News FEinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

[CAC1001]

Why doesn't it make much sense? What's the contradiction you're detecting?

Because they could use fake guns in place of the real ones if their plan is to intimidate the police into not doing anything. Such instances are so rare though that I do not think it makes any sense to deny people such weapons just because they could be used to fool the police in something like a bank robbery.

Even if home discharges lead to more accidental shootings than home defenses? At some point, I think that's reckless. (if the statistical claim is true).

If home discharges lead to more accidental shootings than home defenses, then that's a case of irresponsible gun ownership and a call for responsible gun ownership, not banning the weapons.

Nobodies being denied their right to protect themselves in general. People are being denied the right to protect themselves in a particular way that has (or might have been) shown to be ineffective.

I don't think it could ever be shown to be ineffective, just a question of in home invasions where the person has a firearm, in more or in less are they able to get the gun to protect themself in time.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no difference.

Nonsense. You've posted one example of a crossover, but that's it. Most hunting rifles do not look like assault rifles. I'd like to know honestly how many people hunt with an M-16 copy. And in addition, you posted one very badly chosen example:

Sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are intended for one-shot-one-kill use, much like hunting rifles. They are not the same as assault rifles and often aren't even semi-automatic, such as in your example of the Remmington 700. So in this case, you're arguing against your point: Since the rifle is a military-type, but specialized for accuracy and not high firing rate or portability or other infantry type functionality, it is not the type of weapon that needs to be banned for civilian use. Hence the need for another term to describe the type of weapon that is to be banned: assault weapons/rifles.

I'm not an expert, though, so you tell me: why is the Remmington 700 single-shot? Why the lack of a carrying handle on top? Why no flash suppressor? Why a solid stock? Could it be that all of these features affect accuracy? Indeed, if you would like all hunting rifles to be bolt-action like the Remmington 700, I'd definitely be willing to compromise on that!

edit: oh, and the wiki says this:

Remington markets the 700 to military forces and civilian law-enforcement agencies under the Remington Law Enforcement and Remington Military banner, with the military/law enforcement 700s being called the Model 700P ("Police"). The 700P series appears to have been influenced by the designs, features, and success of the M24 Sniper Weapon System and the M40 series, with one feature of the Model 700P series being the heavier and thicker barrel for increased accuracy and reduced recoil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700

Recoil reduces accuracy, which is a good reason for both sniper rifles and hunting rifles to be heavier and more solid than assault rifles.

 

[Evo]

I don't hunt and I don't consider hunting the basis of gun ownership, they are two completely separate issues.

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

Hunting is a sport/hobby and as such is nonvital. To associate the two degreades firearms ownership into a hobby and as a hobby it is open to far more regulation.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

No one "needs" to own a handgun. No one needs to own any type of gun. But owning shotguns and rifles for hunting animals, within the law, is acceptable, there is no need for anything except single shot. As far as I know, animals aren't armed and aren't able to shoot back.

If you live in fear of being gunned down and need guns with a large amount of bullets, and you aren't living in a gang neighborhood, you need therapy, IMO. If you live in a normal neighborhood, fears like this need medical attention. Seriously, your risk of slipping in the bathroom and getting killed are much more likely than getting shot, but I assume you bathe.

While the number of households with guns has decreased the number of guns owned by individuals has increased.

Also, the number of gun related injuries and deaths have gone up, the number of those related to crime have decreased. More guns = more deaths.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

 

[russ_watters]

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

No one "needs" to own a handgun. No one needs to own any type of gun. But owning shotguns and rifles for hunting animals, within the law, is acceptable, there is no need for anything except single shot. As far as I know, animals aren't armed and aren't able to shoot back.

If you live in fear of being gunned down and need guns with a large amount of bullets, and you aren't living in a gang neighborhood, you need therapy, IMO. If you live in a normal neighborhood, fears like this need medical attention.

To expand on my position in light of the above (everything to this point has been with respect to assault weapons):

I'm somewhat torn on this. The clear part of my position is on hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm in favor of them.

Less clear is my opinion on personal defense. Personal defense is an iffy proposition on its best day (CAC's post), but as a freedom-lover, I'm generally in favor of it, if a person desires it. Like you said, though -- if you really need a gun for protection, you're probably living in the wrong neighborhood.

If I were inclined to own guns for personal defense, I'd probably buy a pump-action shotgun and a semi-auto handgun like the 9mm Beretta I shot in the navy. But given the significance of the murder problem in the US and the difficulty in having and using a concealed handgun in a public setting*, I don't think I'd shed any tears if they were banned.

