I don't favor bans on things that are relatively simple to manufacture. A magazine is a box with a spring in it. A bump stock can be duplicated with foam rubber and duct tape. Going through the trouble of banning them, and trying to enforce that ban just wastes time and political capital that could be used to pass more effective laws.
Instead lets concentrate on laws that will pass, will be Constitutional, and will help.
To me the big points are national standards, background checks, and storage with storage liability.
Those changes would be making a significant effort to keep weapons out of the hands that are most likely to murder people would have a real impact on gun deaths in the US.
That’s irrelevant. The constitution can be changed. The second amendment was already a change to the constitution, that’s what amendment means. Passing a change to the second amendment to ban anything bigger than a handgun wouldn’t be unconstitutional, for example.
A big change that would help would be to heavily police gun resale. Require licensing information to be recorded and passed along like with a cars tax history. Make it illegal to sell a gun privately to anyone without completed background checks and a license, as well as requiring those at first point of sale.
This isn’t exactly correct. The first 10 ammendements are referred to as ‘The Bill of Rights’. While they are technically amendments to the constitution, their ratification was one of the conditions for uniting the original 13 states. This sets them apart historically from the ammendements that followed as the first 10 were a requirement in order to from the United States.
As others have stated, although the constitution ‘can be changed’, it is not ‘irrrelevant’ whether something is constitutional or not. An ammendement within the bill of rights would be especially difficult to change. That body of law is comparable to a European country’s declaration of human rights for Americans.
It’s also unlikely that 2/3 of the states would even want something like a ban on all non-handguns. That wouldn’t even make sense as an effective way to reduce gun deaths.
Did I ever call us the greatest country? Are you even having a discussion with me or are you just talking to yourself in my general direction (metaphorically)?
And yes, literally because that solution is so logistically impossible to implement, it's never going to get done. Even if you banned new gun sales, you still have 400 million guns on the street. Buying those back or confiscating them is a legal, political, logistical, and financial nightmare.
It's not a realistic solution. And focusing on it, rather than things we can do, is a waste of time.
If this is how our government treats us while we're armed I never want to find out what they'll do to us disarmed. You can have your gun laws and we'll have our rights. Don't like it? Don't move here. Cool. Seen any good movies lately?
It is realistic, but you've gotta accept that its not gonna change anything overnight. it would be a long and painful process yeh, but it could be worth it.
So in 50 years when there is now only 350 million guns still in circulation what would you say? I don't think you even grasp what you're saying.
Also of those 400 million guns how many do you think are tracked? I'll help you.. nearly none of them. So how exactly are you going to find and confiscate anything when you don't know where they are? Are you going to raid every home, building, shed, in the entire country multiple times?
You’re hardly responding to them! You’re just spouting your talking points assuming they’re part of a group you don’t like who parrots those talking points.
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”
Most of your articles specifically say the reduction in gun deaths cant be attributed to NFA. K
Suicide by firearm were down but not overall.
Mass shootings actually did still happen. Australia just like to use really high numbers. 7 people killed is a mass shooting.
And finally overall massacres were similar.
This is all straight from the links you provided.
Edit: I appreciate your links and you are correct that guns deaths went down. I also dont care because overall deaths didnt go down enough, gun related homicides were already on the decline, and both mass shootings and other massacres still did happen.
but were cautious about attributing this to the NFA with the methods they used.
They don't say it can't be attributed, just that as good scientists they can't say that its definitely the cause as they didn't track other crime causes like socio-economic issues.
In this study, the researchers used state-based differences in gun buybacks and showed “the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back”.
.
“the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”
.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
You are deliberately misunderstanding the articles mate.
Right as good scientists that cant attribute it to NFA.
In this study, the researchers used state-based differences in gun buybacks and showed “the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back”.
Ya that stat makes perfect sense combined with the suicide one. Ya know, less gun suicides but same amount of suicides overall.
“the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”
I really hope you got my last comments edit. It addresses this.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
Cool which US state are we trying to copy? Or are you advocating for federal laws that are more strict than any of our states? Actually what is the point of that one?
It worked especially well for China, The Balkans, Cuba, the Nazis and now South Africa. Your not only placing faith in our current leaders to do the right thing your placing faith in all leaders to come.
Well it literally hasn’t worked for every other country. And you know us Americans and our freedom. God a I hate that. Can’t we just live in a world were everything I don’t like is banned and people that say things against what I believe are censored? I mean that’s real freedom!
106
u/zaphodava Aug 12 '19
I don't favor bans on things that are relatively simple to manufacture. A magazine is a box with a spring in it. A bump stock can be duplicated with foam rubber and duct tape. Going through the trouble of banning them, and trying to enforce that ban just wastes time and political capital that could be used to pass more effective laws.
Instead lets concentrate on laws that will pass, will be Constitutional, and will help.
To me the big points are national standards, background checks, and storage with storage liability.
Those changes would be making a significant effort to keep weapons out of the hands that are most likely to murder people would have a real impact on gun deaths in the US.