Old white man is already here.
-
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
I never said anything of non partisan but then again in Australia politicians of the conservative and the liberal party could agree on gun control laws.
If they can't keep their citizens secure because of the NRA they're as i said in my initial post nothing more then corrupt fucks that failed their responsibility.
I agree, but some people have a misconception that guns are simply banned and unattainable in Australia. Just sharing so people understand the reality.
WonkyPanda
Member
660k firearms?
The US has about 300 million firearms.
The US has about 300 million firearms.
They can't change the laws if they'll just be voted out and replaced immediately by people reverting the change!
This isn't corruption, it's them representing their constituents' terrible worldview!
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
And the US has more people, more resources, and more money
That's not true unless democratic states are suddenly voting for anti gun control candidates.
Pinko Marx
Banned
Gun ownership is so engrained into US culture that I feel like if such a policy were implemented that it would seriously bring about a civil war, ESPECIALLY if a Democrat were in office when the law would pass.
There's too many loonies out there that would believe the government was trying to take over or some such that they would never give up their guns without a fight.
There's too many loonies out there that would believe the government was trying to take over or some such that they would never give up their guns without a fight.
RPGCrazied
Member
Listening to Republicans talk today over this makes me sick to my stomach. Saying its just the left politicizing this and now its not the time to talk about this. They say that over and over and over after every shooting. We don't buy that shit anymore.
And yes, we should be like Australia.
And yes, we should be like Australia.
Woo-Fu
Banned
The problem with the Australian example is that you cannot directly link cause and effect. Common sense says there is a link but you cannot prove it which is really all the ammunition one side needs when an example like that is brought up.
Another tidbit is that homicides involving guns as a percentage of all homicides in Australia were already on the decline before 1996.
While I think banning some sorts of guns/limiting access to any sort of gun would lead to guns being used less often as a percentage of all homicides I also believe that the sort of people likely to become mass murderers are also the sort of people unlikely to turn in their firearms.
I don't think there are any easy answers/solutions, much less ones that will be signed into law while the Republican party controls everything. Doesn't mean we can't try, though.
Another tidbit is that homicides involving guns as a percentage of all homicides in Australia were already on the decline before 1996.
While I think banning some sorts of guns/limiting access to any sort of gun would lead to guns being used less often as a percentage of all homicides I also believe that the sort of people likely to become mass murderers are also the sort of people unlikely to turn in their firearms.
I don't think there are any easy answers/solutions, much less ones that will be signed into law while the Republican party controls everything. Doesn't mean we can't try, though.
Dem members in swing districts are often running against Gun Control! Because of the political realities!
You would need GOP cooperation too and we know they'd just primary their members like they have been doing.
Tertullian
Member
Does anyone have a good article about what gun restrictions have been ruled constitutional, are likely to be ruled constitutional, etc.? What about a complete semiautomatic ban? What about lesser measures like automobile-esque registration? I would like to hear more about what gun control measures are actually possible without amending the Constitution.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
A good start for the US is giving ATF some fucking computers.
It'd be decades of work to get rid of the guns. Murdering 20 children didn't change anything. You can't look at Australia for bringing change to the US. We're still young and we're still dyed in the wool in our sense of independence and revolution that was only possible by colonists and militias having firearms.
It'd be decades of work to get rid of the guns. Murdering 20 children didn't change anything. You can't look at Australia for bringing change to the US. We're still young and we're still dyed in the wool in our sense of independence and revolution that was only possible by colonists and militias having firearms.
Guess everything is just too hard for a country that large. Single payer healthcare? Gun control? Youre all mad for even suggesting these things!
White rural Americans want to hold onto military grade firepower because they hate minorities. That's it in a nutshell and the battle you have to face.
Australia is a younger country than the USA ...
Australia is a younger country than the USA ...
Yes that would be good.
Also I don't mean to call you out but after the shooting this week I saw lots of people pushing back against the idea that "It's too soon!" to talk about gun control. Maybe next we need to start pushing back against "If Sandy Hook didn't change anything nothing will!"
Not only that, at this point in history we are closer to the founding of Australia as a nation (116 years) than the founding of Australia as a nation was to the end of the American Revolution (118 years).
toddhunter
Member
Huge difference: Australia has mandatory voting. This meant although they lost support from right wing nut jobs, they still got votes from the sensible middle who saw it as a good idea.
In America, those people (to a worrying extent) just stay home. So unfortunately people motivated to vote are all that really matters.
That said, Australia? We are currently terrorising gay people to keep the Christian lobby happy so we can't exactly take the high ground in more modern times either.
In America, those people (to a worrying extent) just stay home. So unfortunately people motivated to vote are all that really matters.
That said, Australia? We are currently terrorising gay people to keep the Christian lobby happy so we can't exactly take the high ground in more modern times either.
Having nightmares about how bad the postal survey would be with guns.
