After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Sinc - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878263]Because the US and Australia are two completely different countries, both culturally and how the government interacts with their people?[/QUOTE] Being different is a bad excuse for not bothering to fix the problem though.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38878419]So changing the way the government interacts with people wouldn't help or what? Just saying that gun crime is in the US "culture" doesn't help at all. Unless you mean that gun laws aren't inherent in US culture, but then again, that doesn't make it a bad, unworkable idea. It's definitely not just gun laws, there's a lot of social structure and other stuff influencing it, but changing something doesn't mean that you can't change something else as well.[/QUOTE] Well I've made no claim that what the US has now is working, either. That's been my point all along. Gun control in the US needs a few tweaks but making in stricter doesn't solve the root cause. (And if you're crazy enough to go kill people for no reason, you're not gonna follow laws anyway.)

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878263]Because the US and Australia are two completely different countries, both culturally and how the government interacts with their people?[/QUOTE] that's not an excuse for rejecting change. all it means is that their current government is incompetent and their culture is bad

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38878465]Being different is a bad excuse for not bothering to fix the problem though.[/QUOTE] Nobody's not bothering to fix the problem, it's just that saying "well it worked for Australia" does fuck all to help the problem that the US has which is honestly a different one altogether. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;38878478]that's not an excuse for rejecting change. all it means is that their current government is incompetent and their culture is bad[/QUOTE] American culture is "bad?" How horribly close minded and terrible of a viewpoint.

Less guns do amount to less gun crime though. If citizens didn't own guns then the shooter couldn't take them from his mother either. He'd need to acquire it through some illegal underground place.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878482]Nobody's not bothering to fix the problem, it's just that saying "well it worked for Australia" does fuck all to help the problem that the US has which is honestly a different one altogether. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] American culture is "bad?" How horribly close minded and terrible of a viewpoint.[/QUOTE] the part of american culture that rejects how to deal with gun control properly is bad, yes. i'll be damned if wanting lower murder rates is close minded.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38878496]Less guns do amount to less gun crime though. If citizens didn't own guns then the shooter couldn't take them from his mother either. He'd need to acquire it through some illegal underground place.[/QUOTE] You know what else amounts to not only less gun crime, but less violence overall? Improved living conditions. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;38878503]the part of american culture that rejects how to deal with gun control properly is bad, yes. i'll be damned if wanting lower murder rates is close minded.[/QUOTE] Well, yes, but those people are only a small minority. Perhaps just as bad are the people who call for gun control without opting to look at what else needs to be addressed.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878520]You know what else amounts to not only less gun crime, but less violence overall? Improved living conditions. [/QUOTE] We all know this is not going to happen anytime soon.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38878538]We all know this is not going to happen anytime soon.[/QUOTE] Neither is getting rid of guns, so we should pick our battles wisely.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878474]Well I've made no claim that what the US has now is working, either. That's been my point all along. Gun control in the US needs a few tweaks but making in stricter doesn't solve the root cause. (And if you're crazy enough to go kill people for no reason, you're not gonna follow laws anyway.)[/QUOTE] Well, what do you mean by "changing" gun laws while not making them stricter? More loose? Just "different"? I posted a link earlier about the origins of guns used in guns crimes: [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38878233][url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html[/url] There's some numbers in there - I don't know exactly how reputable this paper is, but if the data is right, "straw purchases" are one of the most normal ways for a criminal to get a gun. I've noticed that many of you mention Mexico as a source for illegal guns, but I couldn't find anything on google (maybe because of "Fast and Furious" clogging the search up), so if you could provide a source of some kind, it's be nice. And even though they may not be totally parallel, I'd say this shows that there at least (and we're talking [I]at the fucking least[/I]) must be some kind of relation between gun crime and gun laws. And who says the laws need to be identical to the Australian ones? Make them more fit for US and see if it works.[/QUOTE] No one ever responded to that, but I actually find that this is a pretty important point. Sure, you, as a responsible citizen won't go down, buy a gun and just sell to a criminal, but apparently it's a real problem. If you could cut away the 20% of the easily available supply of weapons just making an effort in this area, couldn't that be a pretty good solution? And "you're not gonna follow laws anyway" is just weakest argument ever - why do we have laws at all if criminals wouldn't follow them anyway? Because that's pretty much the argument.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878520]You know what else amounts to not only less gun crime, but less violence overall? Improved living conditions. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] Well, yes, but those people are only a small minority. Perhaps just as bad are the people who call for gun control without opting to look at what else needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE] if they are a small minority then why would they have any leverage on the subject

