What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

We have to stop navelgazing and playing games. One transperson competes in womens sports and overnight we have dozens of new laws about it, and that killed nobody.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. It's time to stop making excuses, time to stop deflecting, and time and start working on FIXING it.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books.

And there used to be another one which was a ban on certain weapons. That is on the list of options that should be pursued. The fact that the NRA hates it so much must mean it would be a good one.

Mass shootings have been committed with weapons other than semi-autos. Face it - you need total confiscation to get your dream of ending mass shootings. Good luck with that.

Australia managed to figure it out. You're telling me you're stupider than an Australian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

Weird how Democrats never care about taking guns away in the inner cities where there are far more mass shootings. Democrats just want to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

Bullshit. The inner cities have strict gun laws but the criminals exploit the weak gun laws outside of the cities. That's why a national solution is needed.

And if y'all were ACTUALLY law abiding then the criminals wouldn't have so many easy avenues for getting guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

Weird how Democrats never care about taking guns away in the inner cities where there are far more mass shootings. Democrats just want to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

Bullshit. The inner cities have strict gun laws but the criminals exploit the weak gun laws outside of the cities. That's why a national solution is needed.

And if y'all were ACTUALLY law abiding then the criminals wouldn't have so many easy avenues for getting guns.

No, there are numerous TikTok videos of criminals wielding obviously illegal Glocks with "switches." Those people are not arrested despite their posting evidence of their crimes. Normies are starting to wake up to two-tier "justice" of Democrats and won't stand for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

And do you know why this is the case in the UK and Australia?

The UK and Australia have faced significant labor shortages in various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality. Many industries rely on migrant workers to fill these gaps, as they often take on roles that are hard to fill with local labor, in mostly due to low wages and working conditions. That said, even with low wages migrants still contribute to the tax base, thereby paying for government services, projects, etc... (and supporting the salaries of bureaucrats). Migrant advocacy groups are also very vocal in politics, staging protests that garner media attention that is uncomfortable for those in power.

As for the topic at hand, neither the UK nor Australia have the Second Amendment (nor are other rights, like those in the First Amendment, treated with the same reverence as in the U.S.) The Second Amendment serves a very important purpose in the U.S., one that has staved off the types of authoritarian actions of the UK and Australian governments. Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003) put it best:

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

We have to stop navelgazing and playing games. One transperson competes in womens sports and overnight we have dozens of new laws about it, and that killed nobody.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. It's time to stop making excuses, time to stop deflecting, and time and start working on FIXING it.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books.

And there used to be another one which was a ban on certain weapons. That is on the list of options that should be pursued. The fact that the NRA hates it so much must mean it would be a good one.

Mass shootings have been committed with weapons other than semi-autos. Face it - you need total confiscation to get your dream of ending mass shootings. Good luck with that.

Nope. We should start with reinstating something like the previous fan which was successful and obviously possible since we had it. We can then move forward from there.

[Anonymous]

The previous ban. And luck has nothing to do with it. It takes a coordinated, lengthy and expensive campaign and that would be well worth investing in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

We have to stop navelgazing and playing games. One transperson competes in womens sports and overnight we have dozens of new laws about it, and that killed nobody.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. It's time to stop making excuses, time to stop deflecting, and time and start working on FIXING it.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books.

And there used to be another one which was a ban on certain weapons. That is on the list of options that should be pursued. The fact that the NRA hates it so much must mean it would be a good one.

Mass shootings have been committed with weapons other than semi-autos. Face it - you need total confiscation to get your dream of ending mass shootings. Good luck with that.

Australia managed to figure it out. You're telling me you're stupider than an Australian.

I know you're stupid to continually compare Australia to America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

And do you know why this is the case in the UK and Australia?

The UK and Australia have faced significant labor shortages in various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality. Many industries rely on migrant workers to fill these gaps, as they often take on roles that are hard to fill with local labor, in mostly due to low wages and working conditions. That said, even with low wages migrants still contribute to the tax base, thereby paying for government services, projects, etc... (and supporting the salaries of bureaucrats). Migrant advocacy groups are also very vocal in politics, staging protests that garner media attention that is uncomfortable for those in power.