The Australian example is fascinating, and a great account on how a nation managed to overcome gun violence. Unfortunately, something like that would never be able to pass in the United States. I can only speak in Florida, but the overwhelming number of people I know are gun owners connected with the NRA. I am the lone exception, but the majority of people I have personally talked to aren't against the idea of greater gun control. The problem is that they don't trust Democrats or liberals to not eventually ban guns altogether. Which is a non-starter to them, and they will never concede any ground. As a matter of fact, I'm sure mentioning the Australian example would terrify many of those people, since they would consider it if not an "outright ban," the closest thing to it.
Then we have to consider the long cultural attachment that firearm ownership has to American culture. On top of firearm possession being recognized by the 2nd Amendment, which makes any sweeping changes next to impossible. We need sensible changes to gun ownership, and we should have had this conversation decades ago.
Then we have to consider the long cultural attachment that firearm ownership has to American culture. On top of firearm possession being recognized by the 2nd Amendment, which makes any sweeping changes next to impossible. We need sensible changes to gun ownership, and we should have had this conversation decades ago.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
I think these thought experiments about a total ban in the US aren't very helpful considering that you'd have to somehow muster the political will to erase the 2nd amendment. So I guess I'm confused why Australians would be confused how it hasn't happened here yet?
There absolutely should be more restrictions and even licensing put into place but a 100% firearm ban is not possible in the slightest.
There absolutely should be more restrictions and even licensing put into place but a 100% firearm ban is not possible in the slightest.
WonkyPanda
Member
Ill give you more people, but Id be hard pressed to believe any federal program would function correctly with the logistical nightmare it would take to take in around 300 million firearms.
The goal shouldn't be to take all 300 million firearms. That would be impossible and neither Australia or NZ were able to get every gun. The goal should be to get as many as possible and then see whether there's a drop in gun violence and suicides.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Guns aren't going anywhere in the US. Long term less and less people will own firearms as their reasons to own one keep dropping. It's already trending that way. So the real issue is defining sensible gun control and implementing a version of that. Some states have already done this. Others haven't.
Australia had no where near the amount of firearms more citizens that viewed it as a constitutional right for centuries.
Could have had smart guns everywhere if shitty NJ legislation didn't fuck it up before it had a chance to proliferate.
So then repeal the second amendment. Good luck with that.
A bunch of pissed off white guys had guns pointed at cops to protect some bigots cattle. You think they gonna turn in their guns? OK...
They will march in the streets with their shit and dare the feds to throw down. No one wants that. And if someone's the type of person to say "Fuck em kill em and take their guns" then you kinda proving their point for owning em in the first place.
Gotta change the culture. It's a shittier long term thing but it's more likely to work long term.
Australia had no where near the amount of firearms more citizens that viewed it as a constitutional right for centuries.
Could have had smart guns everywhere if shitty NJ legislation didn't fuck it up before it had a chance to proliferate.
So then repeal the second amendment. Good luck with that.
A bunch of pissed off white guys had guns pointed at cops to protect some bigots cattle. You think they gonna turn in their guns? OK...
They will march in the streets with their shit and dare the feds to throw down. No one wants that. And if someone's the type of person to say "Fuck em kill em and take their guns" then you kinda proving their point for owning em in the first place.
Gotta change the culture. It's a shittier long term thing but it's more likely to work long term.
You're actually still allowed to own and use guns but they are limited to specific rifles.
You're just not allowed to carry a loaded gun, you're not allowed to have a gun in a suburban area, you're not allowed to lend your gun to people, you're not allowed to shoot up local gatherings. Just some basic rules.
You're just not allowed to carry a loaded gun, you're not allowed to have a gun in a suburban area, you're not allowed to lend your gun to people, you're not allowed to shoot up local gatherings. Just some basic rules.
Mammoth Jones
Member
So like NY? Gotcha.
Like I keep saying that's going to become the compromise. The eventuality. Just the way I see it.
soxinthebox
Member
I find it strange as an Australian that Americans are so attached to the constitution/amendments as something impossible to change as society moves forward. It's treated almost like words sent from a god.
Edit: I realise the irony with regards to our stupid fucking postal survey going on atm
well the postal survey is its own box of stupid. as far as i can tell nobody except the conservatives in the libs (the conservative's conservatives) actually wanted it, but due to the way power was split it was basically forced on the rest of the nation
NinjaTehFish
Banned
One thing oft not mentioned in these threads is the complimentary gun storage regulations which are very strict and at the very least should be looked at by America:
example from:https://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/licenceApplication/storage/howto.htm
example from:https://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/licenceApplication/storage/howto.htm
Elaugaufein
Member
Size wise America isn't hugely larger than Australia. Australia isn't one of those European nations you can drive across in 2 hours. You're only 25% larger by land area. And the middle of your country is significantly more habitable than that of Australia, which makes most tasks considerably easier.
And NRA
Still need 38 states and that isn't going to happen
Mammoth Jones
Member
Population. Land mass is irrelevant.
Pretty much. The rest of his legacy is terrible though.
rokkerkory
Member
NRA got congress by the balls that's why
Not quite right - there was Raurimu in 1996.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Correct. I prefer to get all special interest groups out of politics.
With the current system folks would have to form a counter group that grabbed politicians but the balls even harder. Which is difficult because let's be honest...in a month folks forget and go back to another issue.
It's not about having bought them off, the NRA controls a huge number of single issue voters. They can swing elections in certain states with a single mailer.
