Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A serious question about gun control- Isn't it too late? [View all]peacebird
(14,195 posts)30. It worked in Australia. I don't know why it couldn't have the same success here
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html
Sydney, Australia (CNN) -- Could the leader of a democracy reverse his nation's slide toward the ever more permissive use of firearms and mandate stringent new gun control laws in less than a fortnight? Well, yes. One of America's loyal allies did just that -- and with massive voter support.
In a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, a lone gunman killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, was empowered to achieve his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing semi-automatic rifles originally advertised by the gun trade as "assault weapons." Now we discover that a similar military-style rifle enabled the Connecticut killer to add his name to the global list of gun horrors.
(...)
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. In the 16 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. Gun deaths which attract smaller headlines are 80 times more common, yet the national rate of gun homicide remains 30 times lower than that of the United States.
Sydney, Australia (CNN) -- Could the leader of a democracy reverse his nation's slide toward the ever more permissive use of firearms and mandate stringent new gun control laws in less than a fortnight? Well, yes. One of America's loyal allies did just that -- and with massive voter support.
In a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, a lone gunman killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, was empowered to achieve his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing semi-automatic rifles originally advertised by the gun trade as "assault weapons." Now we discover that a similar military-style rifle enabled the Connecticut killer to add his name to the global list of gun horrors.
(...)
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. In the 16 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. Gun deaths which attract smaller headlines are 80 times more common, yet the national rate of gun homicide remains 30 times lower than that of the United States.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The problem is that we, as a country, have a fundamental disagreement about what it means to advance
GoingUnder
Dec 2012
#49
no, because tighter supply drives up prices. as happened with the assault weapons ban,
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#17
We have to start somewhere. It's not too late to protect people from guns not yet purchased.
reformist2
Dec 2012
#3
How often to you hear about any crimes being perpetrated by a fully automatic weapon?
white_wolf
Dec 2012
#60
Gun Buyback is how the Aussies made "no new mass murders" the law of the land.
librechik
Dec 2012
#68
That is a false equivalency, and your comment is completely idiotic. Those 2 are nothing alike...
dorksied
Dec 2012
#9
No, but it's like saying it's too late to combat penises because there are too many penises
Recursion
Dec 2012
#28
I really hate guns. I just think that what you're talking about is utterly doomed to failure.
dorksied
Dec 2012
#22
That is a fantasy. Gun owners would cling to their guns despite sever punishments, they'd just hide
dorksied
Dec 2012
#20
Well once again the debate comes down to right of center moderates versus right wing nutjobs
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#34
We have no problem with a war against a common weed that's completely non poisonous
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#40
The difference between pot and guns is that pot does grow on trees (well, bushes anyway)
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#59
It worked in Australia. I don't know why it couldn't have the same success here
peacebird
Dec 2012
#30
Let's do nothing for another decade and we'll have another 100 million of damn things to deal with.
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#32
I think we could solve the whole problem and not take away anybody's guns this way ...
Ganja Ninja
Dec 2012
#35
I read it. I agree with most of it. But as tired of the hand wringing as you are, I'm tired of
dorksied
Dec 2012
#46
A friend of mine re uses his shells. That wouldn't work, unless you're also talking about
dorksied
Dec 2012
#47
You will never see a complete ban though there are many who would welcome one
Puzzledtraveller
Dec 2012
#44
Think about the mindset of someone who is buying something that may get banned.
GoingUnder
Dec 2012
#48