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.

It's rather long and very dry. If you care about gun control it's an interesting read from an organization that doesn't do a whole lot of public lobbying:SAAMI

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/SAAMIMinorityReportISACSFinal.pdf

Though I am a little bias as a member of the law enforcement community, and a fire arms enthusiast, I get what this is saying. I don't think this is anything new to bills coming up before law makers. Very vague guidelines and policies have been brought about by questionable facts and opinions. Crime is dependant on a lot of factors and not just gun ownership.

Interesting piece, thanks for that.

There's no doubt that there's a huge political component to gun control that really isn't particularly interested in exactly what would reduce gun crime, but are instead driven by an instinctive dislike of guns, and that drives them to try and restrict guns wherever possible. The ridiculous 'assault weapon' laws you guys had on the books for a while there are probably the classic example.

In just the last few weeks here in Western Australia we had a revival of the gun control debate. In raiding the house of a suspected drug supplier, the police found 13 guns. These guns were licensed, legal firearms, kept in a locked safe. They were single shot rifles designed for hunting game and target shooting. Despite this a significant number of people freaked the hell out, calling for greater gun control, saying the only reason anyone would have that many guns would be to plan a massacre, the response that you use different guns for purposes seemed entirely lost on them. The fact that WA has almost no gun violence seemed lost on them, as well.

It'd be enough to get me to throw my lot in entirely with the pro-gun crowd, except unfortunately a significant portion of them are just as irrational, prattling on needing guns to keep government in line, to shoot the people who'll be breaking into their homes any second now, and all sorts of other nonsense.

It's a shame really, because figuring out the best way to balance the benefits of gun control against the costs shouldn't be that hard. But the argument is dominated by a very noisy and very irrational minority on both sides. And the result is that most countries have regulations that serve each side significantly less well than it should.

In the States, gun control hasn't been a particularly relevant topic since Clinton's presidency. I chalk that up the 90s being a particularly nonsensical decade.

Manchu wrote:In the States, gun control hasn't been a particularly relevant topic since Clinton's presidency. I chalk that up the 90s being a particularly nonsensical decade.

Didn't like flannel much, did you?

Or Nirvana.

This really isn't about US gun control as a debate, or even gun control debate at all. SAAMI isn't always recognized for who and what they are. They DO provide specifications for the safe manufacture of guns and ammunition to match those guns, but they are also a lobby group that represents the manufacturers of firearms and ammunition. So they certainly have an axe to grind.

What I thought was interesting about this is that they are pointing a rather accusatory finger at the global gun control debate and how it is being conducted on the regulatory level. It's just very interesting to see an organization like SAAMI that is typically very passive publish such an open document and then break with that international organization.

If nothing else it's a good glimpse into how at least one UN sponsored organization operates, if the facts don't support the per-ordained conclusions; discard them and make up new ones.

Ouze wrote:

Manchu wrote:In the States, gun control hasn't been a particularly relevant topic since Clinton's presidency. I chalk that up the 90s being a particularly nonsensical decade.

Didn't like flannel much, did you?

Manchu wrote:Or Nirvana.

Uhg, me neither. My oldest brother was a friggin flannel/nirvana nut, and so I kindda get the shivers when I hear/see both

Manchu wrote:In the States, gun control hasn't been a particularly relevant topic since Clinton's presidency. I chalk that up the 90s being a particularly nonsensical decade.

In terms of political debate the 90s made a hell of a lot more sense than the 00s or the 10s have so far. I mean, back then people were freaking out about the budget, and actually responded by identifying a sufficient scope in cuts that both parties could agree to and passing it.

More to the point, I think the gun control debate disappeared when the Democrats royally screwed the pooch with the 'assault weapon' bill. They spent all that political capital on a bill that did nothing but jerk a few people around. With no results from that legislation, they won no support, at which point they're looking at fighting to deliver more non-results to a small number of anti-gun people and continuing to piss off a more organised, better funded and far more numerous pro-gun lobby, they chose to just drop the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:If nothing else it's a good glimpse into how at least one UN sponsored organization operates, if the facts don't support the per-ordained conclusions; discard them and make up new ones.

Well that's a highly speculative conclusion.

Manchu wrote:In the States, gun control hasn't been a particularly relevant topic since Clinton's presidency. I chalk that up the 90s being a particularly nonsensical decade.

You must have missed the whole gunrunner scandal.

Why does everyone think the Democrats are out to get their guns? I'm a Democrat and I own more guns than most conservatives around me lol


Though I'm more into it for the collecting aspect. I don't really care much about the whole self defense thing. I like guns with historical value, or guns that are very accurate, mainly for plinking around. Though I do have a .270 that I hunt deer with on occasion.

I live in the South, and I'm quite sure that the gun companies are spreading the rumor of "ZOMG LIBERALS WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS" just so people will stock up on ammo and give them more money. That and the republican candidates spreading it around to get votes.

By the time I'm comfortable enough to afford a gun hobby, the government will have put even tighter restrictions on what I can and can't do with them. I'm not really a gun nut, and I'm not going to protest in the streets to be able to open carry a machine gun, but sometimes it does worry me how difficult it could be to use and purchase firearms.

Hopefully the military will wear me out, and I won't have any desire to plink around.

GalacticDefender wrote:Why does everyone think the Democrats are out to get their guns? I'm a Democrat and I own more guns than most conservatives around me lol

Because the push for gun control has almost always come from the Democrats. This doesn't mean you can't be a Democrat and love guns (especially now that the Democrats have backed off of the issue), just like there are log cabin Republicans - political parties are diverse things, but there are still general trends within the two parties.