Works for me. What are we waiting for?

and then you would have to get all 50 states to fork up a shit ton of money to buy the guns.

That is what we are waiting for.

make the gun manufacturers buy them back....

don't get ahead of yourself.

but you know the ignoramuses are on your side...

I am supposed to get upset about fantasy "solutions" completely divorced from American political and legal reality?

Read the TOS: GD is the Guns Discussion forum, and not the place for prohibitionists to discuss off-beat and peculiar sexual theories and drives. You can post only ANTI-gun stuff, but there are other groups where you can attack other DUers who don't agree with your strange take on sexuality and ordnance.

We're here. You fear. And we'd like to say hello!

Ammosexual is an accurate description for you

If not, how do you know they were dangerous?

Hypocrisy, you has it...

When we have to stretch that far to make a peevish point and pretend to be clever, it's far better we remain quiet than to loudly advertise how absurd our biases often illustrate us...

I had a good laugh at their attempt to make a come back

out of the same tired attempts to equate firearm ownership with some form of sexual perversion. Given the lack of success to date, some may prefer to try some new material.

Sharing lulz with those who already agree with you is much easier
than trying to sustain a political movement, hence the proliferation of
warmed-over Freudian imagery.

an 850 year martial art and gun advocacy

If you've not done anything in real life, then my remark stands...

And as a discussion board I have the right to make observations.

there are some political considerations if we want to go down this path.

The answers to the question 'What makes a politician successful?' were really telling...

in response to this study.

Nothing arguing that the study is flawed in any way (which is what you usually get in instances like this).

Instead, it's that politically this would be unpopular and thus impossible.

Which may well be true. But it's an interesting admission. Essentially, "Yeah, all these guns sloshing through our society definitely leads to more people dying, but it's unpopular to say so, so let it go."

I guess the steady drum beat of mass shootings, homicides and suicides is the price we all have to pay for their "freedom."

I find it interesting that the issue of suicide is an almost an immediate fall-back argument for pro-gunners. Are you implying that the deaths of people who commit suicide are somehow less tragic than others? That their families--the wives and husbands, children and parents--don't suffer as much after a suicide as they might in another type of gun death?

By all means, let's increase our efforts in the mental health field. But, as this study would seem to indicate, reducing the sheer number of guns out there would also help, and, it would seem, help fairly quickly. We can, after all, walk and chew gum at the same time.

Except, of course, we can't. "Freedom," the 2nd amendment, the arms dealer lobby, and folks who just love their hobby so much that nothing else matters, won't permit it.

Which, as I read it, means more people will have to die, needlessly.

Congratulations, NRA, arms dealers, narcissists and enablers! Mission Accomplished.

yes, the deaths are tragic but they are not the same as someone being murdered.

Why not focus on the demographic that are killing themselves and find ways to identify them and disarm them until they are no longer a threat to themselves?

Focus on ways to disarm people who are an obvious threat to themselves and others, and tighten gun ownership all around.

The Australian gun ban was in response to a man who had no license to own a firearm and wound up stealing a firearm from a secure military or LEO depot anyway. So for that, all Australians had to suffer the new law?

Tonight I will wander around Vivid Sydney among huge crowds,cut across the city to Darling Harbor, and never worry about some idiot with a gun. Oz is big on law that protects my right not to be afraid in my own community. It may feel a little "nanny state" to John and Jane Wayne, but it is just a more clear-eyed way to deal with the hydraulics of crime, power, and want. Trust me, we are not suffering.

Enjoy Vivid. I'm in Canberra and was thinking about heading to Sydney this weekend to see it, coz it looks spectacular

The Opera House is spectacular...especially on the Manly Ferry

My wife visited Sydney and surrounding environs back in 1998. She took lots of pics and brought home some amazing stories. One of these days, maybe I can visit, too.

But the rationale for the gun ban, going to all this trouble because of theft and illegal possession of the murder weapon by some jackass psycho, is what I have issue with. Granted, if I was born Australian, I might feel differently.