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38878551]Well, what do you mean by "changing" gun laws while not making them stricter? More loose? Just "different"?[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make them stricter, simply that making them stricter isn't guaranteed to solve any problems. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38878551]No one ever responded to that, but I actually find that this is a pretty important point. Sure, you, as a responsible citizen won't go down, buy a gun and just sell to a criminal, but apparently it's a real problem. If you could cut away the 20% of the easily available supply of weapons just making an effort in this area, couldn't that be a pretty good solution? And "you're not gonna follow laws anyway" is just weakest argument ever - why do we have laws at all if criminals wouldn't follow them anyway? Because that's pretty much the argument.[/QUOTE] It's difficult to protect against straw purchases though, and that's the problem with that. [QUOTE=Bobie;38878578]if they are a small minority then why would they have any leverage on the subject[/QUOTE] Because they're the loudest minority and people actually pay them mind.

Chicago is THE most restrictive city in the US as far as guns. There are more gun related deaths in Chicago than Afghanistan right now.

So if no similar massacres, what kind of massacres have you had, Australia?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878614]I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make them stricter, simply that making them stricter isn't guaranteed to solve any problems. It's difficult to protect against straw purchases though, and that's the problem with that. Because they're the loudest minority and people actually pay them mind.[/QUOTE] Well, the first thing about straw purchases could be a mandatory waiting period. Sure, it probably sucks and so on, but it would make it much less attractive for the criminal to get his guns that way.

[QUOTE=ATribeCalledQ;38878658]Chicago is THE most restrictive city in the US as far as guns. There are more gun related deaths in Chicago than Afghanistan right now.[/QUOTE] If you look on the other end of the spectrum, Vermont has very loose gun laws and some of the lowest gun crime in the country. I'm not suggesting this means there should be fewer restrictions nation-wide; what I [i]am[/i] saying is that clearly the guns aren't the real problem.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38878701]Well, the first thing about straw purchases could be a mandatory waiting period. Sure, it probably sucks and so on, but it would make it much less attractive for the criminal to get his guns that way.[/QUOTE] There already are some, but it's on a state by state basis, and honestly the whole state-by-state nature of gun laws is kind of a problem.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878546]Neither is getting rid of guns, so we should pick our battles wisely.[/QUOTE]I actually don't see what can be done. Everyone's all "we have to do something" but after a few weeks it will go back to normal and absolutely nothing will change. Just like after any other shooting in US.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38878741]There already are some, but it's on a state by state basis, and honestly the whole state-by-state nature of gun laws is kind of a problem.[/QUOTE] Well, then that should be the first thing to be fixed I guess. I know you have a history of state "independence", but I'd say Obama would dare risk making large changes, since it's his second term and so on.

[QUOTE=ATribeCalledQ;38878658]Chicago is THE most restrictive city in the US as far as guns. There are more gun related deaths in Chicago than Afghanistan right now.[/QUOTE] Except homicides have been more or less been declining in Chicago since about 1990. Minus a slight rise in 2008 iirc (which was shortly after the gun laws were loosened up slightly).

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38878773]I actually don't see what can be done. Everyone's all "we have to do something" but after a few weeks it will go back to normal and absolutely nothing will change. Just like after any other shooting in US.[/QUOTE] Exactly. It's the classic between a rock and a hard place scenario. I don't think scattergunning solutions is a great idea either because you'll just piss people off.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38878496]Less guns do amount to less gun crime though. If citizens didn't own guns then the shooter couldn't take them from his mother either. He'd need to acquire it through some illegal underground place.[/QUOTE] It's easier to acquire a pistol in sydney than it is to acquire steroids. And steroids are VERY easy to acquire, speaking from personal experience. So think on that for a moment. The statistics cited show that gun violence was already on a steady decline well before the reforms. Did the reforms have a positive effect on firearm homicide? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Looking at one factor in the face of a complex multi faceted problem is bound to end up with holes. Everyone wants to focus on the issue of firearms in the US, yet never consider the huge social and economic issues many of the worst locations in the US face. Why? Welp really because it's much easier to put the blame on a simple object than it is to try tackle a complex issue. South Africa has very strict gun control laws, hasn't stopped it from having waves of firearm homicide and armed home invasion. We can keep arguing in circles with examples of where gun control has supposedly worked and where it supposedly hasn't. Until you stop to look at the big picture you can't really say "gun control works" or "gun control does not work".