Many people view fighting for or against the government to be legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Regardless of if the 2nd Amendment intended either (probably the former, probably not the latter), this is an obsolete idea that should be discarded imo.

*The wiki page on Congresswoman Giffords' shooting says a guy with a concealed carry permit and who was carrying at the time showed up at the shooting as it was ending and was thus not able to contribute. Giffords was shot in a red state in a country where there are more guns than people. The NRA, as is its purpose, supports the idea of a nation where everyone has a gun and no one uses them, but I believe that the idea that more guns = more safety requires a critical mass of guns and gun violence that we have not yet achieved. Thus I believe their theory to be flawed: even with more guns than people, the murder rate would be reduced, not increased by reducing the number of guns.

 

[OCR]

Also, genuinely curious whether you can show me some (non-anecdotal) proof that guns work for home protection. I remember hearing a statistic that it's more likely there's an accidentals shooting than a home protection, but that statistic was not verified, just stated./

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html



OCR

 

[CAC1001]

Nonsense. You've posted one example of a crossover, but that's it. Most hunting rifles do not look like assault rifles.

Which difference do you mean though? A gun is a gun. There are not special guns that are designed to kill people as opposed to animals. Also, I was talking about military rifles overall, not just assault rifles. Other examples of crossovers can be the German Mauser 8mm, the Lee Enfield .303 British, Springfield Model 1903, M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, SKS rifle, Mosin Nagant, etc...all of which, if one doesn't know what they are looking at, can easily "look" like a "hunting rifle."

I'd like to know honestly how many people hunt with an M-16 copy.

Not sure on this one. Also not sure what difference it really makes. One thing that should be pointed out about the AR-15 is that the reason it was not adopted for hunting initially after the Vietnam War was because the early M-16 rifles were of very poor quality and garnered a bad reputation, and also the war had such a stigma to it, and split the country so much, that a lot of soldiers just wanted to put it behind them when they returned home. The AR-15 was the first rifle to not be adopted in large scale for things like hunting by the soldiers returning home from the war who had used it. It has proven very popular with returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan however. The modern M-16s are much better quality and the wars did not have the same stigma to them.

And in addition, you posted one very badly chosen example:

Sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are intended for one-shot-one-kill use, much like hunting rifles. They are not the same as assault rifles and often aren't even semi-automatic, such as in your example of the Remmington 700. So in this case, you're arguing against your point: Since the rifle is a military-type, but specialized for accuracy and not high firing rate or portability or other infantry type functionality, it is not the type of weapon that needs to be banned for civilian use. Hence the need for another term to describe the type of weapon that is to be banned: assault weapons/rifles.

If you had someone use a sniper rifle to snipe at people, I think you'd most definitely have people in the media questioning why are "sniper" rifles available to people. Who needs a "sniper" rifle? And so forth. That is why I cited it. The appropriate term for the guns the gun control people want to ban, IMO, would be "scary-looking guns," as that's all they ultimately are. Calling them "assault weapon" makes it sound like they're some official type of gun or something. The gun control proponents know that if they call to ban scary-looking guns, that won't gain much traction.

I'm not an expert, though, so you tell me: why is the Remmington 700 single-shot? Why the lack of a carrying handle on top? Why no flash suppressor? Why a solid stock? Could it be that all of these features affect accuracy? Indeed, if you would like all hunting rifles to be bolt-action like the Remmington 700, I'd definitely be willing to compromise on that!

By "carrying handle," if you mean the "carrying handle" on say the M16 rifle, that actually has to do with being able to aim the gun on target, not as a convenient way to carry it. I am not an expert either though, but regardless of how those features affect accuracy, I do not see why they should be banned. It should be a matter of preference for the owner.

edit: oh, and the wiki says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700

Recoil reduces accuracy, which is a good reason for both sniper rifles and hunting rifles to be heavier and more solid than assault rifles.

Yes; assault rifles are lower-powered than battle rifles and certain hunting rifles for this reason, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to control the weapon while firing on full-auto.

 

[CAC1001]

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

Self-protection is also an acceptable reason to own a gun IMO.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

I think he just means that arms ownership is a fundamental right and regarding it as merely a hobby opens it up to a lot more regulation.

 

[Evo]

I think he just means that arms ownership is a fundamental right and regarding it as merely a hobby opens it up to a lot more regulation.

