3 ms·

It's strange to watch the debates around gun control unfold in USA time and again. Here in Australia we did the same thing after the Port Arthur massacre in 199

by sgentle 14y ago

It's strange to watch the debates around gun control unfold in USA time and again. Here in Australia we did the same thing after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, one of the deadliest spree shootings in world history. After that, the government basically outlawed semi-automatic weapons and did a compulsory buyback. In the 12 years since we've only had one incident. In 2002, a member of a sport shooting club (one of the few categories of people allowed to own handguns) opened fire in a Monash classroom. He killed two people and wounded five others, but since he could only manage to acquire handguns he had to switch weapons and was tackled to the ground. No doubt things would have been a lot worse if he'd had access to something with a larger magazine. We tightened laws on handguns after that as well. I find myself surprised that an otherwise relatively pragmatic people get so blind to the consequences of readily available firearms. I don't have any ideological opposition to guns - in fact, I quite like them - but if someone told me that yoga was involved in every killing spree in the last decade it would be pretty silly not to take a serious look at whether ready access to yoga is worth the cost.

vandahm 14y ago
What worries me about a compulsory buyback here in the United States is the massive number of firearms for which the government would have to provide compensation. If the owners of each of the 300 million guns in the United States were compensated USD $750 -- which is probably pretty reasonable given current prices -- it comes to USD $225 billion, excluding the cost of administrative overheard. That's a staggering sum of money, even for the US government, and not something I think we're able to pay. However infeasible, it's probably the only way that new gun control laws would be effective. Historically, gun bans in the US have applied only to newly manufactured guns, while older guns have been grandfathered in through various means. In fact, assault rifles like the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut shooting have already been banned in that state, which leads me to speculate that it was purchased before the ban and grandfathered in. Without addressing the vast supply of existing guns, it's hard to see how laws regulating new guns will achieve the impact their supporters desire.
Mz 14y ago
I think foreigners routinely miss the fact that the U.S. still has wolves, wildcats, bears, 2000 lb moose, etc. I know that Australia has some of the most venomous spiders in the world but you aren't likely to defend yourself from them with a gun. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any really sizable predators in Australia. Europe also lacks any remaining really large, dangerous wild animals, having hunted them to extinction long ago. I did insist my ex husband get rid of his stupid hand gun or I would leave him over it, but I do not think gun control is as simple a question in the U.S. as it is in more "civilized" countries whose only remaining serious predator is humankind because the rest have essentially been hunted to extinction (which is not necessarily the most virtuous and wise thing to do since predators play an important role in the ecosystem).

by sgentle 14y ago

vandahm 14y ago

What worries me about a compulsory buyback here in the United States is the massive number of firearms for which the government would have to provide compensation. If the owners of each of the 300 million guns in the United States were compensated USD $750 -- which is probably pretty reasonable given current prices -- it comes to USD $225 billion, excluding the cost of administrative overheard. That's a staggering sum of money, even for the US government, and not something I think we're able to pay. However infeasible, it's probably the only way that new gun control laws would be effective. Historically, gun bans in the US have applied only to newly manufactured guns, while older guns have been grandfathered in through various means. In fact, assault rifles like the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut shooting have already been banned in that state, which leads me to speculate that it was purchased before the ban and grandfathered in. Without addressing the vast supply of existing guns, it's hard to see how laws regulating new guns will achieve the impact their supporters desire.

Mz 14y ago

I think foreigners routinely miss the fact that the U.S. still has wolves, wildcats, bears, 2000 lb moose, etc. I know that Australia has some of the most venomous spiders in the world but you aren't likely to defend yourself from them with a gun. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any really sizable predators in Australia. Europe also lacks any remaining really large, dangerous wild animals, having hunted them to extinction long ago. I did insist my ex husband get rid of his stupid hand gun or I would leave him over it, but I do not think gun control is as simple a question in the U.S. as it is in more "civilized" countries whose only remaining serious predator is humankind because the rest have essentially been hunted to extinction (which is not necessarily the most virtuous and wise thing to do since predators play an important role in the ecosystem).