My state, New York, has already tightened a ban on Assault weapons by redefining what qualifies a gun as an assault weapon. We're also now requiring background checks on ammunition purchases, and outlawing large capacity magazines. The limit for the magazines is 7 bullets, I believe. You may think it's easy and unopposed in New York State, however, this is only really true for the city area. Upstate New York is very big on guns, and are quite angry over this. But if it can happen in one state, it can happen in others.
Here is the run through of the new law that recently passed.
I don't get it, how does this make killing-sprees any harder? Those are basically ALL cosmetic criteria, in none of the recent killing sprees did the perpetrator need any of these things. Grenade launchers are almost impossible to get for civilians in the U.S. this way or another, bayonet mount? When was the last person killed by a bayonet. Flash-suppressors make the muzzle-flash less noticeable, the gun is still as loud as before and huge flames gushing out of your barrel are a Hollywood-fantasy anyway. The folding stock only makes it easier to carry the rifle close to your body, heck - if someone would really want to shorten his rifle, he'd simply saw it offA semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following
characteristics:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
A grenade launcher
The more useful parts of this law are the limits on rounds in both a fixed and detachable magazine, and the addition of background checks being required for ammunition purchases. Supposedly, more thorough background checks will be conducted for weapon purchases as well. The last potentially useful part will be how more weapons have been banned entirely (which I don't believe was included in that link), and more in-depth registration of weapons. So while there a lot cosmetic issues brought up, I feel that there are some teeth to this law. It can be argued that if a person wants to kill, no amount of laws will stop them.
I think the ever present issue with gun control is the discrepancy between what the law says, and what actually happens. Banning certain features and accessories in one state does nothing to prevent them from being imported from another state. Criminals in Chicago or any major city have no trouble obtaining firearms, regardless of any legal restrictions. In this whole debate, I'm still waiting for any evidence demonstrating a link between specific gun control legislation and any change in the real world.
I think the Australian ban is just that evidence.
I think it's difficult to use the experience of any other country as 'evidence' for anything in this debate. The gun culture of this country and the number of guns per capita make it utterly unlike any other country in the world. I don't say that lightly, and think it's a cop out regarding many topics, but this situation really is uniquely American. Even the effects of the strict Australian gun legislation are disputed and unclear. The experience of any single country cannot be cherry picked to demonstrate a point. Gun control advocates can point to Australia. Their opponents can just as easily point to Switzerland.
We had a culture of overt racial discrimination too. We had a culture of demeaning and belittling women. I enjoy shooting a gun as much as the next guy. But just calling something a culture doesn't make it right. I know lots of people are worried about a slippery slope - but come on - do I need a magazine with over 9 bullets? I might be naive, but in what circumstance would I need more than a couple of bullets? And I use the word "need" loosely - I get along without any bullets every day. Hunters don't (good ones need 1). gun laws won't fix the problem. They'll help to treat a symptom as laws move across states... but it's not the real disease.
Perhaps the issue then arises from the fact that there aren't strict and enforced Federal laws and regulations. I feel that if we had a Federal law such as the one just passed in New York State, you would start to see a difference. The issue is that it's much easier for a country such as Australia to ban it, whereas in the United States we have a lot more ground to cover, and states that would fight such an action to the death.
The previous federal regulation had a dubious effect on gun crime, gun violence, and gun ownership. I'm highly suspicious that any similar law would produce a significant difference this time around.
a salient point although if you look at the Australian ban it is much more comprehensive. the U.S. ban was very weak.
The effects of that Australian law are disputed, and not clear evidence for the effectiveness of gun control. It would also be a political and legal impossibility to enact such legislation in this country.
Mostly disputed on the reduction of suicides. mass shootings stopped at the point of the ban.
According to a study mentioned in the linked article:“the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”
is New Zealand a good analogue for Australia? also why wouldn't Australian gun policy effect New Zealand?
rural vs urban population
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9NC8BIuaEM
vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5hrUGFhsXo 4.4 million versus 22.6 million population
Per capita does not control for the effects of group size.
so I would say to the authors of that piece "why don't you know that?" the answer is International Coalition for Women inShooting and Hunting (WiSH), Glebe NSW, Australia. chair@ic-wish.org <-the author
That or a identification of propaganda.
My argument does not contain an ad hom though.
My argument is that New Zealand is a bad analogue for Australia and is misused by the study. My speculation is that paper used bad science because it was paid for by a pro-gun lobby.