So long as this remains the case nothing will ever change.
I think every Democrat would jump for joy at this. It's the best we can hope for.
the problem being that the second amendment doesn't actually say that the militia has a right to bear arms
it says the people have the right to bear arms, because of the necessity of a well regulated militia
People also misunderstand that the gun control laws in Australia weren't a ban on all firearms. It was a ban on firearms that were high powered, high capacity, and/or semi-automatic or automatic. Firearms are still legal for collectors, hunting and sport.
You need a permit from the police to purchase and use firearms and a valid reason must be given as to why you'd like to have firearms. This won't be unreasonably denied though.
Of course, there are also a bunch of restrictions on how firearms must be stored and secured, as well as how they may be transported which basically make it illegal to carry firearms at all times except when you have a permit to carry them or transport them.
Basically, gun control isn't a ban on all guns. It's just about common sense and the community's expectation that when they go to a public place, they can safely assume nobody will be armed.
Then maybe it should be implemented gradually state by state.
7he Talon
Member
Exactly. I know people that own guns here, but they're not allowed to carry them in public. They have to be secured in a certain way and the police will come do inspections to make sure you're being save and obeying the law.
The problem is it won't have any effect until it's nationwide due to the flow of guns from states with lax laws to those with strict ones..
The Albatross
Member
Gun ownership is an issue that the 'American elite' typically do not support nearly as much as non-elites do. Guns aren't a luxury in America, and most wealthy coastal elites, those people who might make up the 1% or the top 10%, generally don't own guns. Lobbying organizations like the NRA are powerful, but they're powerful for different reasons compared to other lobbying organizations around health care, energy, and other industrial lobbies.
The reason the NRA is as powerful as they are really isn't because of money, it's because of voter mobilization. For instance, the energy lobby behind, say, Exxon-Mobil or Pharmaceutical companies spends hundreds of times more a year on lobbying than the NRA does, but for the most part, Big Pharma or Exxon-Mobil really aren't motivating voters like how say, the NRA, NARAL, or other 'issues' lobbying organizations can. There are very few voters who identify with lobbyist groups for ExxonMobil, but there are many more voters who strongly identify with the NRA, enough so that the NRA grades candidates and many voters vote along those grades... Politicians in rural, conservative, uneducated areas often champion getting "A+" from the NRA as a badge of honor.
Unlike energy or financial reform, where wealthy elites really can be pinpointed with a lionshare of the blame, the gun issue in the US is an issue for the rural, largely poor or middle class majority. Owning a gun is not something reserved for the wealthy in the US. The highest percentage of gun ownership are in households with an income bracket between $60-90,000/year, which is squarely in the middle class.
Beyond that, gun owners tend to be less educated, they tend to live in the South and Midwest, they tend to be overwhelmingly rural, they tend to be older. By and large, gun owners and advocates tend to not be the elite, and the elite are generally more averse to guns than middle class, rural, uneducated people are.
From Pew: The Demographics of Gun Ownership
Make no doubt, this isn't to say that the Legislature has not completely failed at legislating guns and protecting the general public from mass murder caused by guns -- they have. But, well for one, the legislature isn't necessarily "elite," sure, there are many people in the highest income brackets in state and federal legislature, but it's not an elite institution like other government institutions are, and as far as guns are concerned, gun ownership and advocacy is very much a rural, middle class, white populist platform.
I disagree with this. Gradually ramping up gun laws state-by-state can reduce overall gun violence state-by-state. Yes, people will still be able to access guns, but when states make something prohibitively more difficult, then it does effectively cut down on that thing. A recent example is with conservative states who have issued near de facto bans on abortion by making it prohibitively difficult for abortion clinics to open or stay open in those states. While neighboring states and regions still have ready access to abortion, there end up being fewer abortions in those states and more births from "unwanted" pregnancies. This is why pro choice advocates fight so hard for abortion rights in those states, because even while it might be readily available elsewhere -- even in relatively near by states -- de facto bans are consequential.
I think it's a copout to say that states shouldn't bother regulating guns because guns will be available from other states. I live in a relatively anti-gun state (MA), in a city that is very difficult to obtain fire arms, and fewer people per capita in my city own fire arms than other places around my state where licenses are easier to come by... Even though it would not be very hard to drive to NEw Hampshire or Vermont, or drive 8 hours to a southern state, and purchase a firearm (legally or illegally). The bigger issue at play is how local gun laws are interpreted by the Supreme Court. DC's "handgun ban" overrule by SCOTUS from some years ago had a chilling affect on new local gun regulation.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Thats the reality. The culture in states need to change. And it doesn't require folks giving up their guns for hunting, target shooting, home defense. The entire dialogue is "No guns in America" and it's not gonna happen and it just further entrenches folks in the idea that confiscation is the "librul socialist agenda".
And it's worth noting that firearms (and weapons in general) for self-defence is super illegal. Which I have to imagine is unfathomable for Americans.
reptilescorpio
Member
It's definitely important to call this gun control and not a gun ban, that language gets people fired up when it's just about controlling the supply so dangerous people are less likely to get them.