3 ms·

Cat's out of the bag though. How are you going to get all of those guns off of the street at this point?

by EpicEng 10y ago

baby 10y ago
By forbidding them and waiting years.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  That might not work, guns last fairly indefinitely if looked after.
  - baby 10y ago
    Of course the longer you wait, the less practical this solution becomes. In some years the only solution will be to wear a body armor at all time.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Heavy penalties + buy-back program + an amnesty period. The problem isn't a lack of creative solutions but a lack of united will.
- pryce 10y ago
  I believe Australia used a very similar plan to this.
scholia 10y ago
Australia did it, and hasn't had any mass shootings in 20 years since it opted to remove guns. You can argue about how much of the change is due to whatever, but the fact is that Australia has seen a dramatic decline in gun-related homicides and suicides. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun...
- EpicEng 10y ago
  I figured someone would bring up Australia. I'd say that they _tried_ to do it, but in reality ended up creating a huge black market for illegal guns. As far as I can tell, there has yet to be established a causal relationship between the buyback program and a decrease in gun related homicides. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia The suicide argument appears to be fairly weak. Yes, the rate went down, but suicides by hanging went up at nearly the same pace. Many of the studies which look at hun related suicides ignore suicides by other measures.
  - scholia 10y ago
    Yeah, I understand that Americans are in love with the idea of killing thousands of people a year and there is very little chance of them being rational about it. When people's lives are at stake, I'll settle for the correlation, which is a matter of fact: gun ownership went down, and gun deaths went down. QUOTE 1 "Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]." http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf QUOTE 2 "Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths_ of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms." http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2530362 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/253036...
    - EpicEng 10y ago
      >Yeah, I understand that Americans are in love with the idea of killing thousands of people a year and there is very little chance of them being rational about it. I'm really not. If I could snap my fingers and get rid of them all, I would. Can't do that though, so not an option. Also, dropping more than 300M people into one bucket like that is just... stupid. Your quote is from the study I was talking about which is referenced by wikipedia. Sure, it dropped firearm suicides, but suicides by hanging went up at nearly the same rate. So... who cares? Didn't save anyone. In fact, just led to a more brutal death for these people. The second quote is exactly what I'm taking about. I am all for tighter gun control laws, all I'm saying is that your claim that "Australia did it" is, as usual, not as clear cut as it would seem. There are many factors which may have led to a decline. You are also ignoring that there was no decline for more than a decade after the program was instituted.

Cat's out of the bag though. How are you going to get all of those guns off of the street at this point?

by EpicEng 10y ago

Cat's out of the bag though. How are you going to get all of those guns off of the street at this point?

baby 10y ago

By forbidding them and waiting years.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
That might not work, guns last fairly indefinitely if looked after.
- baby 10y ago
  Of course the longer you wait, the less practical this solution becomes. In some years the only solution will be to wear a body armor at all time.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Heavy penalties + buy-back program + an amnesty period. The problem isn't a lack of creative solutions but a lack of united will.

pryce 10y ago
I believe Australia used a very similar plan to this.

scholia 10y ago

Australia did it, and hasn't had any mass shootings in 20 years since it opted to remove guns. You can argue about how much of the change is due to whatever, but the fact is that Australia has seen a dramatic decline in gun-related homicides and suicides. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun...

EpicEng 10y ago
I figured someone would bring up Australia. I'd say that they _tried_ to do it, but in reality ended up creating a huge black market for illegal guns. As far as I can tell, there has yet to be established a causal relationship between the buyback program and a decrease in gun related homicides. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia The suicide argument appears to be fairly weak. Yes, the rate went down, but suicides by hanging went up at nearly the same pace. Many of the studies which look at hun related suicides ignore suicides by other measures.
- scholia 10y ago
  Yeah, I understand that Americans are in love with the idea of killing thousands of people a year and there is very little chance of them being rational about it. When people's lives are at stake, I'll settle for the correlation, which is a matter of fact: gun ownership went down, and gun deaths went down. QUOTE 1 "Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]." http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf QUOTE 2 "Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths_ of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms." http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2530362 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/253036...
  - EpicEng 10y ago
    >Yeah, I understand that Americans are in love with the idea of killing thousands of people a year and there is very little chance of them being rational about it. I'm really not. If I could snap my fingers and get rid of them all, I would. Can't do that though, so not an option. Also, dropping more than 300M people into one bucket like that is just... stupid. Your quote is from the study I was talking about which is referenced by wikipedia. Sure, it dropped firearm suicides, but suicides by hanging went up at nearly the same rate. So... who cares? Didn't save anyone. In fact, just led to a more brutal death for these people. The second quote is exactly what I'm taking about. I am all for tighter gun control laws, all I'm saying is that your claim that "Australia did it" is, as usual, not as clear cut as it would seem. There are many factors which may have led to a decline. You are also ignoring that there was no decline for more than a decade after the program was instituted.