Why America's gun laws won't change (BBC) {Europe asks questions America won't}

[eppur_se_muova]

By Katie Connolly
BBC News, Washington

Since Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, America's cable news channels have been flooded with analysts speculating about why.

They have bemoaned the state of America's political discourse, called for leadership in toning down heated rhetoric, speculated over whether this is a turning point for Barack Obama or Sarah Palin and puzzled over the shooter's mental state.

But one thing that has scarcely been raised is gun control.

In Australia, a 1996 gun massacre in Tasmania promoted a deeply conservative federal government to push for restrictive gun laws.

But here in the US, the only regulatory response so far has been to call for a ban on the sale of high capacity magazines like the sort that Jared Loughner allegedly used in Arizona, enabling him to shoot 31 bullets from a semi-automatic handgun without having to reload.
***
more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12158148




A fairly long editorial, with some historical background -- including legislation that *has* been passed.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. I'm surprised that it mentions the 1993/1994 legislation (Brady Bill & AWB)

And completely glosses over the fact that during and after the 10-year AWB... no conclusive evidence supported the fact that the AWB did ANYTHING to lower crime rates or gun crime. Bush even said he'd sign the bill if it made it to his desk - the AWB died for a reason. It was failure and did nothing. It was a useless "feel-good" law that, by the end of it's life, was completely transparent to the fact that it did nothing to make anything safer. Plus, it lost ALOT of democratics their seats.

I also like ho the BBC says, "For the NRA, that means no limits on access to high-powered weapons..."

I call bullshit. Show me ONE instance where the NRA calls for no-limits access to high-powered weapons...?
Only gun-grabber gernalizations exist to say that the NRA pushes for no regulations of any kind.

[provis99]

3. the NRA's own website is opposed to retrictions on high power .50 calibre guns.

eat crow, now.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=171

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. The BBC said "no limits on access "...

Is the NRA saying that everyone anytime should be able to buy a .50 caliber sans NICS? No. Also, the NRA is also does not lobby for more access to weapons over .510 caliber (such as 20mm rifles or other destructive devices)... which could be considered restrictions on high power guns. The NRA pretty much leaves NFA items and items over .510 alone and doesn't care about those restrictions. So clearly they aren't, at least, opposed to access restricion on some high power rifles. 50BMG appears to their limit they're willing to fight for.

Also, there have been zero reports of crimes committed in the US with these controversial "50 caliber" weapons - ever. Just why are they such a threat again? :eyes:

[Atypical Liberal]

5. The reason the AWB failed.

The primary reason the Assault Weapon Bill failed to be renewed is simple.

It was a law primarily targeted at semi-automatic rifles that look like this:



And the fact of the matter is that all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for fewer homicides annually than do hands and feet. This is per the FBI UCR data.

The fact is, rifles are hardly ever used in crime, primarily because they are not easily concealable.

The second "problem" with the AWB is that you could not effectively ban semi-automatic rifles based on looks, while ignoring functionality. The simple fact is that the above civilian AK-47 is identical in function and ammunition to this one:



Which is just another semi-automatic hunting rifle.

[MiniMe]

2. I think the problem is the definition of deeply conservative federal government in Australia

vs. the definition of a deeply conservative federal government in the US. In the US it means that anybody who can get their hands on a gun can own one.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Some flaws in the article.

Mr. Dizzard is quoted in the article as saying:

""An important thing to understand about American culture is that we tend to place responsibility and focus on individual behaviour rather than think about laws and regulations to affect behaviour," he told the BBC."

In fact, American culture is that we do place responsibility and focus on individual behavior. And as such, we are hesitant to pass laws and regulations that affect people not exhibiting the negative behavior. We do not wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater by passing laws and regulations that the vast majority of firearm owners don't need passed in order to behave properly.

Mr. Webster is quoted as saying:

"Mr Webster says that it is common for people simply not to ask why guns are so prevalent or why mentally unstable people can so easily access them.

Instead, he says, their attention focuses on what was wrong with the individual shooter. Did he have a troubled past or a mental illness?

"Our responses tend to be ones in which we punish the offender and try to enable individuals to protect themselves. But we are reluctant to act collectively to make our communities and our country safer," he said."

We are reluctant to do things to try and make our communities and country safer at the expense of individual liberties. We are unwilling to compromise the rights of the vast majority of sane people for the sake of a few insane people.

"In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which required instant background checks for buyers of firearms at licensed dealers and had been backed by President Ronald Reagan. The next year, Mr Clinton successfully pushed for a ban on the manufacture and importation of assault weapons.

That bill expired in 2004 but, had it still been in place, it is unlikely the Arizona gunman would have been able to walk into a sports store and purchase the high capacity magazine he used on Saturday."

This is completely false. The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban high-capacity magazines. It simply banned the manufacture of new ones. Old ones were grandfathered in, and since there were massive supplies of them, availability was not affect at all, save for an increase in price.

"The NRA has a large, extremely well-funded political lobbying operation - deeply supported by weapons manufacturers - that will not brook any infringement on the constitutional right to bear arms.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

demonise their opponents and whip their base into a frenzy about this issue... How are the voices of reason and moderation supposed to battle that kind of opposition?”

End Quote Saul Cornell American history professor

For the NRA, that means no limits on access to high-powered weapons, no limits on the number of guns an individual can purchase, no waiting periods for prospective gun owners, and so on.

The organisation has an enormous capacity to run political ads for and against candidates, based on their gun politics.

Mr Cornell says that it also has a very loyal core of members who care about firearm freedom above all else. Passions mostly run higher among the gun owners than the regulators.

"They demonise their opponents and whip their base into a frenzy about this issue. They bring up all these fears and anxieties about safety and government. How are the voices of reason and moderation supposed to battle that kind of opposition?" he asks."

This is precisely why I am a member of the NRA. Voices of reason and moderation should be able to win any kind of battle with facts, or at least a motivated base. But they don't have the facts, nor a motivated base, and so they consistently lose.

[john donathon]

7. Sorry i must of forgotten,

But why do i need to give a sh*t about the fact that Europe cant understand why we are given the right to ownership of firearms. It is quite simple why they don't understand it, it is because they don't know what it is like to have the right to defend themselves, or gun ownership.

[benEzra]

8. "Assault weapons" are legal for lawful civilian use in much (most?) of Europe.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/139

A lot of people (including the BBC) seem to forget that the UK is not synonymous with "Europe" at large, and the gun laws of the UK and Australia are extreme even by most European standards.

[Leftist Agitator]

9. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And it says that for some good goddamned reasons too.