How did we all suffer? I remember at the time every single person I knew supported the introduction of gun control laws. I don't remember all of us suffering, not even the guy I knew who had to do the buy-back thing coz he had a weapon that was now illegal. He moaned a bit and complained he wasn't getting what he thought the market price for it was, but the only people who suffered in that case were folk like me who had to listen to him for a few days till he got over it.

You mentioned Martin Bryant stole the murder weapon from some military facility. I've never heard that before and was wondering where you read that. My recollection is that he bought it from a classifieds ad in the paper or from a gun shop. Add the fact that someone who had no gun license could just get something like that so easily is why the gun control laws happened. So now AR-15s are amongst the guns that are illegal in Australia, and there's background checks and waiting periods and stuff for anyone who does want to buy a gun. It's all common-sense stuff to me.

See my post above.

they view it as a personal choice. On the other hand, I think they will support single payer.

There was strong support for gun control laws because there'd been a series of massacres in the years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre. A reduction in suicide rates was one of the effects of the laws, but it wasn't the driving force behind the support for the laws being introduced so quickly after Port Arthur.

so discussing other means to reduce suicides is appropriate.

And the only reason there was support on both sides of the political fence for the laws was because the Port Arthur massacre was the final straw in years of mass shootings.

Is the argument that the introduction of gun control laws should have led to a decrease in arson? Sorry, I don't see any connection between the two.

Let me be clearer for you. When I said there'd been no more mass slaughters since Port Arthur and the introduction of gun control laws immediately after it, I was talking about mass shootings. In the years leading up to it there'd been lots, the Hoddle Street, Queen Street, and Strathfield Plaza being three of the worst. In the nearly 20 years since then, I can only think of one where someone's walked into a public place like a school or a café etc and shot people randomly. And after that one gun control laws were reviewed again and further restrictions introduced.

around gun crime.

As you'll see from some the replies to this OP, here in the good ole USA to right to play bang bang with our toys trumps all.

Hopefully one day it will learn from our reaction to Port Arthur and do something similar. My reaction when reading threads like this to some of the responses generally goes along the line of 'WTF?? You can't be serious??'

of things I want to do before I begin the great dirt nap.

Sensible gun law only adds to the attraction.

All best wishes to you and yours.

I was on a north Queensland cruise last year and there were lots of American tourists on the ship, and the ones I talked to loved it.

Best wishes to you too, and enjoy yr weekend. I'm off to do some Saturday morning lazing around in the sun now for a while

Maybe, maybe not.

On the other hand, less than ten years ago people were arguing that supporting marriage equality was political suicide.

Times change. I'm hoping people will come around on guns, especially as the most rabidly pro-gun folks age out and are replaced by younger people for whom the "right" to hunt and target shoot won't trump the right not to get slaughtered while attending class, going to a movie, hanging out in a mall. Then too, the more rabid gun tactics of recent weeks and months--all the Open Carry Texas nonsense, the "Your dead children don't trump my gun rights" narcissism--will convince more and more people that the status quo is simple insanity.

It's good to have Australia as a model of a "frontier" society that has grown out of gun adolescence.

It will eventually happen here, but I'm afraid only after far more people die by bullet.

it will save many more lives.

preventing suicide is quite frankly not one of them.

But not for single payer.?

while it is virtually certain controlling guns would.

So you need a plan B.

Forcing people to sell their firearms back to the government is a clear violation of the 2A.

Aussies hold out much love for the Yank, but lately I field a lot of questions about our sanity. I cannot explain the 2nd amendment to them in a way that reconciles reason with the gibberish they hear on the news. So I guess I understand how people who worship the Lord of the Flies see the rest of the civilized world as bedlam best address by the most primitive human response. Ignorance and violence go hand in hand. Best not to give it a gun...or parade it in public. It's embarrassing.

Unless the government was going to pay the going market rate for all firearms, some of which would be priced in the thousands of dollars. Less than market rate could be regarded as an "unlawful taking" and a 5th Amendment violation.