RE: Why does no one explain the semiautomatic firing mechanism?
You'll notice that this conversation ended when I asked what the plans are for confiscation. I have yet to get someone on the left to admit that they will have to use the guns they want to ban to confiscate them from Americans who will not give another inch. They expect existing military and law enforcement to do it for them, and they are in for a rude awakening. You'll be lucky to get 20% to even carry out the order. Even then, a good SWAT team can only carry out 6 or 7 raids a day before they need to rest. Once the word gets out, the communities they rely on for support will turn against them in a hurry. Here's a news flash: regardless of what the media portrays, the majority of Americans in the "flyover" states will not tolerate the loss of liberty being demanded by large metropolitan cities. The last election should have been a clue.
I recently heard that there are already 15 million AR-15s in the country. And the deputy had a Glock 40. So, the Supreme Court will magically declare both of them exempt from the Constitution? Then all the law-abiding folks would lose their weapons, while the policemen protect us from the law-breakers just like they did in Florida.
Sure. Uh huh.
I still can't grasp the gun-banners' logic.
I also have to agree about the civil disobedience. Confiscation ain' gonna fly in huge swaths of the country. City folks simply don't understand. The 2nd Amendment is foundational stuff. It's not about hunting - it's about freedom. We don't sit like mice and wait for the authorities to show up around here.
That's what sickens me about this Florida event - what an epic failure of authority - and still they want to rely EVEN MORE on the check-suckers, leaving us defenseless.
I can't grasp their mindset - it makes no sense. We've always had guns, always had semiautomatics. How does taking them from law abiding people help? And what the heck is "them" anyway?
Why did it work in Australia?
Are you sure it "worked"?
I hadn't paid any attention to it, so I finally did just now. Wiki says that 1 million additional firearms have been registered since 2012. And how many did they take out of circulation originally?
I'm not sure what "worked". They still had 24 weapons per 100 residents as of 2007, after the second banning in 2003 - plenty enough for a student to get ahold of one, I would guess.
I think it's the culture, not the weapon.
Yes, the culture got tired of people being slaughtered in public places so enacted gun laws that reduced mass shootings to zero. They didn't want to be like the USA. The goal was not to eliminate gun ownership. The goal was to reduce mass shootings. It worked.
But ... they took 700,000 weapons out of circulation, and 1 million have been registered since. So ... there are more guns than there were before.
There's no correlation. What's the correlation? More weapons = no mass murders? That doesn't compute.
It's more important that the culture got tired of people being slaughtered in public places. Trucks have been a popular weapon of mass murder lately. Does it really matter how many people own one? Or what kind?
The statistics make it clear that yes, what can be legally owned makes a difference. The Australians have reduced schoolyard and other mass shootings by reducing the supply of auto and semi auto weapons, while still allowing the other kind, which I don't know what to call them, maybe "slowfire"?
Pretty good model for the USA if we can get past all the misinformation the NRA is feeding us, wouldn't you think?
I'm still willing to respond in good nature, but it looks like we're just talking past each other now.
You've presumed a correlation - that the reason there have been no "mass murders" is because of their buyback program. From that presumption, evidence can be found to support it.
People like myself don't make that presumption. That's the difference. So until your side is willing to drop its preconceived notions, we're just talking to ourselves.
We say maybe it's the family - no fathers anymore.
We say maybe it's the violent entertainment culture.
We say maybe it's the mental health system.
We say maybe it's the very idea that we can rely on govt to protect us.
You say no, it's the scary looking guns.
None of those issues can be solved, so each side simply uses them to polarize, and we repeat what they say to ourselves and each other.
The most frustrating part for me is the insistence that it's something that should be turned over to govt. These horrors are a personal and community issue. They happen and they're terrible. But no amount of government is going to prevent another one. When we depend on govt, we stop paying personal attention, because we FEEL safe. Feeling safe is good, but it's a substitute for being safe.
"Banning" any type firearm will not make us safe, but some of us will feel safer, and that's enough to gain their vote.
I think you also have made an assumption about me, that I'm interested in polarization. Maybe at one time I was. I had been a disciple of the NRA for decades. I gave no quarter to anything that even smelled of "infringement" because me in my purity of ideology would not even consider any common sense gun measures.
I've finally let pragmatism work its way into my thinking, and am willing to see that Australia actually accomplished something. They had numerous mass shootings before their legislation. They have had zero since. I am a Psych major very familiar with statistics and design of studies and how they can be manipulated. If you can show me another reason why Australian kids eating in the lunchroom have much less reason to fear being shot I'm all ears. Until I see reason, I will continue to counter the unreasonable and inaccurate rhetoric of the NRA.
My best to you.