Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath, Gun Control & Political Suicide, Gun Control Whoop-de-doo

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Maddermax wrote:
CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So no new laws unless we can prove that guns sold to strawmen were used in crimes later on.

And how do you plan on anybody proving that?

How about read what I actually wrote:

and show me a bunch of cases where guns legally purchased without a background check were then used by the legal owner to commit crimes you are not going to convince me we need new laws and bureaucracy which both increase the cost of gun ownership and infringe on freedoms.

bottom line is, what you call 'universal back ground checks' would only be universal for legal gun owners anyway, and the majority of gun sales already go through checks. Adding cost and bureaucracy without a real gain is silly. Enforcing current laws consistently would go much further than creating new ones. Seeing as how straw purchases are ALREADY ILLEGAL I am not sure how a new law changes that....

How about making sales illegal without a background check, and hold the seller responsible if a gun is sold without one? Seems pretty common sense. From what I've seen, while Straw purchases might be illegal, it's kind of hard to prove (you have to prove the intent of the puchase was to give it to someone, whereas just selling a gun after buying it for any other reason is fine). Just get them to have to see a licensed dealer to make the private sale, and if your weapon turns up having been sold to someone else (and not reported stolen), make them ineligible to buy new guns.

It seems pretty obvious that those who would be otherwise banned because of their background could just buy from a private sale online - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

But that's just my thoughts on the matter. I think the difference between Australians and Americans on the matter is that for Americans is an ideological, rather than a rational, argument, and that's also why I doubt anything serious will ever be done about gun control over there.

Except you have a problem.

Right now, people make straw purchases for criminals. Even though its illegal. They do it because there is almost no chance they'll get caught, and only if the gun is traced from the criminal back to them. and then it has to be proven they knew they were selling to a criminal. Almost impossible.

The same applies to making private citizens have to make a background check before selling. There is no way of enforcing it. Nobody will get caught unless the gun is traced back to the original seller, you can establish proof that the person either knew they were selling to a criminal, and they would have failed a background check at the time of the sale.

Its an entirely pointless measure that only catches the crime after it has happened, and will do nothing to stop gun crimes.

**KalashnikovMarine**

CptJake wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.

In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.

Thank you, I swear to the goddess I'm going to kick someone in the taint if people keep propagating the gun show loophole BS or that stupid 40% number.

**Grey Templar**

Glad to be corrected. I'd hate to be perpetrating that, and glad to know its not the case.

**Jihadin**

Hhhmmmmm I have to see when the next gun show is around here. If I can find a cheaper M4 (dammit I'm use to calling it an M4 and not a AR15) I more then likely get it for the wife. Other then that I do know she looking for a decent price 40m....she has small cute hands...so we be in the market for a hand weapon....maybe two if I can find a 1911....

**Grundz**

Frazzled wrote:
In other news Mongo punches a horse!

Mongo is pawn in game of life

**Grey Templar**

I thought the AR15 and the M4 were both derivatives of the M16. the M4 being a carbine version of the M16.

**djones520**

Grey Templar wrote:
I thought the AR15 and the M4 were both derivatives of the M16. the M4 being a carbine version of the M16.

The AR-15 is a derivative of the AR-10. Armalite tried to sell the AR-10 to the Army, but they didn't bite. So they made the AR-15, and again the Army didn't want it, but the Air Force did. So Armalite made the military version of the AR-15 and called it the M-16. The M-16 went through several versions before the need of a "close in" weapon prompted the design of the M-4 in the mid to late 90's.

^ nutshell.

**azazel the cat**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.

In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.

Thank you, I swear to the goddess I'm going to kick someone in the taint if people keep propagating the gun show loophole BS or that stupid 40% number.

What a stupid argument. You two are acting so smug and you don't even realize you're not even talking about the right thing.

THIS IS THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE: as per the Firearm Owners Protection Act, licensed vendors are required to perform background checks, both in their shops and at gun shows. However, people who are not vendors -who allegedly only sell firearms on occasion- are not subject to this restriction. Thus, a private citizen who does not possess a Federal Firearms License is allowed to sell firearms withouth running a background check, and can very easily show up to a gun show with a duffel bag full of firearms and sell them to anyone, without running a background check.

