I would have to take exception to that claim, as I have a number of semi-automatic rifles (and handguns) and I've used (for real!) them all (ok, I haven't gotten around to using one of them yet) and despite their apparently having no real use other than killing people, I've killed precisely 0 people with them - and fully expect it to stay that way. There are many hunting-purposed rifles with semi-automatic actions; and many shooting competitions use semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and/or shotguns. This is no doubt not the case in Australia as you point out, but it is the case here. Could it all be done with bolt/lever action rifles, revolvers, and pumps? Yeah, it could. But, we don't gotta.JimC wrote:I would simply have a blanket ban on all semi-automatic rifles and hand guns; pretty well the situation that exists in Oz, with a few carefully regulated exceptions. (and obviously military and some specialised law-enforcement roles)
Nothing to do with whether they look scary, simply that they have no other real use than killing people.[Emphasis Added] Most hunters use bolt action rifles, competition shooting likewise...
I think you are correct that a significant number of Americans would advocate tighter gun control laws, however, not necessarily a majority. And, while some of the gun control advocates would undoubtedly be single-issue voters on the topic, I believe a much larger percentage of the gun control opponents would vote against a candidate on that single issue alone (many of us because we regard it as an indicator of the candidates wider views on personal liberty and responsibility). I found this poll interesting; it is just one poll, with what seems to me a fairly large margin of error, and perhaps other polls disagree: Views on Gun Laws Unchanged After Aurora Shooting.JimC wrote:I wonder what other US forum members think - generally, the ones that have posted in this thread so far are gun owners. Without being sure of the numbers, I suspect there would be a significant number of Americans who would advocate tighter gun laws (not that I think they have any hope of achieving such a goal; alea jacta est...)
I think it was you (perhaps it was BG or FBM - hell, I've driven across a state since I read it) who was advocating stricter controls on purchasing and more involvement of psychological conditions as they pertained to background checks. In a perfect world, I don't think any rational person would oppose such measures, however, we assuredly do not live in a perfect world. For one, the fear of future repercussions might prevent some (esp. veterans returning from war suffering PTSD) from seeking needed counseling for fear it might someday impact their rights. And the fact of the matter is, as many others pointed out, that there is a long history of "reasonable" controls and precautions being turned into unreasonable prohibitions (or outright confiscations - see Hurricane Katrina, Nazis, etc., etc.) when the authoritarian du jour believes they can get away with doing so. One thing that I think all law-abiding gun owners would agree to (and this has already been said in this thread) is that if someone commits a crime with a gun, make them wish they had never laid eyes on that gun, nor the hand with which they wielded it. Make gun crime cost the criminal so much that it isn't worth even considering.
Well, not to nit-pick, but we don't live in a democracy here, by design. Nevertheless, your question is understood. I would point to the expired "Assault Weapon Ban" here in the USA. A majority of the gun-owners in this country felt it was an asinine, unconstitutional (and factually ignorant) abridgment of our rights. However, there were no coup attempts or assasinations, we grumbled and we pissed and we moaned... and we made sure that the politicians who voted for it knew how we felt come the next couple of elections. Which is why there is much less interest in gun control amongst the national politicians these days. One thing is for sure, those bastards may be thick as bricks re: most things, but their sense of career self-preservation is almost preternatural!JimC wrote:What about a situation where a majority of US citizens were to vote for tighter gun control - would you accept the democratic decision?
Oh, I know, I know, it would never happen...I'm just saying what if...JimC wrote:There is a clause in the license about someone being a "fit and proper person", normally a formality...
Victoria Police have decided that being a member of a bikie gang black a Jew libertarian liberal born to immigrants bourgeois whatever out-group we think the most of you will go along with today makes you not a "fit and proper person"...
[EDIT] Not that I oppose cracking down on criminal gangs, but if they are breaking the law, stop them owning a firearm for that. Not because you don't approve of who they choose to associate with. What if the police decide they don't much like your political affiliations or opinions next? It's all good when the next door neighbor you think is a loudmouth lout is getting the boot on his throat...not so much when it's your throat.
