Gun Control in the US

demfad wrote: »

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings (S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, and M Jones)

Well, if we're quoting folks.
http://guns.ie/2015/01/09/submission-committee-justice-defence-equality-review-firearms-licensing/

The head of the Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Doctor Don Weatherburn, said in 2005:

“There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don’t think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence.”

“There has been a more specific problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don’t think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.”

The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths. Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
[...]
Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference. British Journal of Criminology, Jeanine Baker Samara McPhedran

Mass murders in Dunblane, United Kingdom, and Port Arthur, Australia, provoked rapid responses from the governments of both countries. Major changes to Australian laws resulted in a controversial buy-back of longarms and tighter legislation. The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes.

Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence. Justice Policy Journal, Jeanine Baker Samara McPhedran

Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends.

If two of the top ten shooter used Glock's (as you say) then it stands to reason that more lives in the future might be saved from banning these easily availability weapons also.

It does, and it does not.
Mass shootings are not the only cause of homicide in the US. The majority are common or garden criminal events, more often than not conducted by those illegally carrying firearms to begin with. They are also protected, as per Supreme Court: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." So, in effect, you get to balance out the mass shooting benefits with the downside of the loss of its use in personal protection. And at that, the one is enshrined in long-standing culture and law, the other is not, so the chances of getting that one passed in the US environment is, effectively, zero. Pretty much nobody on any side is trying to prohibit handguns at this time.

Ban all guns that don't have a legitimate hunting purpose. There are no need for Semi-Automatic weapons, Bump Stocks and the like. Magazine size could be capped at 5 which should be enough for any hunter. At a bare minimum only allowing handguns and hunting rifles would be a huge step in the right direction imho, not that it's ever going to happen with the power of the gun lobby!

The use of firearms for personal protection has ruled upon at the federal level by the courts, and is protected by the Constitutions of over half the States. (Most of the rest have had State level rulings in favour). Some are very short and explicit, such as New Hampshire All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state or Delaware A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.. Both are Democrat-voting states, so we're not just talking redneck conservatives here. The full list is here: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

So, banning anything but hunting rifles is a non-starter. Which brings us back to magazine capacity, and the utility of five-round magazines (pick arbitary number) as sufficient for purposes of defense. Exactly where that number is is still being debated in the courts.

Brian? wrote: »

What do you think should be done? Nothing? Something? You’ve shot down every argument for tighter gun control, pun intended, how do you think the mass shootings can be avoided?

