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.

**Grundz**

motyak wrote:
I think those posts weren't trying to say that we have bad problems, but instead the exact opposite. I think the majority of Aussies so far have posted to refute Easy's (and others) assertion that we live in fear of massive crime and that our lack of guns means we are doomed

Gun control doesn't work
You are just blind to the problems then, all your sources, news, and information are lies and more lies written by people that hate your freedoms.
We're all lucky that Oliver escaped with his life, did you /see/ those people?
requiring registration is racist against the illiterate, you shouldn't have to know how to read or write to own firearms. Its totally okay to require it to vote though.
did I miss any?

'merica

**BrassScorpion**

Short of moving to Australia, maybe we can at least get some change in Congress here in the US.

Media Matters for America
Even though there was clearly widespread support for universal background checks, the Beltway media went out of their way to downplay the "intensity" of that support.

According to the conventional wisdom in Washington, politicians could vote against the background checks and not fear consequences on election day.

But recent polls show that the conventional wisdom was wrong: politicians who voted against the amendment saw their poll numbers drop.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/29/about-that-intensity-gap-on-stronger-gun-laws/193818

A series of new polls indicate that the media was wrong to suggest that legislators who oppose strengthening guns laws would not pay a political price for their actions.

Following the Senate's failure to pass stronger gun laws earlier this month, political reporters suggested that Senate opponents of those laws had been wisely reacting to the political environment. According to those reporters, Democrats "got gun control polling wrong" because while surveys indicated that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported reforms like expanding the background check system to cover more gun sales, they may not feel as passionately about the issue as their opponents and thus for politicians: "Voting against gun control measures may well carry less negative political consequence than voting for them -- even though the poll numbers suggest the opposite is true."

Contrary to this theory, several polls conducted since the gun votes earlier this month indicate that more voters are likely to oppose senators who voted against stronger gun laws than they are to support them:

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who voted against expanding background checks after telling (suggest adding link here) a survivor of the Tucson shooting that he supported them, is now "one of the most unpopular Senators in the country," according to a poll released April 29 by Public Policy Polling (PPP). This survey finds that "52% of voters say they're less likely to support Flake in a future election because of this vote [on guns], compared to only 19% who say they're more likely to."
Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D), both of whom opposed the legislation, have seen declines in their approval since PPP last polled the state in February. According to PPP, "39% of voters say they're less likely to vote for each of Begich and Murkowski in their next elections based on this vote [on guns], while only 22% and 26% say they're more likely to vote for Begich and Murkowski respectively because of this."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who opposed the legislation, has seen a net drop of 18 points since PPP polled his approval rating in October. According to the April poll, "36% of voters in the state say they're less likely to support Portman in a future election because of this vote [on guns] to only 19% who consider it to be a reason to support him."
Background check legislation opponent Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) has seen a "more modest decline" in his approval rating, but according to PPP, "46% say they're less likely to support Heller the next time he's up for reelection compared to only 25% who are more likely to because of this vote [on guns]."
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), another opponent of the legislation, has seen her approval drop a net 15 points since PPP's October poll, with the firm finding that "50% of voters in the state say Ayotte's 'no' vote [on guns] will make them less likely to support her in a future election, compared to just 23% who consider it to be a positive."

**Grey Templar**

People that know what was in that bill will be glad they didn't vote for it. It was a dumb bill that failed and rightly so.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:People that know what was in that bill will be glad they didn't vote for it. It was a dumb bill that failed and rightly so.

What was in the bill?

**Alfndrate**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:People that know what was in that bill will be glad they didn't vote for it. It was a dumb bill that failed and rightly so.

What was in the bill?

Words, reason enough to shoot it down

**Grey Templar**

Here's a rough breakdown,

Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

Decent idea, although the bolded part is not really enforceable plus its already illegal to sell guns to criminals.

Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

Pointless. It would have done nothing.

Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Again, pointless. There are already tons of larger magazines out there, they can be reused indefinitely, and limiting a shooter to 10 rounds really won't prevent him from killing people anyway. he'll just carry more Mags, and reloading is not a slow procedure.

Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.

More pointlessness.

Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.

Not a bad idea, but it really won't reduce gun violence.

Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.

Ok, more officers. That's ok.

Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Whatever.

Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.

Again, whats the point?

Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.

Good idea.

Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.

Violent Deaths, not just gun violence.

Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.

Good idea.

Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Good idea.

It was a bill with some good ideas in it, but it also had some things that unduly restricted second amendment rights while not addressing the issue at hand.