As for the topic at hand, neither the UK nor Australia have the Second Amendment (nor are other rights, like those in the First Amendment, treated with the same reverence as in the U.S.) The Second Amendment serves a very important purpose in the U.S., one that has staved off the types of authoritarian actions of the UK and Australian governments. Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003) put it best:

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

They have labor shortages because capital owners are greedy and prefer to pay foreigners cheaper salaries instead of paying their fellow countrymen a reasonable wage.

The Second Amendment is absolute, though. That history is mostly right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

The R position is bullshit.

The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"

Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?

Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.

Say it loud, and say it with me:

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.

YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.

Republicans want armed police and security enhancements at every school. That would go a lot farther to combat mass shootings than an assault weapon ban. People forget the VT mass shooting was perpetrated with handguns.

Like the armed cowards at Uvalde? Texas specializes in failing their children and shrinking from the moment. How would this be any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

And do you know why this is the case in the UK and Australia?

The UK and Australia have faced significant labor shortages in various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality. Many industries rely on migrant workers to fill these gaps, as they often take on roles that are hard to fill with local labor, in mostly due to low wages and working conditions. That said, even with low wages migrants still contribute to the tax base, thereby paying for government services, projects, etc... (and supporting the salaries of bureaucrats). Migrant advocacy groups are also very vocal in politics, staging protests that garner media attention that is uncomfortable for those in power.

As for the topic at hand, neither the UK nor Australia have the Second Amendment (nor are other rights, like those in the First Amendment, treated with the same reverence as in the U.S.) The Second Amendment serves a very important purpose in the U.S., one that has staved off the types of authoritarian actions of the UK and Australian governments. Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003) put it best:

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

They have labor shortages because capital owners are greedy and prefer to pay foreigners cheaper salaries instead of paying their fellow countrymen a reasonable wage.

The Second Amendment is absolute, though. That history is mostly right.

There is nothing absolute about the Second Amendment. Trump has shown that the Constitution is what the President and SCOTUS say it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

And do you know why this is the case in the UK and Australia?

The UK and Australia have faced significant labor shortages in various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality. Many industries rely on migrant workers to fill these gaps, as they often take on roles that are hard to fill with local labor, in mostly due to low wages and working conditions. That said, even with low wages migrants still contribute to the tax base, thereby paying for government services, projects, etc... (and supporting the salaries of bureaucrats). Migrant advocacy groups are also very vocal in politics, staging protests that garner media attention that is uncomfortable for those in power.

As for the topic at hand, neither the UK nor Australia have the Second Amendment (nor are other rights, like those in the First Amendment, treated with the same reverence as in the U.S.) The Second Amendment serves a very important purpose in the U.S., one that has staved off the types of authoritarian actions of the UK and Australian governments. Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003) put it best:

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

They have labor shortages because capital owners are greedy and prefer to pay foreigners cheaper salaries instead of paying their fellow countrymen a reasonable wage.

The Second Amendment is absolute, though. That history is mostly right.

Business owners won't raise wages for domestic workers because that would make their products less competitive against those from other countries. You may have noticed that while many of the low-skill manufacturing jobs have poor wages, wages for blue-collar domestic jobs like plumbers, electricians, welders, etc... are quite high and continue to go up because those jobs remain unfilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."

1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)

The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).

Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.

Anonymous wrote:2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.

If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?

Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.

Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).

The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?

You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."

1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)

The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).

Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.

Anonymous wrote:2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.

If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?

Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.

Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).

The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?

You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.

Thank you for the detailed response to this nonsense. I would just say it's dumb and move on.

[Anonymous]

We don't need gun control.

We need progressive mental illness (redundant) control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."

1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)

The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).

Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.

Anonymous wrote:2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.

If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?

Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.

Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).

The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?

You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.

Thank you for the detailed response to this nonsense. I would just say it's dumb and move on.

+1