Originally Posted by orientexpress11
I should be doing other things than debating gun control on a Friday night, but oh well, here it goes.
Assault weapons are extremely cost prohibitive to own, require mountains of bureaucratic paperwork and stamps along with background checks. When was the last time someone used an assault weapon in a shooting? If my memory serves me correct, the North Hollywood bank shootout in 1997, where they used full-auto AK-47s. Too many individuals are either too anti-gun or ignorant to know the difference between a real assault weapon and a modern semi-automatic rifle that just happens to look scary. Handguns are also highly regulated with background checks. Most states require handguns that are sold must go through a dealer. They in turn, call for a background check, before allowing the transfer. For states that don't require background checks to do a face-to-face sale, driver's license info and a bill of sale are usually the standard operating procedure.
The attitude of Australians/Brits/foreigners is very different than the people of the USA. For one reason or another, we're quite a violent bunch of people relative to the rest of world and experience or know of more random acts of violence. That in-turn, makes the everyday citizen have a different attitude towards self-defense, the ability to conceal carry, and the job of the police. Also, we're such a large mix of individuals and ideologies that we can't take the same laws that work in Aus or the UK and make them work here. I would guess that if those countries were as large as us with the same mix of races and ideologies, that they would have the same amount violence as we do. I also, understand why people from Aus think their long wait system for gun control works, but what effect would that have on the US? Instead of an individual committing a crime today, it would just happen 3, 6, 9 months later in the future where IMO, they would have more time to plan an attack.
So what happens if you completely ban guns in the US? The same crazy individuals will go on killing sprees with knives, which IMO, are far more deadly than a bullet. Don't think someone can put down 20+ victims in a short period with a knife? Then you should look in the news today, where in China where some crazy guy attacked 22 individuals at a school. It's an eerie coincidence that will go unnoticed due to the media pushing their anti-gun agenda.
So you want to outlaw knives? Then the same criminal commits crimes with hammers, screwdrivers, baseball bats, etc. Sure, banning weapons will reduce the risk of being shot/stabbed/hammered, but it doesn't make me safer from the person who wants to commit the crime. A criminal doing something illegal will find ways to get the tools they need to commit the crime, regardless of what legal barriers are in their way. Perfect examples of this fact are the cities Chicago and NYC, where handguns are/were banned but crimes involving guns and knives happen on a hourly basis. Heck, Chicago broke their all-time record of 400+ deaths this year, mainly due to handguns. So how does this happen in a place where handguns are illegal? (That's sarcasm in the last sentence, if you didn't notice.)
What I'm trying illustrate here, is that crime is a sick passion. If an individual wants to kill a movie theater full of people, they will do it by any means, whether that be a rifle, locking the doors and setting the place on fire or by setting off an explosion.
I would consider a semi-automatic an assault weapon. That may or may not be correct, but that's my view...
It's also illegal over here to carry a knife, unless it can be substantiated that it's for work reasons... which essentially restricts them to being carried by farmers, and only at times and in places that would fit that purpose.
The long wait thing over here is crap, not a fan of that. A small wait is certainly understandable and warranted but making it take 12+ months is just dumb.
The thing is that if you aren't allowed to have hand guns then lots of people wouldn't... that reduces the likelihood of some delinquent getting one as there are suddenly a lot less being produced and imported and a lot less houses to try and steal one from.
And yep, I'd get rid of high capacity magazines as well, 10 rounds is more than enough in one mag for the average person.
Would gun control completely remove every occurrence of mass murder? Only the truly naive would believe that, but it certainly can't hurt.
And if you think that America is the only multicultural country around you would be quite mistaken, yet we don't have the same issues you guys do even once the population difference is taken in to account.
Has Australia got gun control right? Hell no, but I reckon we are in a better position that you guys over there.
The thing that gets me though is that so many of you put your right to bear arms before the lives of so many people, particularly kids.
There will always be those with a legitimate reason to carry certain weapons, such as professional hunters and armed guards etc but they can be taken care of as well.
Would it be that bad if you could only have a bolt action rifle instead of an AR15? Would it seriously affect your ability to hunt recreationally?
Anything that makes it harder for those individuals that try to commit these crimes or slows them down in the process can only be a good thing, and should be considered (not necessarily adopted though).
It's a different world you guys live in over there and I just find it bizarre that
so many of you wouldn't like to see something done to improve it.
So aside from the 'Don't impinge on my rights' and the almost impossible to substantiate 'there is no proof so we shouldn't do it' arguments is there actually any valid argument for keeping the laws the way the currently are?
Is there any reason that what works over here can't also work there?