http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) After this, gun related violence in Australia has dropped by over 60% and there have been no MASS shootings. It took the Prime MInister of Australia only 12 days to make a change. He had ta bulldoze previous laws and go through a lot of paperwork and it WASN'T easy, but he did it, cuz he wanted to do it. Because he cared about the families and safety of his COUNTRY. Now I don't know, where THIS COUNTRY is headed, if Bama keeps sheddin alligator tears every other week when there's a shootin but does nothin about it . Talk is cheap. Let's get some **** done.
It's gonna be bloody if gun control ever gets passed. Knowing rednecks, some will only let you pry the guns from their cold, dead bodies. It's gonna be next to a civil war.
except I don't think there are any serious proposals to get rid of guns, just renew the assault weapons ban like we've had before. When the assault weapons ban went into effect, there were no rednecks fighting to the death to keep their AK's. There was no slippery slope where all of a sudden all firearms were eventually taken away.
Mostly because nobody tried to take their AK's away. The "assault weapons" ban prohibited the sale of new guns that fit certain criteria. It did nothing to existing ones.
This is a democratic country for the most part, we get exact what most of the people in the country want no matter the consequences. If people think gun control is not needed, then we will just keep on getting these tragic events year after year.
The assault rifle ban will have little if any effect. Hand guns can be very effective in a large crowd of people and are easy to conceal. Guns will not be banned in the USA. They are part of our entire culture, are extremely popular and the Supreme Court would not uphold the law. Further if it ever did pass and stand, there would be literally millions of guns already in the country. You would have to arrest hundreds of thousands of people that would either hide their guns or partake in a black market. Obama is not going to get overly involved because it is a waste of political capital and there are more pressing needs. People that want guns will get them and can use other means to kill people.
You keep referencing the assault weapons ban but it seems you're really misinformed on this subject. Please read up on this subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban A ban can vary from ownership, to purchasing/selling to manufacturing. A common misconception is that "illegal" weapons like fully automatics are banned. Weapons like these require licenses to own and use. Ss long as you don't have a criminal background and pass a couple of other points, anyone can obtain one as long as they are willing to pay the fee. Anyone who cares to take the time to fully research this subject with an open mind will come to realize that semi-automatic pistols are a far bigger issue than assault rifles.
I'm not talking about fully automatic weapons. The Assault Weapons ban made it illegal to purchase new assault weapons, and the extended magazines which makes the semi automatic pistols more deadly and definitely were used in the AZ shootings. We know that the gunman in Newtown CT. used an assault rifle to do most of the killing. The assault weapons ban would keep more of these weapons from being sold. I'm not confusing fully automatic and semi-automatic. You seem to be confusing what I do and don't know about the assault weapons ban, and throwing a straw man argument out there.
I'm not talking about taking guns away from people who have them. I'm talking about not selling them anymore, and not selling the extended magazines which increased the damage done in AZ so would definitely make a difference. We know the killer in Newtown used an assault weapon for most of the killing done there, so it could make a difference in those types of situations. But the fact remains that these mass shooting incidents aren't where most gun violence comes from. So will it have a limited reduction? Absolutely. But it's a step.
Not trying to argue with you. To me it makes no difference whether you grandfather existing assault rifles or take away existing assault rifles. There is a sizeable number of people that feel strongly about gun ownership, including assault rifles. It will cause problems and there will be an illegal underground. Things are only more explosive since the bill was in effect before and even then you had the government over looking many illegal deals going on concerning assault weapons. A hand gun or a modified rifle (not hard to do) would do as much damage as an assault rifle in a crowd in many situations. So I think the difference would be negligible and it would cause a host of other problems. The President would be smart to use his political capital on other issues. As someone with a lot of experience with guns, it is just my opinion. To really make a difference you would have to essentially ban gun ownership for a long period of time. Banning assault weapons will not work, more strict background checks will not matter. We are kind of stuck in a situation where the only way to solve the problem is to address the cultural issues that are making young white men think it is okay to kill groups of innocent people.
I did not imply that you are confusing fully automatic with semi-automatic. What I am stating is there is broad misconceptions about bans in general. The 1994 ban did not ban all semi-automatic rifles. It put heavy restrictions on what could be manufactured.
Guns are too ingrained in American culture. And guns are only the tip of the iceberg, and not the main cause of the problem.
Sucked me in here too. A while back I saw a "NOBAMA" sign on someone's rear windshield & couldn't figure out their angle of hate for 'bama, being in houston & not representing any other school on their truck.
