I don't know how our party got so invested in a law that it's so completely factually wrong about. The assault weapons ban does not ban semi-automatic weapons like Australia did. It regulates what they can look like.

It's not like the AWB "doesn't go far enough"; it doesn't even go in the same direction as banning semi-automatics. Under Feinstein's proposed new AWB, the gunmaker would have to change the grip shape of the AR-15 and call it by a different name. There's a lot of extreme right-wing "never touch my guns" resistance to it, but also a lot of moderates who don't see why the shape of a semi-automatic rifle matters if people can still buy a semi-automatic. (I have my own idiosyncratic issues with it, particularly with the banning of pistol grips, since they're safer than traditional grips.)

Banning semi-automatics is not my preferred solution, personally, but it at least does what we're trying to accomplish with an AWB and maybe if we came out with that it would scare the GOP into concessions on things like universal background checks and magazine capacity.

That's why they're used on full-auto military weapons. But I agree it's largely a conceptual, semantic, and ineffective fix.

I would support a ban on semi-autos 100%.

and make hip-firing essentially impossible.

But what's more important (to me at least) is that they greatly reduce the number of drops.

I would support a ban on semi-autos 100%

I could live with rescheduling them as Title II Class 3 weapons, like machine guns. Either semi-autos in general or semi-autos that accept detachable magazines (the latter is more likely to pass). Particularly if we allowed a streamlined "mini FFL" process for people who want to keep but not resell them.

There's still the problem that this is about 2/3rds of the guns currently owned, and basically every gun sold over the past two decades, but there are ways to deal with that; even 50% compliance would be a good thing.

and what happened 18 years before that they compared 10.5 years to 18?

Current Australian homicide rates have fallen 44% from the year before their almost total gun ban. Well done!

Meanwhile the US with tens of millions more guns and a massive shift towards legal carrying in public? Homicide rates have fallen 41% in the same time. Ermmm...damn you for failing so miserably I guess.

Murder victims die just the same regardlss of collocation with others.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls

"After the introduction of gun laws, a significant downward trend was evident in total homicides, and the ratio of pre-law to post-law trends differed statistically from ‘‘no effect’’ (p = 0.01, table 3). We conclude that the data do not support any homicide method substitution hypothesis."

Guns are the favored method for killing people, period. There's a reason.

I haven't seen that one.

Mass shootings = 0.

Speaking of reading, have you even cracked the source in OP?

Didn't think so.

There was a mass shooting at Monash University in the last decade, and a mass murder by fire of 15 backpackers in a hostel. So the number is not zero.

I would favor a ban if it saved one life.

Two people dead is not a 'mass shooting'. And what does a fire have to do with gun laws?

They pretty much outlawed everything semiauto.

Assault weapons are a very small portion of american gun crime. Semiautos are a very big portion.
Therein lies the difference of the effeciveness of what austrailia did versus the impotence any proposed US AWB.

than it was before they banned semi-autos. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Something like that would either require a strict reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment (only constitutional-era technology is covered) or the actual repeal of the 2nd amendment. I believe the former action would be foolish to pursue (do you want constitutional-era only precedent applied to the rest of your rights?) and the latter action is simply not possible (too many red states to repeal).

Circumstances change things.

Nothing stood in his way then, one month ago, or today. Nor are any of those orders constitutionally questionable. There's quite a few of legal hurdles to simply ban semiautomatic guns - and those hurdles aren't going away anytime soon. The circumstances that need to change deal with the constitution which, thankfully, requires quite a bit of effort and/or a great majority of public approval to change.

Apples are fruit; oranges are fruit. Likewise, semiauto guns are legal for civilians to own; rocket launchers are legal to own. (Yes, it's not uncommon to find veitnam-era M72 Rocket Launchers at a gunshow)

Take your pick. There's no legal distinction about what consitutes a dangerous "arm" and what doesn't.

It's a wholly arbitrary, non-Constitutional judgement which is nonetheless deemed valid law.

Handguns account for 60% of all homicides

"Other" accounts for 32% of all homicides.


Remember, that an "assault weapon" can be a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. The continued use of "assault weapon" terminology has made the whole thing very muddled.

at the time of the mass shooting, killing 35 people..did their citizens react in any fashion
like ours has since Newtown.

Meaning, did they have any conspiracy nuts spinning the evil government meme, this
was all staged..never really happened type of reaction?


I am concerned about these responses to Newtown..they're alarming and seem to be
one reason the FBI data has 4.7 million new guns on record were sold for the year 2012.

...to understand the common sense of the commons' sense.

non sequitur comic today
http://assets.amuniversal.com/e8cd6ce03c0e01300ca9001dd8b71c47?width=900.0

And not only was Australia's homicide rate rather low to begin with, they also didn't have much death from firearms.


Our non-gun homicide rate is about as high as Australia's total homicide rate.

DRIVE-by shootings in NSW jumped by 41 per cent in the two years to December last year, with about half the 100 attacks occurring in three key areas in Sydney's west, new crime statistics show.

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has released its latest report showing an alarming increase in drive-by attacks.

It comes as Sydney was rocked by five overnight shootings on three homes and two tattoo parlours in Sydney's west.

According to BOCSAR, there were 100 drive-by shootings in the two years to December 2011, up from 71 in the previous period.

About half of the incidents in western Sydney were recorded in three particular regions; Canterbury-Bankstown, Central Western Sydney and the Fairfield-Liverpool areas.

BOCSAR director Don Weatherburn says although the spike in shootings is a serious concern, it's well below the peak of 2002.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drive-by-shooting-up-by-41-per-cent/story-e6frg6nf-1226329985537

Peak of 2002 = 6 years after the change in gun laws.


Over the five years, there were several peaks in drive-by shootings. The biggest peak was in January 2002, where there were about 30 shootings a month, Dr Weatherburn said.

The next peak was in July 2006, where there were about 22 shootings a month. In January 2009, there were about 24 shootings a month, and the most recent peak was in April this year, when there were about 34 shootings, Dr Weatherburn added.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/100-shootings-and-counting-merrylands-tops-driveby-list-20120911-25psc.html#ixzz2IBAlYTlX

That's in sydney alone, you understand...

If your point is that handgun regulation should be tightened as well, I agree.