I'm shooting down arguments which are either impractical for legal or political reasons, or which will not achieve very much except feel-good measures.
I have in the past proposed arguments which have been ignored by members on this board who are focused solely on firearms descriptions. They have varied from a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data) to mandatory firearms training in the same manner that we school folks on sex or driving. We have some 500 accidental/negligent deaths a year, but, no, we can't teach firearms safety because icky guns. It's like the conservatives saying that sex ed merely will encourage promiscuity so it should not be taught (That said, the accidental death rate has been dropping consistently, from some 1,400 a year in 1993, so obviously the fewer people who have firearms today seem to be more likely to know what they're on about).
Last month, the death toll in Chicago was some 55 plus 300 wounded. About the same as Paddock's spree. Every month. Firearms are highly restricted in Chicago. Effective policies to address the crime rate, both social and criminal ones, will have a dramatic effect on the nation's firearms death rate, certainly more than criminalising firearms. It will be impossible to pass a single piece of legislation and point to it as 'success', but does anyone deny that (a) the crime problem must be addressed, and (b) that when it does, the firearms death rate will decrease, just as it did in Australia? Can someone explain why names like Cho and Paddock are so famous? Why are we celebretizing these folks? Is it that hard to pass a law saying "They must die in obscurity", which, according to more than a few psychologists, may reduce the temptation for people to carry out dramatic spree shootings?
As I was sorting out my FAL problem last week, I came to one positive of the various laws being created, mind. They are encouraging business. Not just business which booms when something is about to be banned, but the entire industry of small independent operations which create products which adapt to whatever the latest law is. After 'assault weapons' were banned in California, an industry sprung up to create a new type of magazine release. Cost about $50. This year, such magazine releases were banned. Took about two months before someone came out with another type, which also costs somewhere under $50. Other than giving some folks additional disposable income, the new law (Which requires registration and submission of photographs to Cal DOJ, all of which has to be maintained and processed) is going to cost the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money, and do precisely nada. Money which could be spent on crime prevention, firearms training, mental health services.... You know, something which will have benefit to society, be it gun related or not.
So, to summarise, there are at least four tracks which can be considered.
1) Physical features of the firearms themselves. These are the ones which tend to be advocated for the most by the people who know about them the least. They are typified by the regimen we have here in California, where law after law is passed, only to see them nullified or bypassed by people who do know about the subject matter. The top end limit is that the individual right to bear arms by definition will only apply to arms which can be borne by the individual. This is generally considered to stop at crew-served weapons, so no right to Cal. .50 MGs, for example. The bottom end limit is that whatever legislation is passed must permit effective self defense. The government, per Supreme Court ruling, may not specify the type of weapon which is suitable for defense: The argument of D.C. in Heller was that since long guns were legal, they could ban handguns (Handguns, of course, being the primary cause of firearms murder in the US and thus the primary concern of D.C.). This did not fly. (An odd one last year saw the Supreme Court rule that Massachusetts could not mandate the use of firearms over tasers. Quite what MA was trying with that one, I'm not sure). I am personally fine with the current regimen of certification for full-auto capabilities, though I can also see how a legal argument in favour of "borne by individuals" could actually succeed in loosening it. And, of course, all this is before we get into the 3D printing realm, which is advancing by leaps and bounds. Anyway, those are the parameters you have to work with when it comes to the description of the firearm. 
2) Restrictions on acquisition of firearms. The fundamental limit here is the Federal and State Constitutional right to arms. This means that good cause must be presented to restrict it. We have generally concluded that we don't want folks adjudicated mentally incompetent, or those who are felons, or those who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence have forfeited their right. Thus, any proposal must take into account the fact that most anyone can get a gun, and most anyone can get a gun suitable for defensive purposes, which in practice means semi-automatic handgun, rifle or shotgun. We can get into a long argument as to why someone may pick one over the other, even in the home, but suffice to say that all three are commonly used for the purpose (Whether you understand it or 'see' it or not). In theory, the Constitution can be changed. In practice, any thinking that this is going to happen before we move on from firearms to disruptor beams is, I submit, optimistic. Combine this with point 1 above, and the reality is that such firearms will be commonly found in the US, in perpetuity and cannot be removed, no matter how much you may think that Australia provides a good example of removing semi-auto rifles and neighboring New Zealand can be ignored. 
3) Conditions of Ownership. Such as safes, registration, numbers, training, etc. This sort of thing is, at least, somewhat feasible. Mandating that firearms be kept in safes when the owner is not present seems generally lawful, subject to the 'reasonable cost' restriction. (Mandating that firearms always be locked up has been declared unConstitutional by the Supreme Court). Gun safes are not cheap. It is unConstitutional to mandate unreasonable costs to exercise a right, and mandating that one purchase a safe which likely costs more than the gun you are putting in it is going to cause issue. Why should the right apply in effect only to rich folks? Whether this sort of thing will pass muster has not yet been determined by SCOTUS. Registration, I have already voiced objection to on the grounds that they won't achieve anything useful, and that's in the unlikely event that all (or even most) firearms are registered, which past experience indicates that they won't. Training, I'm good with. See above. Right now, anyone can walk off the street, not know which end of the gun the bullets come out, and still purchase one. Given that, given also that in this country folks will encounter a firearm at some point in their lives no matter how dislikeable that fact may be, why the hell are we not teaching all folks the basics of firearms? Even the three golden rules. The last time a congressman/woman suggested firearms training for all?
4) Motivations for firearms usage. Why do we have shootings anyway? The majority, as mentioned, is basic criminal activity. Attacking that, by a combination of law enforcement and social policy, is absolutely not going to be easy, fast or cheap. The benefits, though, are going to be universal, and not merely in the category of firearms deaths. Firearms deaths will drop, but they will be a positive side effect. Why do we have so many spree shootings in the US, when the phenomenon was all but unheard of three decades ago? We have cultural problems. We have societal problems. We have, as I mentioned on another thread, a fundamental lack of empathy, respect, and love of thy neighbour, as it were. This category, #4, is far and away the most difficult, but success here will make all the factors of #1-3 irrelevant, as well as generally increasing the quality of life in the US.
So this is why I have been arguing against the various proposals which have been placed forward on this thread. Not that I believe that nothing can be done, but that the somethings which have been proposed here are unworkable in the US environment, and that somethings other have not been considered.

Leroy42;104918854Yet you still haven't given a good reason why guns should not be banned.

Before one gets to the question of if they should be banned, one must debate the possibility if they can be, as either a legal or practical matter. As another poster said, Pandora's box is opened. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation. They are not going anywhere, banned or not. And, frankly, personal defense is a pretty good reason for them not to be banned.