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality. If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords? Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I'll agree that the 2nd ammendment covers guns if we restrict gun ownership to the same guns available at the time. Anything more advanced would require a new law. It's ridiculous what people are trying to claim, that current guns are covered under what the authors of the constitution envisioned.

 

[Skrew]

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

No one "needs" to own a handgun. No one needs to own any type of gun. But owning shotguns and rifles for hunting animals, within the law, is acceptable, there is no need for anything except single shot. As far as I know, animals aren't armed and aren't able to shoot back.

If you live in fear of being gunned down and need guns with a large amount of bullets, and you aren't living in a gang neighborhood, you need therapy, IMO. If you live in a normal neighborhood, fears like this need medical attention. Seriously, your risk of slipping in the bathroom and getting killed are much more likely than getting shot, but I assume you bathe.

While the number of households with guns has decreased the number of guns owned by individuals has increased.

Also, the number of gun related injuries and deaths have gone up, the number of those related to crime have decreased. More guns = more deaths.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

I fundementally disagree with you, while handguns are designed to shoot people, shooting people is not inherently wrong depending on the situation.

The rest of your post is a bit contradictory, if getting shot by someone isn't a problem then clearly there is no need for further gun restriction. People who accidently shoot themselves or commit suicide with guns are irrelevant when comes to passing legislation. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves.

If you don't want to own guns, if you want to place all your faith and power in others to protect and provide for you at the cost of significant freedom I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem when you argue I should follow you.

 

[CAC1001]

To expand on my position in light of the above (everything to this point has been with respect to assault weapons):

I'm somewhat torn on this. The clear part of my position is on hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm in favor of them.

How do we define a "hunting rifle" though? Plenty of ex-military rifles are popular hunting rifles, and now the AR-15 has a growing number of users in this.

Less clear is my opinion on personal defense. Personal defense is an iffy proposition on its best day (CAC's post), but as a freedom-lover, I'm generally in favor of it, if a person desires it. Like you said, though -- if you really need a gun for protection, you're probably living in the wrong neighborhood.

I agree that most people, generally, don't need to be armed, but I believe it's one right to be armed to protect themself just in case. If civil order breaks down due to a natural disaster, that also I think is a use.

Many people view fighting for or against the government to be legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Regardless of if the 2nd Amendment intended either (probably the former, probably not the latter), this is an obsolete idea that should be discarded imo.

My understanding is the Founders intended the people to be armed both to protect the nation and to resist a possibly tyrannical government, along with purposes of self-protection and survival (hunting). Regarding whether this resistance-to-government aspect is obsolete, IMO, at this particular moment in time, the idea of the government becoming tyrannical in this nation is really very remote. But, I would also argue that the entire history of this nation is a blip in the timeline of the history of other nations and empires, and that we have no idea what the future holds, what the country will be like 100 years, 150 years, 200 years down-the-line.

Regarding whether citizens could mount a resistance against a modern tyrannical government with a modern military, I think they could. Look at Syria, where Assad has been using battle tanks, attack helicopters, bombs, artillery, infantry, etc...and still can't put down the resistance. Now he has been considering using chemical weapons, which is a real sign of desperation. Or look at China, which watches their citizens closely, and has censored their media and Internet regarding the uprisings in the Middle East over the past few years. The Chinese government knows that if enough of a boiling point is reached, they could end up getting booted from power, and their people are not armed like Americans.

So I wouldn't consider the aspect of the Second Amendment for resistance to a tyrannical government obsolete per se, but I'd right now consider it a very remote thing to be concerned about. Now those who think that the current government is going to form a dictatorship ala Stalin and that they need to be armed to resist it, I think one is being paranoid if they think that.

 

[CAC1001]

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality. If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords?

You have a right to own a sword, unless I am mistaken? I just argue for weapons. The country won its freedom with muskets, but I am not arguing for those as the ideal weapon for protection.

Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I don't think the Constitution is in the dark ages in this sense. See my post to Russ on my thoughts on the Second Amendment regarding resistance to a tyrannical government. I think that, at this point in history, it's a very minor concern. But I do not think anyone can predict the future, especially long-term. One's right to arms ownership was for personal protection, survival (hunting), along with resistance to a tyrannical government and also resistance to foreign invasion. The latter two are obviously very minor concerns right now.

 

[Skrew]

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality. If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords? Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I'll agree that the 2nd ammendment covers guns if we restrict gun ownership to the same guns available at the time. Anything more advanced would require a new law. It's ridiculous what people are trying to claim, that current guns are covered under what the authors of the constitution envisioned.

