"No one has any reason to be nervous about the government turning on them?" Pardon me if don't climb aboard that particular bandwagon of government boosterism anytime soon. ;-=)

Remarkable how often that sentiment comes from the same people who think Trump is literally Hitler.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yeah. Remarkable, isn't it? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Good lord. When you start your heartfelt assertion with such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the issue?

GL defending your home with your semi automatic revolver handgun in this new safety State you envision.

Now please let me caution you. It's YOU that is entering into a conversation about types of firearms; their use and utility. i am in no way denying how heartfelt your assertions are or you deeply you feel about them.

/r

---

Steve

From the people that actually live in the northern- eastern most states we have the most liberal gun laws in the country it’s the states that are to the south and west of us but in close proximity that you may be referring to…

This is patently incorrect.

Australia has seen a relatively constant decline in gun homicide deaths over the last 20 years, to be consistently less than half the rate of 1996 pre-reform levels for the last 10 years.

And not one mass shooting since the 1996 gun reform.

Here's a lengthy, but well-researched and comprehensive article, so you may wish to just scroll down to the graphs.

http://www.abc.net.au/...-port-arthur/7254880

Are we concerned with murder, or just murder with guns? Is killing with a gun better or worse than murder by other means?

Well, it is a gun thread taking about amending gun legislation it's potential effectiveness in limiting shooting deaths, so yes, I thought that was the general concern raised by the thread.

But, yes, since you ask Australia's overall homicide rate is fortunately also showing a declining trend.

http://theconversation.com/...homicide-rates-79654

my solution, formulated over the years, goes --

allow unlimited purchases for 5-10 years
immediate limit /ban sales of all devices to increase firing rate
limit magazine capacities progressively down to 1-2 rounds for all future weapon sales after the 5-10 year implementation
highly tax purchases of weapons
progressive increases in ammunition taxes
introduce progressive bans on all firearms parts sales over 10-15 years
require high limit liability insurance on all owners

upshot would be increasingly expensive to own,
gradual attrition rate of weapons and parts,
lawsuits to discourage ownership,


Prolly take about 50-75 years and by then many will be unserviceable or so fucking expensive to have, would become slowly unpopular to own
(and all the current gun fetishists will be long gone)


Lots of holes, but maybe start somewhere, without outright registration, buybacks, confiscation or registration boogeymen.

---

RayGovett
Hughson CA
Be Prepared-- Strike Swiftly -- Who Dares Wins- Without warning-"it will be hard. I can do it"

LOVE the second amendment. Unfortunately those who conceived it, had no idea what the following, less and less smart generations would abuse it for:

Killing each other for no social justifiable reason.

Okay Steve educate me. If you were planning to defend yourself from the very very unlikely home invasion situation and you only had to choose one weapon would you go with a handgun or a semi-automatic long gun?.

If I had a gun in my home for that purpose I would have to keep it secure either by having it locked up in some way or on my person. I can't see carrying a long gun around with me so if I'm in one part of the house and the long gun is in the other I am out of luck. I would think the deciding factor in these altercations would be like a bar fight the person who lands the first punch wins.

That's what my old room mate in med school told me who had been involved in a fair number of bar fights I don't have any personal experience. My home was invaded once in Toronto fortunately I wasn't there it was in the middle of the day. They shouldered the door in I doubt I would have had much chance to respond given it was an 800 sq foot bungalow. I slept with a baseball bat under my bed for the next week.

I would think my chances are better with a handgun than getting semi automatic gun with a large capacity magazine up and going. I would bet that most people who have guns to defend their homes likely have both. I must admit that I have not spent a lot of time thinking about this given I view the risks and hassle of gun ownership to far out weigh the potential benefit for self defense. I used to own guns for hunting but I got busy with other things so I got rid of them.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I have near zero of Steve's experience and knowledge (though I've been a lifelong gun enthusiast), but I always pick a pump action 12-gauge as the home defense weapon.

Few reasons. First, I'm hoping that the sound of pumping a shell into the chamber echoing around a mostly silent house ends the whole thing. Everyone knows that sound - it's a universal sound of warning. And I'd have to think that the sound would cause most just to give up. Anyone who keeps coming at that point has to be super high or super desperate.

Second I have no idea how well I could aim in a time of real danger. Though I've shot countless rounds, never been tested in a real combat-like situation. So I like the simple idea of being able to follow a 2-step process, 1) Are all non-intruders in the house outside 180 degree of my cone of fire? 2) Yes? Fire in the general direction of intruders, if necessary.

Len

I'm not going to even try to tell you what you should adopt for home defense--nor even advocate that you do anything along those lines. That's a very personal decision and one fraught with a lot of weight in terms of consequences.