Congress needs to put more bare bones bills through. Pass a bill just about the background checks, nothing else, and then we can talk. But tack all this extra stuff on and I will not agree to it.

**Grundz**

Grey Templar wrote:

Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.

Again, whats the point?

"Antique" M60's are still M60's

**Frazzled**

Antque M60s are covered under other legislation related to automatic firearms.
derpy derpy.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, unless the gun was made before 1909(IIRC) its still a modern firearm and restricted as such.

So the gun would have to be well over 100 years old to not be restricted by automatic firearm restrictions. And I don't think there are too many of those floating around.

**Grundz**

Frazzled wrote:
Antque M60s are covered under other legislation related to automatic firearms.
derpy derpy.

incorrect, at least if they are firing, if they aren't they are no longer covered under that so there's a separate antique.statute, thingy.
for it to qualify as an antique and not a firearm IIRC you have to have the receiver cut into 3 parts, which takes three whole hours of welding and grinding to get firing again, and it might blow up if you're a bad welder.

It was originally for wwii people but as the m4 platform is getting up there things are getting dicey as to if the antique rules should actually exist anymore.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, unless the gun was made before 1909(IIRC) its still a modern firearm and restricted as such.

So the gun would have to be well over 100 years old to not be restricted by automatic firearm restrictions. And I don't think there are too many of those floating around.

The Vickers turned 100 last year.

However, I don't think the restriction is lifted for firearms that are 100+ years old; I believe it's lifted for firearms prior to 1900.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, its a certain date. Not a total age. couldn't remember the exact date.

And nobody is going to be lugging a Vickers around to massacre people with. It requires a minimum of 2 people to fire it, and more to carry the thing and its ammo.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, its a certain date. Not a total age. couldn't remember the exact date.

And nobody is going to be lugging a Vickers around to massacre people with. It requires a minimum of 2 people to fire it, and more to carry the thing and its ammo.

One to fire, one to feed. And I never said anyone would use a Vickers for such.

**Ensis Ferrae**

As GT put up a decent enough breakdown I will refrain from repeating the information... I will point out though, that IMHO if the bill had been ONLY on background checks, then it probably would have passed... Although, outside of gun shows, I don't see how it would effect really anything.

I also have not heard of anyone buying a firearm at a gun show and then using it to commit a major crime with it... Basically everyone that I know who goes to a gun show would be able to buy the same firearm within a few minutes of going into a normal dealer... so it really wouldn't have any real impact.

Again, legislating against those who are currently legal won't affect the violence in the country, plain and simple.

**easysauce**

all you guys need to do is have a national list of people the people who are ALREADY not allowed to have guns, then you can just phone in, see if they are on the list, if they are, no sale and you might want to alert someone.

if they are not on the list, sell away, this way no info is shared with the government to make a registry, but we still have a way to weed out people already prohibited from ownership.

this way you are also legislating against the crooks by making a list of them, instead of innocent people.

I doubt many would say private sellers having to make a phone call to confirm someones not on the "do not sell" list would argue it infringes on their rights, as they wouldnt even have to give their name, just the buyers. But maybe it would in some way I have missed.

keeping in mind the list would only consist those already prohibited under current law,

thoughts?

**azazel the cat**

I'd rather call in and have the "unknowns" investigated and vetted, rather than saying "well, he hasn't proved to be a nutcase YET".

**Grey Templar**

Except that would be an intrusion of privacy. We also have the whole "Innocent till proven Guilty" thingy.

You are sane till proven crazy.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Except that would be an intrusion of privacy. We also have the whole "Innocent till proven Guilty" thingy.

You are sane till proven crazy.

that's an overly simplistic way of looking at is, as being declared NCRMD (Canada) or not guilty by reaosn of insanity (US) can only be determined at a trial, after psychiatric evaluation. This begs the act of committing a crime beforehand, and thus is totally useless for the purpose of prevention.

No, I think I'd like to have people with a history of mental illness be eliminated from the okay-to-have-guns pool, thank you. And as such, I think it necessary and not at alla violation of privacy to require people to grant the investigating body access to medical records in order to determine such (and it's not a privacy invasion because you are consenting to it; or you can always just not buy guns).

The point is that any potential freedoms lost by having you checked out (and nothing more) is s miniscule tradeoff for not allowing schizphrenics to easily obtain them.

**Grey Templar**

Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.

If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.

This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.