If the second amendment was written with muskets in mind, doesn't that imply the first amendment was written with printing presses and no long range communication in mind?

Your line of reasoning leads to the entire constitution being scrapped.

 

[Evo]

I fundementally disagree with you, while handguns are designed to shoot people, shooting people is not inherently wrong depending on the situation.

The rest of your post is a bit contradictory, if getting shot by someone isn't a problem then clearly there is no need for further gun restriction. People who accidently shoot themselves or commit suicide with guns are irrelevant when comes to passing legislation. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves.

If you don't want to own guns, if you want to place all your faith and power in others to protect and provide for you at the cost of significant freedom I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem when you argue I should follow you.

Read what I posted about fewer people owning guns, but those fewer people own more guns and while deaths due to crime have decreased, deaths by guns have increased. What does that tell you? More guns = more deaths, in the hands of fewer people. That's a fact.

I don't worry about so much about people owning guns that do not own them out of fear, it's the people that own them out of fear that scares me. If you own a gun because you think you need protection in a safe neighborhood, you shouldn't own a gun, IMO. I would like a complete psychological evaluation required before anyone could buy a gun. I think 90% of the people wanting a gun would be denied because they are buying guns for the wrong reason and can't be trusted to be responsible gun owners.

 

[Pythagorean]

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html
OCR

This doesn't answer my question at all. It looks only at the type of resistance given, it doesn't differentiate the demographics of someone who owns a gun, but couldn't give gun resistance, from someone who doesn't own a gun and didn't choose to give gun resistance. So it automatically excludes the measurement of people who own guns but aren't able to get their guns out in time to defend themselves. Especially people with family who can't sleep with a loaded 9mm under their pillow and need a gun cabinet or other safety device.

I'm talking about comparing how often a home has been successfully defended by a gun owner (including cases where the gun wasn't used, as failure to get your gun out is a count against the effectiveness of home defense with a gun) vs. how often people accidentally shoot themselves, family, or friends.

Since having kids, I have put my guns away and have only a baseball bat under the bed. And of course, I've never needed it (despite being in a place with a crime rate 3x higher than the national average). Most victims of break-ins here are themselves criminals (drug dealers or engaged in a long-term conflict).

That's another thing to consider when doing statistics. How many times was a home break-in prevented by a gun, but the break-in was a result of criminal activity on part of the home-owner?

This is an anecdote, but our last two murders in this town were of fully armed military police. Their guns never even made it out of the holsters, their shotguns were still mounted.

 

[russ_watters]

Which difference do you mean though? A gun is a gun. There are not special guns that are designed to kill people as opposed to animals.

Do you recognize any differences between guns intended for different purposes? You are taking an obviously nonsensical absolutist position that says that all guns are identical when they clearly are not.

If you had someone use a sniper rifle to snipe at people, I think you'd most definitely have people in the media questioning why are "sniper" rifles available to people. Who needs a "sniper" rifle? And so forth. That is why I cited it.

Fair enough, but since none of the mass-murders of the type that happened a couple of weeks ago used either sniper weapons or tactics, that's not an issue I am interested in discussing here. In fact I'd say it is so rare as to be irrelevant (uncommon example: DC Sniper).

The appropriate term for the guns the gun control people want to ban, IMO, would be "scary-looking guns," as that's all they ultimately are. Calling them "assault weapon" makes it sound like they're some official type of gun or something.

The intent is to give them an appropriate name. You've taken a position that the gun type doesn't exist but that clearly is not true. The differences are real and you've even accidentally cited several. Let me be clear:

Do you acknowledge that the guns typically used for hunting and the guns typically used by infantry are different guns?

Again, then name is not really an important issue. The issue is that the guns are a type of gun that civilians should not have. If you want to call them "scary looking guns", fine: we can just ban "scary looking guns". Do you agree or is this all just a word game to you?

My understanding is the Founders intended...

Regardless of what the founders intended, in the modern age it is not possible for a lightly-armed populace to overthrow a the government of a developed nation. Overthrowing such a government requires military-grade weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars and attack helicopters. So we are left with two choices: allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts or make restrictions that ignore the issue of fighting against the government.

Look at Syria, where Assad has been using battle tanks, attack helicopters, bombs, artillery, infantry, etc...and still can't put down the resistance.

No.

The Free Syrian Army may have limited resources, but it still has anti-aircraft missiles, artillery and armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

And it isn't a coincidence that they better they do, the more military-like their weaponry gets.

