-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WaPo editorial: "How Australia beat the gun lobby and passed gun control"
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
PoorChoices
Member
I'd be more than okay with this. The "THEYS COMIN FOR MUH GUNS" rhetoric would get old fast.
Septimus Prime
Member
They paid people to voluntarily turn in their guns, didn't they? How did they get the last holdouts?
I guess people who didn't turn in their guns owned illegal firearms and got arrested?
American police is already better equipped than the german military so they should be capable of taking guns from some random people.
We're not stupid enough to think people didn't keep some guns. Every now and then our government announces gun amnestys. It the most recent over 25k weapons were handed in to police.
Since it became illegal, i assume, people still hold on to them and hide them. The question was, how long are those people want to live under the pressure, before they throw away there guns them self or get caught.
The only good thing John Howard ever did
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
Is there anything stopping them from starting small?
Yes. Smaller country physically, more population size, far fewer guns per capita. (US has more guns than people, cause guns don't die.)
To Far Away Times
Member
The NRA is generally considered the most powerful lobby in America. They've bought off and own a significant portion of Republican congressmen. Expect "thoughts and prayers" for the victims and nothing else from the GOP.
It's disgusting.
It's disgusting.
Byakuya769
Member
I imagine it's about the same.
I mean, probably it's structurally about the same and just on a larger scale, but we would also have more resources (police per capita is higher in the US, we have a larger per capita GPD). Like, we enforce other laws just fine with a larger population and area than Australia has. So, this isn't a good argument.
"Welp, guess we should just give up on meth. Our country is bigger than Australia!"
metalslimer
Member
The problem really isn't the size of the country. The problem is the proliferation of guns to a much greater extent than what was in Australia. I would argue we are much more stubborn as well
Sure. But that isn't a reason to not take action. If anything the proliferation of guns and the prevalence of gun culture in the US is an argument for why action is more necessary here than in countries with a healthier relationship with fire arms.
I mean. We have literal white nationalists open-carrying semi-automatic weapons during marches.
All of the reasons given why we *cant* do something about this feel like good arguments for why we *need* to do something.
The per capita number is the only one that matters since the US has a significantly larger state to go along with its significantly larger population.
Nonsense. This is an national problem. You're totally just pulling this out of your ass here.
metalslimer
Member
Oh I completely agree I was just saying out population size isn't the thing that makes it more difficult
The only good thing he did. This is it. Everything else we're still paying for. But it was a good thing.
The numbers don't lie. It splits along party lines but it really is more of a North vs. South issue.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
pretty sure David Malcolm Grey used something really shitty, like a .22?
fake edit:
looked it all up, he did shoot someone with a .22 but had a lot of other stuff as well
NZ should also get mentioned here when the US mentions it. It's 2 countries that responded to mass gun controls and our people haven't suffered the shit since.
America needs to hurry up and 'invent' gun control. It's really stupid.
What numbers? I have no qualms about saying the South is somewhat worse about this, but it's not the South pushing this on the helpless North and reconstruction is relevant only insofar as the Republicans have hitched their wagon to racism.
CrazedProfessional
Member
Howard's gun ban kinda worked. You still have motorcycle gangs with illegal access to guns on the Gold Coast and other parts of the country and you have old people holed up in the rural areas who never gave up their guns and then one day oh shit my vintage guns have been stolen.
Sometimes guns just appear out of thin air in Australia and police have no clue where they came from because the ban caused some people to hide guns or start up black markets.
Sometimes guns just appear out of thin air in Australia and police have no clue where they came from because the ban caused some people to hide guns or start up black markets.
It really isn't that hard. First you'd ban the sale of guns then start a buy back programm for a few years and then declare all firearms illegal like everyone else.
Obviously you'd have guns in private households for decades but american police has the equipment to wage war with canada. I'm sure they could handle civilians owning illegal firearms.
(in large part because the south's flavor of white supremacy went and spread nationwide in rural areas across the country!)
Opposiiton to gun control is tied into the racial issues we have in this country, just like nearly every other issue.
Yeah sure, but this doesn't mean that America's gun culture is a Southern problem. It's a national problem. Much like racism isn't a Southern problem, it's a national problem.
The problem is America doesn't want to change and Sandy Hook proved that. Too many people who love their guns and even little kids getting shot didn't change their minds.
You can say that it was easier for Australia due to size and spread of guns, but at the very core it succeeded because most Australians saw the horrific events at Port Arthur and wanted a change.
You can say that it was easier for Australia due to size and spread of guns, but at the very core it succeeded because most Australians saw the horrific events at Port Arthur and wanted a change.
According to the University of Sydney last year, there are more guns in Australia than before the massacre. Granted, they made it more difficult to obtain a firearm, but its not stopping anyone from purchasing one if that study is correct.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360
I've been reading on this a few times and while Howard was (and I would never say this otherwise) admirably strong and fast and really did believe in what he was doing, it was only possible because the will of the Australian people was with him all the way. Without that he never would have badgered the states, especially Queensland, into going along with it.
