I don't need to use the term "clips" properly to read a graph or chart that shows that the United States has a far higher violent crime rate then most other countries with better gun control laws or conscription (keep in mind I saaid most, not all, as I'm sure some exceptions exist). I do not need to use the term "clips" properly to know that, during the Tuscon shooting it was not an armed person (who was among the people in the crowd) who stopped the gunman, but rather several people who tackled the shooter when he had to reload after firing 30 bullets and shooting 19 people. Your argument here is a cop out and nothing more. And speaking of copping out, thats something I unfortunately need to do here.
This was all I was actually planning to write here. I found both sides of the argument in this thread to be rather extreme and disgusting, so I haven't really read much of it. As I am late for something else I was going to do, I'll end with this.
I'm finding this thread very difficult to read through. I'm beginning to question why I come to this forum to look at these kinds of discussions.
A "total gun ban" is stupid and unrealistic. Guns are too ingrained in our culture. We need them for hunting. Many people rely on them for a feeling of security in the home. Many people use them for recreation. Guns are weapons, but they are also tools, and tools shouldn't be banned, regardless of how even the staunchest anti gun advocates interpret the second amendment. I do believe guns are considered a priveledge, because a right is something you shouldn't be denied under any circumstances, and there are certainly certain people out there who should be denied guns, due to their inherently deadly nature.
That being said, saying that "we shouldn't legislate because we don't have that many mass shootings a year" is utterly disgusting, and doesn't even properly understand the problem. We don't lose 5-10 people a year to mass shootings. We lose over 55. That's 385 people since the assault weapons ban expired. Australia only needed one mass shooting to get its act to get its act together, and its all the better for it.
http://www.kieranhealy.org/files/misc/assault-deaths-oecd-ts-all.png
This is a chart of assault deaths in OECD countries, minus Mexico (which has a major gun issue largely thanks to us) and Estonia. I don't know the individual gun laws of each of these countries, but from what I know MOST of these countries either have stricter gun laws or a conscription service that requires all men to serve in the military. Clearly, these countries are doing something right in regards to violent crime that we have not gotten yet.
And frankly, this strange submission that there is "absolutely nothing we can do" to stop these mass shootings is absolute bunk. No law is perfect, some criminals will find ways to get their hands on lethal weapons, but its a matter of fact that making these weapons more difficult or impossible to get can reduce these kinds of incidents:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/
The amount of damage you can do with a ten clip pistol is less then what you can do with a 30 clip pistol. Or an assault weapon. The assault weapons ban did very little to prevent smaller shootings, but the much larger shootings, such as the sort that occurred at Newton, Tuscon, Aurora and Oak Creek, were far fewer under this law. They weren't completely eliminated, but there were far fewer, and THAT is what's important.
I'll leave off with this: Australia is a perfect example of how effective good gun control laws should be.
"Australia has much in common with the United States. It was initially settled by teeming masses — in its case, largely convicts — fleeing England. Its identity was forged in the populating of its vast, empty spaces. And today it retains a considerable frontier mentality, and a considerable amount of ranching and hunting.
But the similarities end when it comes to guns. While gun ownership has been a part of Australians’ way of life, they have a much more utilitarian view of their purpose.
So, when a gunman killed 35 people in 1996 with a semiautomatic rifle in the tourist town of Port Arthur, on the island of Tasmania, the Australian people decided it was time for a change.
A new law, backed by a conservative prime minister, divided firearms into five categories. Some of the deadliest assault-style weapons and large ammunition clips are now all but impossible for individuals to lawfully own.
Firearms are subject to a strict permitting process, and dealers are required to record sales, which are tracked by the national and territorial governments. What’s more, the law encouraged people to sell their firearms back to the government, which purchased and destroyed about 700,000 of them.
The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero.
The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million.
In the USA, the 2009 firearm homicide rate was 3.3 per 100,000, some 33 times higher than Australia’s.
There are, to be sure, some significant differences between Australia and the United States. Australia has 3million guns; America has roughly 300 million. The U.S. has greater constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms. And the gun lobby in Australia is nowhere near as powerful as the National Rifle Association is in the U.S.
But the Australian experience demonstrates what can be accomplished if a people gets serious about gun violence.
The key is not merely to adopt new gun laws, but to undergo a cultural shift. Similar shifts have occurred around such issues as smoking and excessive drinking, especially when driving is involved.
The early signs are that the massacre in Newtown, Conn., will cause a significant push for tighter gun restrictions, which the White House endorsed on Tuesday.
As the debate takes shape in coming weeks, lawmakers would do well to focus on the successes in Australia. That country has shown how tighter gun laws, and sensible attitudes about the role of guns in society, can make a real difference.
We could learn much from our friends down under."
http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20121221/SHE06/312210143/Editorial-Australian-gun-control-holds-lessons-U-S-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
I support gun ownership. Its a part of American culture and its impractical to take it away. That being said, I also support looking at what other countries are doing, taking what works, and applying it to the US. Gun control seems to work, and at the very least doesn't seem to have adverse effects. We can limit the kinds of guns and weapons sold and who they are sold to without breaking the second amendment. We shouldn't ban all guns. But we should ban, or at least restrict, some.