I think that, at this point in history, it's a very minor concern. But I do not think anyone can predict the future, especially long-term.

I think the advancement of technology, not the retreat of technology is a relatively safe bet.

 

[CAC1001]

Do you recognize any differences between guns intended for different purposes? You are taking an obviously nonsensical absolutist position that says that all guns are identical when they clearly are not.

Guns are pieces of machinery that are designed to let a person kill something. There is no difference between a "weapon of war" and a "hunting rifle," unless one is talking machine guns. Otherwise, a gun is a gun.

Fair enough, but since none of the mass-murders of the type that happened a couple of weeks ago used either sniper weapons or tactics, that's not an issue I am interested in discussing here. In fact I'd say it is so rare as to be irrelevant (uncommon example: DC Sniper). The intent is to give them an appropriate name. You've taken a position that the gun type doesn't exist but that clearly is not true. The differences are real and you've even accidentally cited several. Let me be clear:

Do you acknowledge that the guns typically used for hunting and the guns typically used by infantry are different guns?

Nope. Guns used for hunting and guns used for infantry are historically the same weapon and in modern times can easily be the same weapon. Manufacturers design certain rifles today that are only intended to be used for hunting, such as certain bolt-action rifles as infantry do not use bolt-actions in modern times except as a sniper rifle, but if you took one of these modern bolt-action hunting rifles back to World War I or before, there is no reason it could not be adopted as a military gun. Just the same, there is no reason why modern infantry rifles cannot be adopted for hunting purposes.

Shotguns, for example, are used across-the-board, in everything from hunting, to home defense, to military, to law enforcement, to sport shooting.

Again, then name is not really an important issue. The issue is that the guns are a type of gun that civilians should not have. If you want to call them "scary looking guns", fine: we can just ban "scary looking guns". Do you agree or is this all just a word game to you?

What specifically is it about them that makes them guns that civilians shouldn't have? Because they are high-powered guns? They aren't. Because they are automatic fire capability? They don't. Because they have some special enhanced ability to kill? They don't. They aren't even a "type" of gun, just a random name given to whatever the gun control proponents think looks menacing enough.

Regardless of what the founders intended, in the modern age it is not possible for a lightly-armed populace to overthrow a the government of a developed nation.Overthrowing such a government requires military-grade weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars and attack helicopters. So we are left with two choices: allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts or make restrictions that ignore the issue of fighting against the government.

No.

The Free Syrian Army may have limited resources, but it still has anti-aircraft missiles, artillery and armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

And it isn't a coincidence that they better they do, the more military-like their weaponry gets.

As said, I believe a lightly-armed populace could overthrow the government of a modern nation for the reasons I stated (Syrian example, Chinese government watching its people closely). And yes, the better they do, they capture the weapons the military is using. The same would probably happen in this country if such a resistance against such a government ever broke out and the resistance was winning.

But that said, even if we theorize that your opinion is correct and the idea of arms ownership for resistance to a tyrannical government is completely obsolete now, and one just would want guns for self-defense and/or hunting, I still see no reason why one should not be allowed to own these guns. There is nothing special about them in comparison to any other type of gun one can buy.

We do not allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts. The guns people can buy are regulated by thousands of laws as is, automatic fire weapons are outlawed for the most part, and other military weapons are flat-out outlawed.

 

[JustaThinker]

Silly Americans. No guns. No gun crime. A punch in the nose every now and then is worth much more then losing your family. Just get rid of the guns. As if anyone is going to attack you with 6 billion nuclear weapons...

 

[MarneMath]

Here is the issue I really don't understand. Why should the gun regulation only be stopped at full automatic? What makes a full auto so much more dangerous than an Ar-15 with 30 round quick release mag, ACOG, with hollow point rounds?

 

[Pythagorean]

because the country's divided nearly in half and little wins are perceived as meaningful for one group.

 

[Evo]

because the country's divided nearly in half and little wins are perceived as meaningful for one group.

and because completely outlawing guns in this country would be impossible at this time, but limiting the types of guns and making it harder to get guns is a realistic goal.

 

[jtbell]

Also known in another context as "bending the curve."

 

[Pythagorean]

...but limiting the types of guns and making it harder to get guns is a realistic goal.

Well, that's what one side of the argument, an example of perceiving a small win was meaningful. The other side of the argument is that it's not a realistic goal.

I think most evidence points to what you've said, but I don't really know so I was trying to remain neutral until some relevant evidence is produced. I remember it (banning guns) went well for Australia.

