Gun Control
So. Gun Control. The thing that America says doesn't work, and that it won't stop gun massacres. But I'm undecided on this. Because gun control CAN work. It worked here in Australia. After the mass shooting at Port Arthur (a small town and former convict settlement) that left 35 dead (including children) , the Prime Minister, John Howard, delivered gun control laws that saw around 700,000 automatic weapons bought back and destroyed. As a result, there has not been a single gun massacre here since 1996, and the crime rate involving guns has declined significantly. Now, you could say the same can't happen in America because it's such a different country, but the thing is that until Port Arthur, lot's of people had automatic weapons here too, and when John Howard wanted guns laws, people protested, just like America. But Port Arthur happened, and everyone realized: Guns serve no purpose but to kill.
So can America and other countries learn from this? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd suggest to America to at least take a look at the effect it's had here, because I know none of you want more mass shootings.
Anyone who wants to add anything is welcome to.
Comments
It's a complicated issue, especially for me since I'm a gun owner and leftist. My basic stance on gun control is as follows.
ANTI - Assault Weapon Ban: It's a flawed law that targets weapons based on appearance/notoriety. For ex. the law bans the Tec-9 handgun because of its popularity among criminals.
PRO - Rifle magazine limits.
ANTI - pistol magazine limits.
PRO - Universal background checks. Honest gun-owners have nothing to worry about.
PRO - Concealed Carry (only with training)
PRO - Smart Guns
Basically gun culture is too ingrained in our society to get rid of semi-auto weapons. Still, there are steps that can be taken.
Like BigBlindMax said, the 2nd Amendment is ingrained into our collective souls, and they are plenty of people who rely on guns for protection and sustenance. When you live out in the middle of Nowhere, Kansas, there' no such thing as 911. You're on your own in the country, and guns are the best thing to protect yourself with.
The two main reasons the 2nd Amendment exists is to have civilian militias (a must back then and still is today) and protection against overly tyrannical governments.
As far as my personal beliefs, I believe that we need people to know how to use a gun, I'm anti-concealed carry, and I don't believe there should be limits to magazines.
If I may ask, why are you anti-CC?
It's hard to feel safe when a bunch of dudes are walking around carrying guns with them. Even if they'll use it for good, it's still hard to trust them.
You can trust meeee...since my CC handgun is collecting dust back home (I'm at college). It's crazy here in PA, all you need to get a license is like one day of training. I did about a week's worth of classes before I got mine, but that's mostly because I wanted an in-depth explanation of all the legal implications.
As far as people carrying guns, it's pretty common where I live, so I guess I'm just used to it. Wielding a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony is an automatic 10 years in prison, so I trust most people not to draw their guns willy-nilly.
Ah. I didn't know that much, but yeah, I'm from the South, and I'm used to guns, but I guess I'm just paranoid.
SO what you guys are saying is that guns are too deeply-ingrained in society to remove right away? What about just restricting them? Such as waiting periods and increased background checks etc
I personally think background checks are important. We don't need convicted criminals to be armed.
But what do you mean waiting periods?
Like when you don't get the gun immediately. I don't know that much, but for example, you buy a gun, and you have a criminal record. You buy the gun, but you have to wait for the store to check your backgrounds before you actually get it. You'll have to look into it yourself. I don't know much about them.
Ok, that's logical enough. I'll be fine with that, but as long as they're quick and efficient about it.
Well like you aid earlier: We don't need people with criminal records arming themselves.
So do you need a licence to own a gun where you live? Because i think guns are a state law so it varies across the country, and are convicted criminals legally allowed to own a gun? because you can't here, and automatic weapons have been banned since Port Arthur.
Waiting periods and background checks are fine IMO. Buying a gun is a rather large investment, so I'm happy to take my time.
Most of the anti-background check people are shitheads who are afraid of being put in a secret government database or something. Idiots.
Yes, you have to be 18+ to own rifles and shotguns and 21+ to own guns in Mississippi.
What about Handguns?
But do you still see automatic weapons as necessary?
I see them as something that won't go away in my lifetime. Like I said, gun culture has been a part of American society since the beginning.
I meant handguns for 21+. Dumbass moment here.
So you can get rifles at a younger age than you can get handguns? Okay, I gotta say WTF.
Handguns are concealable and have little to no hunting purpose. Rifles and shotguns put dinner on the table for a lot of people.
What BigBlindMax says. Trust me, I know quite a few people who rely on hunting to subsist.
I think it works pretty well, because there isn't lots of shootouts here and people kill each other or rob places with knives.
Also, there has been only 2 school shootings in Finland's history...
Also, the populations; Finland: almost 6 billion
USA: over 300 billion
So many people in there already owns a gun, so Finnish kind of gun laws wouldn't work, the country is just too big :/
Yay!
Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but it should be million.
Anyway, yeah, it's true. A lot of things from Europe: democratic socialism, universal healthcare, stuff like that, they work in Europe because of the smaller population.
Hopefully it could work better here, but between partisan asshats on both sides and our apathy toward politics, I don't know how well
Actually, you'd by surprised, it's more the lobbyists and the various industrial complexes (military, prison, medical) than politicians.
I didn't think of those, but yeah, those greedy bastards and professional bribers should have no place in Washington.
Jk, but I'd like to visit if I had the money, but any overseas trip is gonna be a few thousand bucks over here.
That's sort of amazing to me.
In America, strict gun laws aren't as effective. Camden, New Jersey and Oakland, California are two of the most dangerous cities in America and both lie in states with very strict gun laws. No-Carry zones and magazine limits ring a bit hollow when shotguns, Mac-11's and AK's keep showing up in the crime reports.
The photos are anecdotal evidence, of course, but you get the idea. Gang members in Camden can get this kind of hardware past he radar. Yet my sister can't even carry pepper-spray or a stun gun when she passes through on her way to campus. It simply doesn't produce the desired results.
The only real effective law I've seen implemented is the 10-20-Life law in Florida. 10 extra years for wielding a firearm while committing a felony, 20 extra years if you fire it, or a mandatory 25-Life if the bullet hits someone. Even so, that seems way too draconian to me.
So what you're saying is that it's not affecting the right people.
In some cases, yes.
Sometimes draconian is the only way that'll work
Very rarely. I'm opposed to minimum sentences in general, especially "three strikes laws". One of the good things about English Common Law is that it gives judges the flexibility to use their discretion. They sentence convicted felons based on both the historical precedent and their own judgement of the crime, rather than following strict, static guidelines.