shooting at an oregon community college, at least 10 dead

[The Guard]

Probably cheaper just to buy metal detectors for...everywhere.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You'll get America to use the metric system before it gives up its guns.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Specific types of fire weapons were compulsory acquired, the government reimbursed the gun owners financially, our constitution say the government must provide fair compensation if it is to take something away from someone. You can still get weapons here but you have to go through a series of checks to get a licence, but you can't get the military style guns that you can in the US.

The main difference between Australia and the US is after the Port Arthur massacre in 1997 there was the moral outrage for something to be done, the advantage we had was the local gun lobby here didn't have the voice the one in the US does, as such it was easy for our then conservative government to pass the gun law changes with both sides of politics working together. And they did it in less than 4 months. On top of that, there were politicians who voted to amend gun laws knowing it would cost them their seat in the next election, there was a sense of civic duty by a lot of people during that time, and thankfully they did.

Financial reimbursement you say? That could actually work. But the government doesn't have that kind of money.

 

[Victarion]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566

Some numbers.
300 million guns in the US..why? Because it's a billion dollar industry and they want to make money. They don't care about your children or the avarage American. They just want to make MONEY.

So what if it take 20 years to get to 50 million guns, is that a valid reason not to do it?
The can show starving kids and babies with flies on them, to getr to the public and make them donate money to Africa. Why not show the dead American children on TV and make them turn in their guns?

You would probably still have gun owners that refuse on the grounds that they aren't the ones that were responsible for the shootings.

How did Obama's speech on gun safety go with the pro-gun crowd?

 

[EEK]

You could point to cases where guns are bad, or cases where they save lives. Taking guns away period is not the answer. It's taking them away from the type of people that shouldn't get their hands on them. Need more responsibility in the home too.

 

[KevanG]

I keep pointing to how Canada does it. We have a crapton of guns and we don't deal with this constant BS. We have 30.8 per capita with the US having 88.8 per capita.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You could point to cases where guns are bad, or cases where they save lives. Taking guns away period is not the answer. It's taking them away from the type of people that shouldn't get their hands on them. Need more responsibility in the home too.

...go on?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I keep pointing to how Canada does it. We have a crapton of guns and we don't deal with this constant BS. We have 30.8 per capita with the US having 88.8 per capita.

You also have a completely different culture.

 

[DeadPresident]

You also have a completely different culture.

And therein lies the rub. It's not the guns, it's the society. Fix the society, then the guns don't matter.

 

[KevanG]

You also have a completely different culture.

Exactly...

Change peoples ideas and you can change society. Change society and this **** won't happen.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, at this point the guns do matter.

If you really want to solve this, you have to throw out the Second Amendment. That's a starting point.

I don't see that happening.

I really believe, and granted it is becoming a cliche, but after Sandy Hook, nothing will get done on this issue.

Maybe – and this is a big maybe – if this happens enough, people might finally get so fed up, that slowly, there will be a build up of pro-gun control sentiment.

But I don't think modern-day America has the attention span for that.

 

[DeadPresident]

The guns do matter pragmatically, definitely. But with America's proclivity for violence there will be actual riots, and probably even more violence if people try to regulate guns in any way. America is built on liberty, and apparently even when that liberty impinges on other peoples' safety it's still fine.

The only other thing you can point to is trying to resocialize the disturbing attachment to firearms and violence in general.

 

[KevanG]

So by trying to help control gun violence and protect people, more gun violence will erupt? Go USA.

"We don't want your guns! We just want to stop the random shootings that kill children!"
"They want our guns! Shoot them!"

 

[DeadPresident]

Now what they could do is regulate the absolute **** out of ammunition. Let people own whatever firearm they want, but legally not be allowed to purchase/store more than X conservative amount of ammo.

 

[Victarion]

Then, you will need to consider people that make their own ammo. Which would be covered by the storing X amounts of ammo, I think. How would that be enforced?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let's be honest, most people who shoot a couple of people are not going to create their own ammo.

I mean, by that logic countries like Australia would have significantly more shooting.

Will it happen? Maybe. Will the people who would otherwise go on a shooting spree, much more likely instead try it with a knife and kill significantly less people? Yes.

 

[terry78]

The thing is, every side thinks the other side is just a victim of brainwashing, so this **** goes in circles. Everybody can't be right.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Perhaps both sides need to accept middle ground. Too simple?

 

[Lantern Venom]

You could point to cases where guns are bad, or cases where they save lives. Taking guns away period is not the answer. It's taking them away from the type of people that shouldn't get their hands on them. Need more responsibility in the home too.

There are numerous types of guns that have no place in civilian society. That goes for body armor as well.

 

[Thundercrack85]

As long as guns are legal body armor should be.

 

[Clark-Kent]

 

[jmc]

Financial reimbursement you say? That could actually work. But the government doesn't have that kind of money.

Do you think people would actually go for it if it were feasible? Our constitution says the government has to give fair compensation for any compulsorily acquired property, what ever the property is it gets independently valued too so the odds of getting ripped off are slim.

 

[Clark-Kent]

I wonder if only cops had guns, what would be the long term effects on US citizens?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Do you think people would actually go for it if it were feasible? Our constitution says the government has to give fair compensation for any compulsorily acquired property, what ever the property is it gets independently valued too so the odds of getting ripped off are slim.

Well, sure. People will do anything if you throw enough money at them.

But the law needs to be changed. Which I just don't see happening.

 

[terry78]

I wonder if only cops had guns, what would be the long term effects on US citizens?

We'd feel we were literally living in a police state. Every solution has some argument that can counter it.