So tell me, KalashnikovMarine: what part about the above is BS?

And here it is in video form:

**KalashnikovMarine**

Guys who are selling in that level of bulk are IN BUSINESS and are violating federal law. Also at every gun show I've been to, unless you had a valid C&R permit, you had to be an FFL to get a table selling firearms. Obviously that's different in some areas but again, there's no gunshow loophole, ATF should actually try enforcing the law instead of burning innocent people alive and bothering legitimate businesses that do follow the law. Or you know, making sure the cartels have all the weapons they need courtesy of the U.S. Federal government.

**Grey Templar**

Exactly, its another case of enforcing the laws already on the books.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Also considering that documentary is from Michael Bloomberg, it's got about as much credibility as Michael Moore, but 1/3 the body fat!

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Also considering that documentary is from Michael Bloomberg, it's got about as much credibility as Michael Moore, but 1/3 the body fat!

1/8th of the body fat...

Back to OP: Is there a good source (FBI "like" ) on crime statistics in Australia? (not wiki please).

**KalashnikovMarine**

I dunno Bloomie was looking kinda chunky there for awhile. That's my theory behind the soda pop ban. Bloomberg decided that if he had to diet NYC was going to suffer with him.

**BrassScorpion**

A couple more salient points from Mr. Shermer:

Michael Shermer

# killed by terrorism in U.S. in 50 years not counting 9-11 = 373. # killed by guns in 50 years = ~450,000. We need a consistent response.

1 failed shoe bomber = TSA airport shoe screening of millions. 9000+ gun homicides/yr = 0 response. Why 0 tolerance for 1 but not the other?

**Grey Templar**

I hardly call what has been done zero response.

Granted, most response to gun violence is more stupid "Banz the gunz, gunz iz evil!!!" nonsense.

**ironhandstraken**

Hey everybody

I know it's an older quote by still.

easysauce wrote:
canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

russia bans civilian guns, yet has had plenty of mass murders in schools, .

they have seen events much worse then in america, one notable event, saw over 150 dead, in a country that bans civilian guns

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/russian.school.html

how is this possible when guns are banned in russia?

how is making a law forcing non crimnalsto not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?

why do people assume a crook willing to break the laws against murder/theft/him owning a gun with a record/ect will follow a law that says he double plus cannot own guns?

I'm and aussie and 99% of the austrailian stuff in the is complete Male cow waste. We are not living in fear because we know that most criminal don't have guns and the ones doing robbery are not the one with guns. So don't even try to make the argument about there are still bad guys with guns, so the goo guys need them to, the bad don't have then and the good guys are the police.

This is why i'm worried about this guy in america that has made a 3d printable gun, now in Australia could possible can get fully auto-matic weaponry. All this is going to lead to the bad now having guns. I'm not saying the guns are bad, they are a tool to be used and they can be fun to use for E.G. hunting etc. but for hunting you do not need a fully auto assault weapons with 300+ rounds.

That is my opinion Dakka, take it as you like
- ironhandstralen

**Grey Templar**

Guns can't be 3-D printed. You can print plastic components of guns, none of which are actually the important parts that take the stress of firing.

Plus 3-D printers are hellishly expensive. It might be cheaper to actually acquire a legal full auto weapon than print a functioning gun(assuming you buy a metal printer)

**KalashnikovMarine**

Actually if you check the other thread GT, Defense Distributed has made a fully plastic *except one nail for the firing pin) rim fire zip gun. It's a long way off from a full auto weapon though.

**Grey Templar**

Really, missed that. That's pretty cool. I wouldn't trust such a weapon though, I like my face the way it is.

**azazel the cat**

I admit I'm kinda surprised how someone has been able to 3D-print a chamber that can withstand the force of firing a bullet.

**Grey Templar**

I imagine it has to be replaced on a regular basis. Seems like a high maintenance weapon for little practical gain.

**CptJake**

azazel the cat wrote:
I admit I'm kinda surprised how someone has been able to 3D-print a chamber that can withstand the force of firing a bullet.

