1 edit
@no1marauder saidI think an assault weapons ban, and very tight restrictions on gun ownership in general, would have a very real chance of ameliorating gun violence in the US. This optimism is based on the experience of Australia over the past generation, when it implemented a nationwide gun buy-back program.
Is it? Is there data showing a period when Japan had a high incidence of gun violence and then stricter laws regarding ownership of guns was passed and the rate of gun violence significantly decreased?
The fact of the matter is gun violence in the US has sharply fallen in the last 30 years even without the measures you are proposing. While I would support some gun cont ...[text shortened]... a gun is a solution (but hey, I think 18 year Olds should be able to buy alcohol and tobacco, too).
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
Between October 1996 and September 1997, Australia responded to its own gun violence problem with a solution that was both straightforward and severe: It collected roughly 650,000 privately held guns. It was one of the largest mandatory gun buyback programs in recent history.
And there’s decent reason to think it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but it is worth at least looking at Australia’s experience.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man with a troubled past named Martin Bryant walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, a tourist town on the island of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle. He killed 35 people and wounded another 28.
Australia’s prime minister at the time, John Howard, had taken office just six weeks earlier at the head of a center-right coalition. He quickly drew a very clear conclusion from the Port Arthur killing: Australia had too many guns, and they were too easy to get.
Howard persuaded both his coalition and Australia’s states (the country has a federal system) to agree to a sweeping, nationwide reform of gun laws. The so-called National Firearms Agreement (NFA), drafted the month after the shooting, sharply restricted legal ownership of firearms in Australia. It also established a registry of all guns owned in the country, among other measures, and required a permit for all new firearm purchases.
One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
Australia solved this problem by introducing a mandatory buyback: Australia’s states would take away all guns that had just been declared illegal. In exchange, they’d pay the guns’ owners a fair price, set by a national committee using market value as a benchmark, to compensate for the loss of their property. The NFA also offered legal amnesty for anyone who handed in illegally owned guns, though they weren’t compensated.
This should be replicated in the US. It may require ratifying a functioning, modern sort of constitution first, but then again, the term "well regulated" isn't in the wording of the 2nd Amendment for nothing. Any honest reading of the amendment should leave ample leeway to ban every sort of firearm except for some kinds of handguns and hunting rifles, which each have their legitimate uses.
11 edits
@Great-Big-Stees saidNot that I'm aware of.
We already have gun laws. Although no expert, by any means, are there statistics that say having the age for legally purchasing guns at 21, lowers the number of these attacks?
Keep in mind that only 9 states out of 50 have laws with a minimum age of 21 to buy handguns. A mere 7 states have 21 as the minimum for assault rifles. That may not be enough to compile conclusive data.
But there are stats showing how raising the national minimum drinking age to 21 has saved lives:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/02/24/282072818/the-21-drinking-age-may-save-lives-even-though-its-flouted
No reason why we can't apply this same logic to firearms, especially given how many mass shooters were under 21.
@no1marauder saidActually, the slave trade was in fact a blessing. But that is not the point.
Like the slave trade?
The fact of the matter is those societies had been just as successful as European ones except for not enriching white plutocrats as generously as you think desirable.
African societies could never have been as successful as European ones in those days. Those were the days of conquest. The number of colonies you controlled was a measure of your success. The British, Spanish, Dutch and Chinese were probably the most successful colonizers in and around the 1500s. There were no African tribes that had the ability to sail to Europe and conquer a country there. Impossible. All they did in those days [and still sometimes do it now], is capture members of a weaker tribe and sell them off as slaves to the Europeans.
Their weapons were inferior. Their ships were inferior and their ability to navigate the globe was also not well developed.
If you tell me that there are many Africans countries now that can develop and even surpass European countries in development, I would agree. Europeans are becoming stagnant, their population is aging and they are set to go into decline.
2 edits
@KellyJay saidNothing said equating guns to "household items" is valid.
Since you are not following the conversation to see what was said and why I'm sure you think that.
But you believe in talking donkeys and women magically turning into pillars of salt. So I'm sure you think points about mops or toasters being as deadly as guns are masterworks of logic.
@vivify saidTalking donkeys!?
Nothing said equating guns to "household items" is valid.
But you believe in talking donkeys and women magically turning into pillars of salt. So I'm sure you think points about mops or toasters being as deadly as guns are masterworks of logic.
When a statement is made that people can use specific types of weapons to kill more people I said that house hold items can too. You bring up talking donkeys. You don’t want to talk about this stuff seriously you just want a shot at religion, how pathetic!
1 edit
@vivify saidCreating an explosion that will kill several has been done multiple times. Poison has been used we can get creative when we want to kill.
What does that mean? That someone out there prefers to use a chair over a gun?
What is your point as it relates to gun violence?
1 edit
@Rajk999
Yeah, for a small island it has a huge population, what, 1,5 mil or so? I wonder how that island managed to NOT be taken by Venezuela centuries ago.
Quite the history, I just read about it. Slavery till something like 1838, Brits take over. I guess that explains why Venezuela never claimed it, going against the super power of the day. Looks like you have a nice natural gas industry going there now.
@sonhouse saidThey did not care for the oil resources. The UK and US got here first. Thank God for that. Centuries ago Venezuela was a Spanish colony.
@Rajk999
Yeah, for a small island it has a huge population, what, 1,5 mil or so? I wonder how that island managed to NOT be taken by Venezuela centuries ago.
@sonhouse saidIf it were not for foreign investment and foreign know-how, there would be no oil and gas industry. Locals have no expertise in oil drilling, neither can they run these industries. Back in the 1940s, Texaco started production here. They were booted out in the 1980s because of this same nationalism drive. The Trinidad govt ran Texaco into the ground in about 20 yrs. ... corruption, incompetence and stupidity.
@Rajk999
Are you saying your own people get jack from the natural gas industry there? Don't they have to get something at least in the form of jobs? I can see big corps screwing over workers for sure.
Workers get screwed over depending on who you compare them with.