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38879053]It's easier to acquire a pistol in sydney than it is to acquire steroids. And steroids are VERY easy to acquire, speaking from personal experience. So think on that for a moment. The statistics cited show that gun violence was already on a steady decline well before the reforms. Did the reforms have a positive effect on firearm homicide? Perhaps. Perhaps not.[/QUOTE] True, although up until the law was passed, suicide rates and non-firearm related homicides increased, and then went into sharp decline shortly after it was passed.

One must keep in mind that this is was done in a country that has roughly 13% of the population the United States has, or equal to a little over 1/3 the population of California. The United States was estimated to have over 200,000,000 firearms in the country as of 1991, and in the last 20 years I could only imagine that it has doubled if not tripled. What may work well for one country may not work as well for another.

[QUOTE=ATribeCalledQ;38878658]Chicago is THE most restrictive city in the US as far as guns. There are more gun related deaths in Chicago than Afghanistan right now.[/QUOTE] It's a lot easier to get a gun into Chicago from the next county over than it is to get a gun into Australia from outside the country. Overly simplistic examples don't help our case.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38879053]It's easier to acquire a pistol in sydney than it is to acquire steroids. And steroids are VERY easy to acquire, speaking from personal experience. So think on that for a moment.[/QUOTE] I would be surprised if that is true.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;38879126]One must keep in mind that this is was done in a country that has roughly 13% of the population the United States has, or equal to a little over 1/3 the population of California. The United States was estimated to have over 200,000,000 firearms in the country as of 1991, and in the last 20 years I could only imagine that it has doubled if not tripled. What may work well for one country may not work as well for another.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean that it won't work, nor should it be used as an argument to just do nothing, or as some people argue, do the opposite even.

[QUOTE=Reds;38876696]You guys have several mass-shootings of this scale a year[/QUOTE] um

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;38879182]That doesn't mean that it won't work, nor should it be used as an argument to just do nothing, or as some people argue, do the opposite even.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, but at the same time you're talking about a country where there are a good number of people that would rather die than give up their precious firearms. You can't just do what was done in Australia and expect no repercussions. I'm pretty sure states like Texas would pretty much say FU to the federal government.

[QUOTE=mysteryman;38876679]I literally can't argue against the efficacy of gun control in this situation. However, i still personally believe the masses shouting "gun control" are essentially hopping on a band wagon laying blame to only one detail when there are more significant ones. Am i saying gun control should remain exactly the same in the united states (because we all know the main point of this article being posted)? No. Just like how the gun is only a detail in the mass shooting stories, mental health is another that is more often than not glossed over by the media despite intense scrutinization of the shooters post incident. Gun control should not be the absolute primary focus as it's only a part of the problem. You don't run into a burning house and put out the fire in the fireplace and call it a solved problem expecting nothing more to happen, you've got plenty more places to put it out at.[/QUOTE] I just wanted to point out how fucked our mental health care is in the US. A lot of hospitals that specialize in mental health are getting shut down or cuts in funding. When I worked in corrections you have no idea how many nutjobs I had to deal with. Sad part there is literally no training for it, we were not equip to deal with such people nor had the experience and training. More often then not it led to extremely violent encounters and most of our tactics involved using physical force and restraint to keep such people in control. We often had to isolate them to a single-man cell and increase their "level" (IE high-risk, medium-risk, low-risk, etc). More often then not we put them at high risk which involves a lot of officers being there for the removal and transport, leg irons, belly chains, spit nets, etc to be utilized. Depending on the level of violent the inmate would have we would often have a Taser wedged in to the back while taking them out of a cell. I literally watch a person come in normal, and due to him not getting meds slip back in to his mental illness. I made numerous reports and no one did anything till he tried to hurt himself or someone else. At one point he started to hallucinate and attacked fellow inmates and guards. The trend of mentally ill being incinerated is getting higher and higher. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;38879302]No it doesn't, but at the same time you're talking about a country where there are a good number of people that would rather die than give up their precious firearms. You can't just do what was done in Australia and expect no repercussions. I'm pretty sure states like Texas would pretty much say FU to the federal government.[/QUOTE] I don't think it is right for the government to take everyone guns away due to one person or small group. Though I do believe we need some form of control that will reform how guns are purchased and maintained. We need smart legislation that will allow people to continue ownership of guns, but at the same time make it so it is more difficult so not just anyone can get one.