Welcome back to the discussion, Sparky.
MarkDaSpark wrote:I think the main problem is using "Massacre" and "Mass Shootings" interchangeably.
Okay, but to be clear, the definition they used for both pre- and post-gun control in Australia was the same. It's a misnomer, but they referred to it as "mass shooting." No need to respond to that, as I agree that the two words should not be used interchangeably.
The problem with using the "Australia banned guns, and there have been no massacres, so America should do the same", is that like all comparisons, there are many reasons factoring in, that also affect such items.
I'm not sure who you're quoting there, as I never said that. That sentiment is expressed in the video, but as I have pointed out from the start, I consider the video a starting point for discussion. I am not presenting it as a solution to anything.
Chicago, which seems to have banned most guns, is still one of the most deadliest cities in the world, whereas D.C., which loosened gun control is safer.
To be fair, there's a fairly big difference between a city (or cities) and an entire country. There are also quite obvious differences in the implementations of those bans in Chicago and Australia. Chicago says you can't have certain (most? all?) guns, and will charge you with a crime if you have one. Australia made the penalties quite severe for possession of certain kinds of weapons and implemented a very expensive buyback of ALL such weapons.
And, as Kyle pointed out earlier, it's much easier for Australia to keep guns outside their borders (which are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean) than it would be to keep somebody from carrying guns into Chicago -- on foot, in a car trunk, etc.
Everyone seems to want to ignore the stats. Deaths by firearms are down, and have been going down for years. It's only in the "Gun Free Zones" where it's going up.
Uh, yeah... but areas are generally declared "gun free zones" because the threat of violence (due to socioeconomics and demographics) is higher there already. It's like declaring a crack house a "drug-free zone."
And to correct you, the AR-15 was NOT designed for that purpose. ANY semi-auto rifle can do the same.
I think my meaning was lost. I'm not saying the AR-15 was the most effective firearm made; I'm saying it (as a semi-automatic weapon) is a more effective tool in the hands of a deranged lunatic than (for example) a revolver. You would know better than I, but I was also under the impression that many semi-autos (if not the AR-15) were relatively easy to modify to make them fully automatic.
I appreciate the reasoned responses.