I just can't see American opinion turning that way in the states, especially in the current political climate
I just can't see American opinion turning that way in the states, especially in the current political climate
brianmcdoogle
Member
I have a couple of remedial questions about this. When Australia did their buyback and gun control laws, what system was in place prior to it? Mainly, did they already have a robust registration system in place that let them knew who owned guns? And in regards to the comparison with them and the United States, is there a rough idea of how many gun owners there are in the country? I know there's the statistic that gets thrown around a lot that there's well over 300 million guns in the country, but I thought people who tend to buy guns have multiples. My quick gleaming on this is that anywhere between 20-40% own a gun (huge margin), and something around 70% of those own multiple guns.
Lord_Byron28
Member
Article posted yesterday was discussing how if only gun owners voted every state but one would have gone to Trump in the last election. Meanwhile if only people who did not own guns voted every state but two would be gone to Clinton. It's not a south thing it's a conservative things.
The intransigence comes from the fact that the Republican Party has shed all of its baggage and become the White Supremacist party whose base is deep rooted in the South. The extreme polarisation coupled with gerrymandering means you can not ever hope to fix this situation through sensible bi-partisan legislation. Some people will never let go of their guns and religion and the South remains steadfast in that.
I refer back to the Civil War because the normal scenario post a Civil War is that the losing side would have had its leadership and institutions castrated and wholesale replaced, with the population effectively re-educated to reject the mantra of the previous regime. None of this happened and the Confederate cancer has been allowed to fester for a long time. If all of that had happened the issues the US has faced with both racism and guns would have been vastly reduced. This is conjecture but it is true the US never failed to properly deal with the aftermath of the Civil War.
America's gun culture issue is very specifically based in its rural areas. People hoarding semi-automatic weapons are generally not living in the middle of major cities for the most part, and the places actually pushing for gun control laws are representing those metropolitan areas.
The main problem for the US is that the fight over gun control was fought a long time ago and the gun nuts won big time. Now, there's a lot of institutional pressure against any form of gun control and a vast portion of the government and populace are dead set to keeping it that way. It isn't impossible for this to change, but there are no processes for doing so, and the occasional massacre isn't going to be enough.
What's required is going to be a sea change in the ways that Americans look at their society and country in terms of basic rights, the Constitution, and everything - basically a new social contract. I don't think that this can happen any time soon, and it may require some pretty severe shocks to convince people that it's necessary.
What's required is going to be a sea change in the ways that Americans look at their society and country in terms of basic rights, the Constitution, and everything - basically a new social contract. I don't think that this can happen any time soon, and it may require some pretty severe shocks to convince people that it's necessary.
"But America is too big" is one of the lamest excuses for ANYTHING i've ever seen. It's the response to like, half the ideas out there.
There are countries way bigger than us with more than twice the population and do not have constant gun rampages. China literally invented gunpowder and does not have nonstop gun massacres. Find a new kite to fly.
That's not a thing you can just do.
It would literally be illegal, because the constitution overrides all other laws.
Which 38 states do you think would be up for it?
Single shot rifles are much less able to mass-kill.
So basically it boils down to the american elite being corrupt fucks.
Other countries could do it. The failure of america to do it simply boils down to the sheer failure of the american elite and society.
I've seen this discussion for the last 20 years and i expect america will never be able to do it since they can't even provide healthcare so it's citizens (Something countries like germany have for 150 years).
That has nothing to do with the "American Elite" and everything to do with being unable to get 38 states to go along with a constitutional change!
The problem is the people.
Who leads these 38 states? The american elites.
Do you live in a dictatorship that doesn't have democratic elections or something?
Are you really that naive? How many lower class/middle class citizens get elected offices?
It's nothing to do with "naivete" and everything to do with recognizing that Obama in '08 still only got 28 states! And that was considered a landslide!
see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...480e4b09538b509cc76?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004
You seem to be under the impression that elected officials aren't responsive to their voters, when this is very much not the case!
Unless you can magically make the GOP and red states suddenly willing to hand over their guns, you aren't getting a constitutional amendment like that through!
The enemy on this is not "the elite!" It is the GOP base: white, rural America.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here?
All i said is nothing is gonna change because the american elite (Which includes people of all political views) failed their responsibilities.
Australian politicians went against something their core voters disagreed with (Read the OP) and followed their responsibility. Why can't american politicians?
So you're just blaming a nonexistent boogeyman.
So elected officials are nonexistent boogeymans?
A non-partisan "American Elite" is very much a nonexistent boogeyman in a world where the NRA is one of the most effective lobbying and GOTV groups in the country and has the GOP and Dems in red-leaning districts by the metaphorical balls, yes.
The money isn't the biggest issue with the NRA, it's that they can and will weaponize their members in elections.