If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.

This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.

You're concerned about the invasion of privacy that a federal gun registry and universal background check would constitute; but you suggest making everyone with a diagnosed mental disorder be put into a registry.

You really are the epitome of the "less freedoms only for things I don't like" kind of conservative, aren't you?

**Grey Templar**

So you'd prefer to violate the privacy of the vast majority of Americans instead of a small minority of the population?

Yours is the more invasive idea here.

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
Here's a rough breakdown,

Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

Decent idea, although the bolded part is not really enforceable plus its already illegal to sell guns to criminals.

What a ground breaking development. I didn't realize that it was illegal to sell guns to criminals.

Now if only there was a way to require people to check to make sure they are not selling to criminals...

**Ensis Ferrae**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.

If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.

This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.

You're concerned about the invasion of privacy that a federal gun registry and universal background check would constitute; but you suggest making everyone with a diagnosed mental disorder be put into a registry.

You really are the epitome of the "less freedoms only for things I don't like" kind of conservative, aren't you?

A registry that GT is suggesting is no where near as invasive as what you are wanting.... I mean, a registry of persons with mental health issues needs only be a name associated with "mental health" it doesn't have to say (I'll use Frazzled as an example here): "Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"... By not knowing WHAT someone has, this allows them to come off the list much, much easier once care has rendered them (if possible) fit again. By keeping things generic... as in a simple "mental health" or "criminal record" listing, you are in pretty much no way violating the US's HIPAA laws and regs.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Here's a rough breakdown,

Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

Decent idea, although the bolded part is not really enforceable plus its already illegal to sell guns to criminals.

What a ground breaking development. I didn't realize that it was illegal to sell guns to criminals.

Now if only there was a way to require people to check to make sure they are not selling to criminals...

Because its already illegal to sell to criminals, and that it is pretty much impossible to enforce unless its after the fact, you will find the same problem with requiring background checks.

I, as a private citizen, can't sell a gun to a criminal, but nobody is going to catch me unless the guy I sell to gets caught with the gun and they trace it to me.

Similarly, if this bill had passed, I can't sell to someone unless I do a background check, but as above nobody will catch me unless the guy gets caught with the gun and it gets traced to me. And they can prove the person I sold to would have failed the background check at the time I made the sale.

Its an unenforceable law that does nothing to cut down on crimes committed. It only adds charges if the person is caught doing something else, at which point the crime we are allegedly trying to preemptively stop has already been committed.

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

**easysauce**

why its not ok to make a registry of people not allowed to own guns is beyond me,

but following that logic means that its not ok to make a registry of people allowed to own guns either.

akams razor, the list of people ineligible is much shorter, and easier to maintain, while imposing upon the least # of people, for the same benefit.

ther is also the theory that applying the idiom that innocence must be proven, and guilt is assumed, is really not what freedom is all about.

**Jihadin**

"Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"...

to which Rodney and Tbone contribute to......you know how one minded he is on the Weiner Legion.

I notice only a few individuals on here seperate the problem from the whole. While most considers the whole as the problem.

**Grey Templar**

easysauce wrote:
why its not ok to make a registry of people not allowed to own guns is beyond me,

but following that logic means that its not ok to make a registry of people allowed to own guns either.

akams razor, the list of people ineligible is much shorter, and easier to maintain, while imposing upon the least # of people, for the same benefit.

there is also the theory that applying the idiom that innocence must be proven, and guilt is assumed, is really not what freedom is all about.

Exactly

And its Occams Razor, although that deals with Hypotheses.

A more appropriate idiom would be K.I.S.S

**d-usa**

Here is what cracks me up:

We should never have a registry of guns, because just like Hitler they will use that registry to round up all the guns (never mind that never happened).

We should however have a registry of all people with mental illnesses, because Hitler never ever used that kind of information in deciding to round anybody up.

**insaniak**

easysauce wrote:
why its not ok to make a registry of people not allowed to own guns is beyond me,

For those who think that owning a gun is the only thing keeping hordes of criminals from invading their homes, I could see how having their personal details on a list of people not allowed to own a gun might not seem like a great thing...

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
"Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"...

to which Rodney and Tbone contribute to......you know how one minded he is on the Weiner Legion.

I notice only a few individuals on here seperate the problem from the whole. While most considers the whole as the problem.

TBone has moved from barking at the wall to barking at the washing machine. Me, myself, and I all think its hilarious as hell. Now what was this about schizophrenia again?