 

[Evo]

Well, that's what one side of the argument, an example of perceiving a small win was meaningful. The other side of the argument is that it's not a realistic goal.

I think most evidence points to what you've said, but I don't really know so I was trying to remain neutral until some relevant evidence is produced. I remember it (banning guns) went well for Australia.

Australia didn't have the powerful NRA lobby in all of its politicians pockets, pulling their strings.

 

[Pythagorean]

I mean I believe gun crime actually went down (i.e. Australia is a valid example for gun ban working).

 

[CAC1001]

Australia also had a smaller proportion of their population owning guns then the United States, and their overall population is a lot smaller than the U.S.'s (22.6 million versus about 300 million).

Australia didn't have the powerful NRA lobby in all of its politicians pockets, pulling their strings.

One thing to remember about the NRA though is that it gets its influence from all the people that support it. It is not a lobbyist of the gun industry as many think, as gun manufacturing is too small an industry to have the kind of influence in Washington that the NRA has. So I'd say the difference is really that Australia didn't/doesn't have a large number of citizens who care about gun rights the way the U.S. does.

 

[Evo]

Australia also had a smaller proportion of their population owning guns then the United States, and their overall population is a lot smaller than the U.S.'s (22.6 million versus about 300 million).



One thing to remember about the NRA though is that it gets its influence from all the people that support it. It is not a lobbyist of the gun industry as many think, as gun manufacturing is too small an industry to have the kind of influence in Washington that the NRA has. So I'd say the difference is really that Australia didn't/doesn't have a large number of citizens who care about gun rights the way the U.S. does.

But not that many americans actually own guns, gun owners are in the minority opposed to non-gun owners. I have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans are not against guns, as in I believe that the "polls" are not real.

"There is a myth pushed by the gun industry, the NRA and the trade associations for gun makers that gun ownership is up," he said. "[That] there are more gun owners, when the opposite is true, gun ownership is declining."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

According to the last gallup poll, only 30% of American adults claimed to own a gun.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

The support the NRA claims is not there. I believe that if it was left up to the American public, no politicians or gun lobbies involved, we would ban guns.

 

[JustaThinker]

Are you people crazy? No guns at all. Supermarkets provide food. America's army kicks everyones arse. If a criminal comes at you with a knife, just swing a baseball bat. That's what we do in Australia. NRA? When will you Americans wake up and recognise that you are not a democracy. You are a cash-ocracy. The middleclass is so sleepy in the US. The middleclass in Australia runs the country not the rich, we are a democracy. Try and get a free gun law passed in Australia and you go on the terrorist list...

 

[CAC1001]

But not that many americans actually own guns, gun owners are in the minority opposed to non-gun owners. I have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans are not against guns, as in I believe that the "polls" are not real.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

According to the last gallup poll, only 30% of American adults claimed to own a gun.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

IMO, if they were, I think we wouldn't have any problems with passing more restrictive gun laws and the NRA wouldn't have the influence it has (had?). Also according to Gallup, support for a hand gun ban is at an all-time low: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx More are against than for an Assault Weapons Ban, albeit by a small margin: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx However, a majority support background checks and 62% are for banning magazines of more then ten rounds.

The support the NRA claims is not there. The support the NRA claims is not there. I believe that if it was left up to the American public, no politicians or gun lobbies involved, we would ban guns.

Well a real-world experiment with it is likely going to occur soon when Feinstein introduces her "Assault Weapons Ban." But as far as I can tell, groups like the NRA are the American public. Gun manufacturing is a $12 billion a year industry: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=662 That's too small to have any kind of real lobbying power. Exxon-Mobil, as one company for example, had revenues in 2011 of about $483 billion. Wal-Mart, one of the top lobbyists in Washington, had around $450 billion. Industries like that, that's real lobbying power.

 

[Evo]

IMO, if they were, I think we wouldn't have any problems with passing more restrictive gun laws and the NRA wouldn't have the influence it has (had?).

Well a real-world experiment with it is likely going to occur soon when Feinstein introduces her "Assault Weapons Ban."

Not really, politicians fear the NRA and gun groups, as was cited in the article I linked. There won't be a popular vote by the people.

 

[CAC1001]

Not really, politicians fear the NRA and gun groups, as was cited in the article I linked. There won't be a popular vote by the people.

One thing to also remember is that even if the popular vote was for banning guns, that still isn't supposed to be allowed as it is considered that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms (I know you'd say it should be amended in that sense, but just saying regarding the current way it's written).