I'll just mention a couple of the things i typically mention when i do talk to this subject. IF you decide to get a weapon for personal defense.

1. Secure the weapon. It seems morally indefensible to me folks who don't secure weapons and then they get into the hands of criminals or children. You can easily acquire a decent pistol safe (assuming you go with a pistol of some sort; semi auto or revolver makes do diff in terms of the securing of the weapon. These safes can be secured to bedside table and opened biometrically or with key pad. NO they won't stop a determined thief but they will stop a curious child and deter a smash a grab burglar. There are security containers (even furniture designed to purpose) for longer weapons such as carbine length or rifle/shotgun length weapons. IF you were to decide to go down the route of acquiring a weapon for defense--secure it.

2. Practice with the weapon using the type of ammo you plan to use IF you decide to go down the route of acquiring a weapon. This means buying one of decent quality that it can take regular firing of a lot of ammo. Pistols especially are not optimal for stopping folks and much more difficult than movies make it seem. So it takes practice to built the skill set and then maintain it as muscle memory. These means getting a decent weapon that can take the round count necessary to do this. Not some cheap brazilian POS that will start to fall apart after a few hundred rounds.

and no hiding a pistol in the trunk of your car or it's center console is not properly securing a weapon either. Again, there are security containers designed for storing weapons in autos that will prevent a child getting their hands on one and deter/slow down a smash and grab thief.

best of luck on a very personal decision

/r

---

Steve

Below is the data directly from Australia. Variation in homicide but generally trending down since 2003. After everyone lost their guns robbery sky rocketed for about six years.

Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)


Victims of violent crimes, 1996–2012 (rate per 100,000 population)


http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html

That's good advice. I can see from the many opinions on this topic that it will likely won't be put to rest for the foreseeable future. I don't bear any personal ill feeling to people on either side of the debate aside from people who make ad hominem attacks. Even those folks I understand it comes from strong feelings. I think all of us see these mass events and shake our heads in frustration.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Well, then you'll be glad to know, despite the emotional hysteria, that the United States homicide rate is also declined significantly over the last 20 years.

Neither graph you posted supports your assertion that "in Australia homicide rates spiked after the ban and then settled down to pre ban levels"

That is the quote I contested.

The homicide rate has fallen significantly below pre-gun reform levels. Both overall homicide rates and those for gun-related deaths.From the site where those graphs were taken:

"The figure shows that although there have been fluctuations from year to year, the number of homicide incidents has shown a steady decline since the inception of the NHMP in 1989. 2006-07 saw the second-lowest number of homicide incidents in the collection period.
Source: AIC National Homicide Monitoring Program 1989-90 to 2006-07 "

"Spiked", "sky rocket", "everyone lost their guns" . Please, the hyperbole does not match either the statistics, the analysis or the reality.

Yes, that is an encouraging trend. However, unfortunately it is coming from what many consider a disturbingly high baseline.

A huge premise of your plan is

1.) The service life of weapons which you have vastly underestimated. The upper and lower receivers and bolt carrier of an AR-15 don't have known service lives because nobody has ever shot one out. That includes places like Machine Gun Las Vegas where some weapons will see well north of 100,000 rounds per year. Depending on the gas system and the bolt, an AR's bolt can last north of 40,000 rounds. The only thing that will eventually kill the gun will be throat erosion somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 rounds depending on how the barrel was made and the firing schedule. A well made barrel used on a lower pressure weapon like something chambered in 7.62x39 could last well north of 100,000 rounds with a conservative firing schedule.
2.) That people won't make their own replacement parts. Very few parts are "difficult" to manufacture at home for those who desire to do so. So many people seem to think guns come from unicorn factories. Here's a really simple setup for making a barrel, arguably the hardest part of a gun to make (except for the bolt in high pressure weapons): http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...city-3d-printed-jig/

Taxing weapons and ammunition is viable and I'm surprised blue states haven't done this. It's a solution that's just sitting out in the open that magically nobody pursues. Would it accomplish anything? I doubt it. But maybe it will make some people feel good.

I'm sure someone will mention a gun buyback in the U.S. Has anyone fathomed the cost of such a buyback? We're talking well north of $300 Billion.

 
A huge premise of your plan is

Well, that and the fact that phasing in a gross violation of Constitutional freedom isn't really more acceptable than imposing it all at once.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes and no. As many as 80% of the homicides are gang related. 91% of the people murdered in Baltimore had a criminal record. In Chicago it's 83%, Philly it's 75%, Milwaukee 77%, New Orleans 64%. The real problem is gangs. If you remove the gang murders the US has an annual gun homicide rate of 2,200 in a country with 323 million people.

I'll amend my statement from homicides spiked after the ban to robbery spiked after the ban.