on one,however the tougher the laws the harder it would be to get them..
\
\
I really don't know the answer to this problem,it will be in the hands of the Government to act upon..but while there are so many people hell bent on owning guns and being able to buy them from anywhere,then we will keep hearing about these disgraceful acts of murdering innocent people..

But you do know the answer Zig and have stated so above. Education is always the starting point and leadership a key requirement. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has a chance to put his stamp on something or at least go down swinging with many new supporters, well at least on this topic.

Actually Bryce,if Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon really wants to make an impression of being a good President,he has a golden opportunity here to completely reform the gun laws on the back of these horrendous events,Las Vegas and now this Church are to close together for people to think that they are rare occurences.Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon can forever be remembered as the leader who completely reformed the gun laws for a better America.Its up to him and his party to make a bold decisive move…
He has also got to sort out Kim jun of North Korea,his people starve and diminish while he has billions and many mansions to live in..thats a story for another time...

Watching Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon saying it is not a gun issue, too early to talk about that, rather a mental health one, as I completed reading your post. So he is looking to his shrinking base, rather than the good of the country. Totally expecting this approach from him so no surprise, just a false hope that his ego would look for a defining policy to be his political saving grace.

 

[Abraham]

I've provided what I believe to be the answer Abe (refer back to the post I discussed with Stryker,) and I've provided reasoning why I'd think it'd work. Hell, I even acknowledge that the results will likely not be realised for a good time after the changes are implemented. Don't lump me in with the likes of Earl who just counters with nonsense about not being rational to hide that he has no real solutions.

I've also said I know the Yanks won't go for it. I understand it's a hopeless cause in their case, no reason why we cannot discuss it though. I'm reasonably passionate about it because I have friends who live in the US, and I believe my sister will become a permanent resident there in the near future. I don't want any of them becoming a statistic.

If you want to link back to your proposal, i'd happily re-read it.

\

I suppose it's all about risk mitigation. I concede that even if you did implement tough restrictions on the US in respect to semis and fully autos you would likely still see mass shootings over a number of years until most of the arms are repossessed or handed in. Illegal weapons generally were once legal. Take away the supply of legal weapons and there's less chance they'll become illegal, and in addition those illegal arms become scarcer and will become more expensive on the black market. Then your average gangbanger will struggle to even get their hands on one.

I honestly think any politicians who think gun control measures are worthwhile are looking at it and putting it in the too hard basket, as they know there'll be a spate of shootings once the controls are put in place and they'll be lambasted as not working and the gun lobby will buy out the next government to repeal whatever measures are put in place.

Like I said, if anything were have ever to been done, it would have been after the autistic kid walked into a school and shot a class full of small children. I think the bridge has long been crossed and there's no going back.

As per above.

Again, I concede that not all will hand in their weapons, especially criminals. It is also a long haul effort in that it will take time to get all the weapons out of circulation. Once the supply starts to dwindle (bearing in mind that police generally repossess illegal weapons,) black market weapons become more expensive as supply and demand begin to take over. With gradual cycling down of available firearms, it will

Will it eradicate mass shootings? No.

Will it stop gun crime altogether? No.

Will it reduce the availability of weapons in circulation? Yes.

Will it reduce overall gun deaths? I think so.

Will the reduction in gun crime trend into other violent crime (Knives, blunt objects?) Possibly.

Will anyone have the bolas in he US to ever try to implement this? Likely no, and if it were ever attempted, the gun lobby would just buy their way back in.

It's all supposition from where I sit because it is untested in the US. I think it will certainly make it harder for someone to be able to amass a bunch of semi/fully automatic weapons and mow down a bunch of people. Would it stop someone like our mate in Las Vegas who would still feasibly be able to afford the weaponry to carry out such an attack while weapons are still in circulation? Probably not. But it would stop your average Joe from snapping and going Falling Down on a church/gay club/country music festival because he probably wouldn't be able to stump the cash up to buy illegal weapons? I think it would.

If it saves even but one life, it's worth it IMO.

You acknowledge that it probably wont work for decades… and its debatable whether it would work at all considering the number of legal guns in circulation and the ublimitef supply of illegal guns being imported into the country daily.

So thinking realisticaly, i am sure you understand why no politician would seriously consider trampling on the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners for a plan that may work in 50 years time, but may not.

Good on you for caring about this and trying to come up with a solution to a terrible problem, but the magnitude is not something that can be fixed by legislation.

Your ban might be one piece of the puzzle, its possible. But something more than just banning guns is needed. I dont have an answer, seems like noone does at this point. And i dont think its a cop put to admit as much.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I certainly understand why they won't. It will seem fruitless at first and they'll be associated with failure.

A bit of altruism is required by the American people.

And yes I don't believe access to guns is the only issue. It stems from a greater set of societal problems starting with poor management of the mentally ill and a huge disaffected underclass.

 

[Nelson]

You acknowledge that it probably wont work for decades… and its debatable whether it would work at all considering the number of legal guns in circulation and the ublimitef supply of illegal guns being imported into the country daily.

