2 ms·

Australia pulled about 200K guns out of circulation. I live in a small county in a small state and there are likely that many guns just in my county. There are

Australia pulled about 200K guns out of circulation. I live in a small county in a small state and there are likely that many guns just in my county. There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. And there are already and estimated 200,000 people in NY living in felony violation of the new gun laws against rifle magazines. Also if you look at the gun murder trend line in Australia it doesn't appear to change after the gun confiscation. Gun murders were on the decline and continued on the same pace.

dalke 11y ago
I am not addressing the possible benefits of stricter gun control laws in the US. I am saying that your claim that Australia-style gun control laws will lead to 'New Orleans style door to door SWAT raids to confiscate' is hyperbolic, such that people may immediately discard your viewpoints as being unrealistic. I don't know where you got your 200K number. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws... says: > In two nationwide, federally funded gun buybacks, plus large-scale voluntary surrenders and state gun amnesties both before and after Port Arthur, Australia collected and destroyed more than a million firearms, perhaps one-third of the national stock. No other nation had attempted anything on this scale. I confirmed this at http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php , which says the 1996 buyback collected "More than 640,000 prohibited firearms", and "there were about 3.25 million guns in Australia prior to the 1996–1997 buyback program". The 2003 buyback "resulted in about 70,000 handguns" being collected. I don't know where the CNN' "more than a million firearms" comes from, but the numbers I found are still 3x what you give. It's also mostly meaningless to compare Australia's "200K guns out of circulation" to a total US ownership of 300M guns. Those are two different statistics. It's more appropriate to compare the 3 million guns from a then-population of 18 million, to the US ownership; Australia had about 1/6th the per capita gun numbers than the US currently has.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Looks like the 200K number is from just part of the buyback. That was from memory in an article I read. But either way, 650k to 1 million doesn't change the point much. As for door to door raids and stop and frisk, that's the only way to get guns out of american hands. How do we know this? Because many cities and states have had draconian gun laws in the past. There have been buy back programs by the dozens. None of them worked. Just life France and much of Europe, guns are easy to get in restricted jurisdictions. And why would you think telling people they have to turn in their guns will work? They won't even register them when required by law. http://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-gun-registration-law/2015/06/23/id/651912/ http://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-gun-registration-law/2015...
  - dalke 11y ago
    I did not say that a buyback program was the solution. (Nor did Australia limit themselves to a buyback program; it was part of a national effort.) I asked why Australia didn't have the horrors that you predict would happen should Australian-like gun control laws be put into place in the US. Your only answer seems to be that the US has too many guns, so therefore can't change. (Which sounds like a bank which is "too big to fail", so we have to keep feeding it taxpayer money.) > that's the only way to get guns out of american hands That's irrelevant. As I demonstrated, only about 1/3 of the guns got out of Australian hands. Why would anyone think those same laws would get 100% of the gun out of American hands?

dalke 11y ago

I am not addressing the possible benefits of stricter gun control laws in the US. I am saying that your claim that Australia-style gun control laws will lead to 'New Orleans style door to door SWAT raids to confiscate' is hyperbolic, such that people may immediately discard your viewpoints as being unrealistic. I don't know where you got your 200K number. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws... says: > In two nationwide, federally funded gun buybacks, plus large-scale voluntary surrenders and state gun amnesties both before and after Port Arthur, Australia collected and destroyed more than a million firearms, perhaps one-third of the national stock. No other nation had attempted anything on this scale. I confirmed this at http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php , which says the 1996 buyback collected "More than 640,000 prohibited firearms", and "there were about 3.25 million guns in Australia prior to the 1996–1997 buyback program". The 2003 buyback "resulted in about 70,000 handguns" being collected. I don't know where the CNN' "more than a million firearms" comes from, but the numbers I found are still 3x what you give. It's also mostly meaningless to compare Australia's "200K guns out of circulation" to a total US ownership of 300M guns. Those are two different statistics. It's more appropriate to compare the 3 million guns from a then-population of 18 million, to the US ownership; Australia had about 1/6th the per capita gun numbers than the US currently has.

merpnderp 11y ago
Looks like the 200K number is from just part of the buyback. That was from memory in an article I read. But either way, 650k to 1 million doesn't change the point much. As for door to door raids and stop and frisk, that's the only way to get guns out of american hands. How do we know this? Because many cities and states have had draconian gun laws in the past. There have been buy back programs by the dozens. None of them worked. Just life France and much of Europe, guns are easy to get in restricted jurisdictions. And why would you think telling people they have to turn in their guns will work? They won't even register them when required by law. http://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-gun-registration-law/2015/06/23/id/651912/ http://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-gun-registration-law/2015...
- dalke 11y ago
  I did not say that a buyback program was the solution. (Nor did Australia limit themselves to a buyback program; it was part of a national effort.) I asked why Australia didn't have the horrors that you predict would happen should Australian-like gun control laws be put into place in the US. Your only answer seems to be that the US has too many guns, so therefore can't change. (Which sounds like a bank which is "too big to fail", so we have to keep feeding it taxpayer money.) > that's the only way to get guns out of american hands That's irrelevant. As I demonstrated, only about 1/3 of the guns got out of Australian hands. Why would anyone think those same laws would get 100% of the gun out of American hands?