He is using a short .22 (not even .22LR). No reason to suspect the chamber or barrel hold up to very many of even those rounds either. Looking at the pictures posted in the other thread he printed off multiple barrels (which also seem to serve as the chamber) and I bet he did that for a reason. They obviously also broke the trigger at some point, which really attests to the durability of the thing.

Between that type of round and that gun, I wouldn't expect it to be useful unless you put it right up to someone's eye socket.

Of course, if you end up being the poor guy with a .22 short rattling around inside your skull you probably will not care it was fired from that thing vice a 'real' gun.

Really the only advantage I see to this thing is that the components don't LOOK like hand gun components and are not metal (except the firing pin) so you could feasibly take one broken down onto an airplane....

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:I imagine it has to be replaced on a regular basis. Seems like a high maintenance weapon for little practical gain.

Practical gains (as imagined by very bad people):
-wanna walk up and put a round in the back of someone's head? Untraceable firearm!
-wanna take a firearm onto an airplane? It's all plastic, except for the firing pin!
-cant legally buy a gun and got some nasty prison tats on your face, such that even private sellers at gun shows don't sell to you? Buy a printer!

**Grey Templar**

Even a firing pin will show up on an airport scanner.

And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?

**Valion**

Grey Templar wrote:
Even a firing pin will show up on an airport scanner.

And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?

They won't be $8000 forever. And a firing pin could pretty easily be gotten through airport security in a cell phone's battery compartment.

**Grey Templar**

True, but then he has to reassemble the gun after he's on the plane.

And what about bullets? Can't hide very many of those in a cell phone.

Yeah, they'll get cheaper eventually but with the internet you are not going to prevent people from getting their hands on the blueprints. We can't stop people from pirating music, what chance do we have of stopping them from getting a 3-D blueprint?

And similarly you can't prevent anyone from buying a 3-D printer.

**Valion**

Grey Templar wrote:
True, but then he has to reassemble the gun after he's on the plane.

And what about bullets? Can't hide very many of those in a cell phone.

Yeah, they'll get cheaper eventually but with the internet you are not going to prevent people from getting their hands on the blueprints. We can't stop people from pirating music, what chance do we have of stopping them from getting a 3-D blueprint?

And similarly you can't prevent anyone from buying a 3-D printer.

Oh, bullets are easy. Your body has a built-in smuggling compartment that will comfortably seat several.

Look, I'm not saying there's anything that can be done about any of this, simply that to pretend it won't make things easier for criminally-inclined individuals in the long run is unrealistic. I fully agree that we have as much chance of stopping that from happening as we do stopping Avatar from getting pirated.

**CptJake**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:I imagine it has to be replaced on a regular basis. Seems like a high maintenance weapon for little practical gain.

Practical gains (as imagined by very bad people):
-wanna walk up and put a round in the back of someone's head? Untraceable firearm!
-wanna take a firearm onto an airplane? It's all plastic, except for the firing pin!
-cant legally buy a gun and got some nasty prison tats on your face, such that even private sellers at gun shows don't sell to you? Buy a printer!

I suspect it will be traceable for a variety of reasons. The specific design is traceable, and it won't be hard to trace who had downloaded it. The plastics used by the printer will be traceable to manufacturer and probably point of sale much like they can do with an ink cartridge or toner cartridge now. Won't be easy, but I would not underestimate the FBIs investigatory capability.

**Frazzled**

Valion wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Even a firing pin will show up on an airport scanner.

And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?

They won't be $8000 forever. And a firing pin could pretty easily be gotten through airport security in a cell phone's battery compartment.

Dude all you need is the clip on a pen. Its not hard. Its also not that effective.

**CptJake**

Grey Templar wrote:
Even a firing pin will show up on an airport scanner.

And a criminal is going to pony up $8,000+ to get a bulky machine installed in his garage when he could just as easily go to one of his criminal buddies and get a gun that he knows will work for a fraction of the cost?

Come on. You really think TSA employees are gonna recognize that as a firing pin?

A criminal buddy isn't gonna get him a gun that potentially gets onto an airplane...