So thinking realisticaly, i am sure you understand why no politician would seriously consider trampling on the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners for a plan that may work in 50 years time, but may not.

Good on you for caring about this and trying to come up with a solution to a terrible problem, but the magnitude is not something that can be fixed by legislation.

Your ban might be one piece of the puzzle, its possible. But something more than just banning guns is needed. I dont have an answer, seems like noone does at this point. And i dont think its a cop put to admit as much.

Saying that a problem is too hard so we won't try is kind of the definition of a cop out…

Measures could be taken that would be likely to improve the situation but strong action would be political suicide given the current attitudes of the voter base. So if someone wanted to make change they would need to change the attitude of the voter base and sadly that would involve (amongst other things) seizing upon these mass shooting tragedies to make a political point - your guns are not making this society a safer one.

You then need to start by making small changes. Making strong moves too early would lead to alienation of the voter base and political death. Make small legislative changes that _should_ be accepted by a majority of voters. There will be resistance to those changes from the most strident of gun activists. Seize upon that resistance to create a schism. Make more moderate voters see the strident supporters as dangerous and unreasonable.

Once those steps have been taken leave it alone for a while, because the strident activists will be running a hard ticket: "this is just the first step - they're trying to take all our guns away!" Leaving it alone for a while will erode their credit and lead to their views being marginalised. Wait until a situation arises that generates more will for change (i.e. another tragedy). If the polls are there then make more changes - not drastic ones that will alienate moderates, but changes that can clearly be linked to and justified by whatever tragedy generated the impetus.

Continue that for a while and the mentality will slowly change from ever expanding gun rights to an attitude where gun rights are accepted as needing to exist in harmony with public safety.

That is at least a very general plan for changing attitudes. Might work, might not but I'd rather see them try than throw their hands up in despair. As for access and supply, nobody is going to care if there is an extreme crackdown on the illegal import of firearms. Not even strident gun activists are going to stand up for people engaged in illegal importation. I imagine most such imports come from the south, so dedicate more funds to policing the borders (there is always political will for that in the south) and introduce massive penalties.

Then you have to address all the guns already available. Start with a buy back of certain types of firearms. Stay away from amnesties early in the piece. Amnesties only come about when something is going to be made illegal and if they go making significant categories of firearms illegal too soon then political death will follow.

After a time they could introduce an excise on sales to help pay for the buy backs. The message would be that rights are not being taken away, just that there are costs that go with rights that jeopardise public health. Make a start, put some basic mechanisms in place that can be expanded upon when the opportunities arise. Change the momentum and inflict a few defeats on the NRA. Defeating them will erode their political power, which is predominantly based on perception.

The problems with mass gun ownership extend beyond these mass shootings, they just happen to be the events that generate the most political will towards change because they involve so many innocent victims. Strung out junkie offenders over there are more likely to assume that home owners will be armed with guns and so are more likely to arm themselves with guns (which are cheap and readily accessible). Guns are not cheap nor readily accessible here and strung out junkies rarely have the wherewithal to access them, plus they have less need to "defend" themselves against home owners. Less dead home owners and less strung out junkies is the result which is good on both counts, particularly because the junkies are often kids that have made a few bad choices. Then there's the kids who, instead of just having a punch up, go shooting each other up. The stupid kids thrill killing with guns. The DV offenders. There are many categories of people who are made more dangerous by access to guns and their likely victims are rarely any safer by virtue of their "right" to arm themselves...

I just don't think any society where the prevailing mentality of the citizens is that they are prepared to arm themselves in order to kill their fellow citizens should they feel the need arise is ever going to be a particularly safe one and I hope a majority of Americans will one day come to that same view ... they probably won't, but I can live in hope.

 

[Tigerdon]

three of the five deadliest shootings in the US have come in the past year.
They are happy to have 15,000 die each year, and double that in injuries. That's more than most NRL crowds. They are immune to the pain that brings, so long as they can have their gun.
Apart from central and south America the USA is the most dangerous place to live in the "developed world"

I was listening to someone on the radio, comparing USA with Japan
From memory, he said Japan had 6 shooting deaths in 2014, in the same period America had something more than 33 000.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

I certainly understand why they won't. It will seem fruitless at first and they'll be associated with failure.

A bit of altruism is required by the American people.

And yes I don't believe access to guns is the only issue. It stems from a greater set of societal problems starting with poor management of the mentally ill and a huge disaffected underclass.

And a greatly overblown attitude of self entitlement to weapons, of big polluting cars, large mansions etc. etc.

 

[Munk]

three of the five deadliest shootings in the US have come in the past year.
They are happy to have 15,000 die each year, and double that in injuries. That's more than most NRL crowds. They are immune to the pain that brings, so long as they can have their gun.

This is a disgustingly innacurate post that you should be ashamed to have written. If you possessed any morals you would recant it.

 

[earl]

They are happy to have 15,000 die each year, and double that in injuries. That's more than most NRL crowds. They are immune to the pain that brings, so long as they can have their gun.

There are posters on this thread that are actually justifying this as well. They honestly cannot be reasoned with and they have not put up one legitimate argument to justify their craziness.