You do know that the constitution can, and has been, changed?

I do. But the practical reality is it will not be with respect to firearms. It requires 3/4 of the States to support such an amendment. 45 of 50 States have their own Constitutional right to bear arms, and the trend in State amendments in the few decades has been to strengthen them, not remove them, most recently Missouri in 2014. A dozen since the 1980s. Not one State has ever removed such a right. There is no indication of any movement at all in that direction. If a proposed solution is reliant upon the modification of the Constitution, you are going to be relying upon a very, very long-term program if at all. And for that amount of time, we may as well fix other problems.

You talk about the crime rate in Chicago, and I fully agree that it is terrible.  But that has really nothing to do with gun ownership, as you yourself acknowledge.  It is a crime problem.  And not one that we are looking to deal with here.

Why should it not be dealt with?

Crime is directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of murders and unlawful injury committed with firearms. If the objective is a reduction in the number of murders and injury committed with firearms, where is the problem with looking at this as part of a solution?

It stems, in part, from a chronic lack of social policies leading to no hope within these communities and the only way out is through crime and thus violence.  Since the US is still arguing over whether health care is a human right then I don't hold much hope for a chance anytime soon.

Agreed. But I think there is still more chance of this than a Constitutional Amendment. And, face it, fixing that problem will do a lot more for the country than changing 2A.

You keep arguing based on there always being guns.  But why?  Surely intelligent, non selfish people can see the terrible damage that guns have had, and continue to have, on american society.

Guns have also proven very useful for law abiding folks who merely wish to pursue life, liberty and happiness, as American society aspires to. But, again, we go back to 'there always being guns'. Since we have a hugely difficult and significant legal hurdle to overcome before they can be banned, and since even registering the things has proven questionable, let alone removing them from circulation, any practicable solution must be predicated on the proposal that there will always be guns.

The first would be to limit the type and amount of ammunition.  And to bring in serious penalties for people caught outside the rule.  Make it an offence to knowingly sell products to customers over a certain limit.  100 bullets a year.  Companies selling them would need to keep records.  Of course people could get around them, people will usually find a way, but much smaller numbers than presently.

100 a year? You do want folks who have firearms to actually be competent with them, don't you? I go through several hundred rounds in a single afternoon at the range. 

Limit guns in the same way.  One gun per owner.  Before you buy a gun you have to register and to do that you must complete a full run down of the guns you have.  It must be signed by a member of the police.  If you are caught lying then you face jail time and a restriction on future gun ownership.  Anyone found to have aided you will also face penalties.

1) Why one? Must I make a decision between if I want a home defense firearm, and olympic target shooting firearm, a hunting firearm or a clay pigeon firearm? And if I have more than one, how much more dangerous am I? How many weapons can I use at once?
What is the purpose of a police signature? Most firearms sales require the federal background check anyway. It should be all, and that should be an easy fix, so let's say they all do. Other than wasting police time, who I would rather see on the street than doing paperwork, what is the goal? Lying on the federal firearms form (eg straw purchases) are already illegal. Max penalty is ten years in jail, and quarter million dollars in fines. The government does not prioritise enforcement of this. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/justice-department-rarely-prosecutes-straw-buyers-/ 48,000 cases, of which 44 are prosecuted. You know the way the NRA says "We should try enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones?" On this, the NRA seems to have a point.

You still haven't given any reason for why you require a FAL and other guns.  In terms of security, surely a handgun is more than enough if someone was to attack your home?  In terms of hunting, then a single fire rifle is more than enough.  For camping etc, if you really think you need a machine gun to protect you from bears I would suggest that camping is not really for you and you need to learn proper survival skills.

Again, the merits of what is a suitable home defense weapon are long and situation dependent. If you really want, I can get into the tactical and technical aspects behind it, but the best one-liner I have seen is that a handgun is never the best choice if convenience and portability is not a concern. Sometimes these things are counter-intuitive: The reason, for example, that SWAT teams have moved from pistol-calibre weapons to 5.56mm is that the rifle rounds are less likely to overpenetrate walls: A significant concern in the urban environment. I personally have an FAL for simple memorabilia's sake (my former weapon in the Irish military) though there isn't a hell of a lot of practical difference on the receiving end between that and a  more traditional-looking Remington .308 Woodsmaster hunting rifle. I guess I could fit a bayonet to the FAL, though bayonettings don't seem to be a common problem anywhere. Otherwise, what's the difference? Both are magazine-fed, semi-auto .308 rifles quite useful for hunting. One is less likely to snag in brush, the other is more comfortable to shoot.