Oooh big typographic words!

But yeah, NRA, won't happen. The vast majority of US gun owners (NRA members IIRC) are already in favor of more background checks, it's merely that since the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers, naturally they are against it.

Most gun crimes occur in low income inner city areas. Place a 10 year ban is such area and see what occurs. Allow home/business owners the right to possess guns. Having a gun out side of the home / business would be a violation.

He talks so much sense my head hurts.

In my home country (Australia) we have some pretty good statistics on firearms (and knives, and just about everything actually). Yet they are routinely ignored in favour of the simple solution - to blindly further restrict law abiding citizen's access to firearms. It makes the government look as though they are tackling firearm crime (which in Australia is almost never committed by a licensed firearm owner) even though it has no appreciable effect on firearm crime.

This is happening again right now. After the Lindt place siege last year they held a lot of enquiries. The one on firearms concluded that no further restrictions needed to be made (the gunman had an illegal firearm as those who commit firearm crime almost always do, in this case a pump action shotgun) and that licensing and registration should be made easier. The first thing the government did? Put an import ban on perfectly legal lever action shotguns with magazine capacities of more than 5 rounds, calling them a "dangerous new technology". Firearms owners are expecting (from a historical trend) further restrictions at the National Firearms Agreement review next year.

Once a right is given away it rarely comes back, no matter how badly you want it. So I hope America chooses its path carefully. If I moved there I'd want the right to own firearms and to use them to defend myself (the first of which in Australia has nonsense restrictions, and the second of which is almost totally illegal . Word has it that self defence in the home by firearms will shortly be made totally illegal and if your firearms are stolen you may be charged with crimes committed by those firearms).

If you want to look at what the data says you also have to extend it everywhere (my preferred scenario). And in regards to others aspects of people's lives, I think people won't like the numbers and so will simply ignore the numbers.

Or you get people in America saying "hey look Australia solved its firearms problems by restricting them" - using it as a quasi-statistic. Except:
1. We never had a big firearms problem to start with.
2. We had a linearly diminishing rate of firearms deaths starting well before the restrictions that didn't change with the restrictions.
3. The majority of studies looking at the topic say the restrictions didn't work.

Australia is very similar to New Zealand in every way (and really are hardly like the US), and NZ allow access to all almost all the firearms we banned and yet they have a lower homicide rate by firearm, and a lower homicide rate overall. Basically if America wants a model that arguably works as a template, look at NZ. But probably more important than that, I'd be fixing America's health system, mental health system, and poverty rates first. I bet an analysis will show many incredible flow on effects in American society as a result of doing that.

You do know that in NZ you have to have a firearms licence? And that if you list self-defence as your reason for applying, you will be de used a licence?

One reason for the lack of data is a 1996 bill that stipulated that no CDC funding could be used to advocate or promote gun control. This was vague enough to ensure that research into the effects of gun violence has never been funded since.

Is that a question or a statement (it's worded as a statement, but has a question mark at the end)?

Yes I already knew that. And...? It's no different than Australia in that particular respect. It's an aspect that I would fully expect Americans to rightfully not adopt.

Adding to above NZ allows semi-auto longarms and high capacity magazines for all firearms (basically what Australia has banned from owning), not all firearms need to be registered (unlike Australia), and they have longer licensing periods and yet they have a significantly lower firearms homicide rate and homicide rate overall. America using the NZ model as a template would be a better starting point. I wrote "template" in my previous post, perhaps "model" or "rough guide" would have been better. I don't mean copy it verbatim. I mean use it as a starting point as at least potentially workable.

Are you a citizen of NZ or Aus and are you a firearms owner in NZ or Aus?

It was a question as to whether you knew that.

I live in NZ. I don't currently have a firearms licence, but several of my friends target shoot and hunt, so I'm reasonably familiar with the law.

I think fundamentally the difference is cultural. I've never met anyone in NZ who wants a gun for self defence. If I said I needed a gun for protection, most people here would call me a paranoid nutjob.

*promote because i always enjoy a healthy gun debate.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, September 5th, 2015 10:09pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Australia is the same as NZ in that regard. Apart from a handful of career criminals, I didn't know that any of us thought otherwise.

Sorry, I meant between NZ/Australia and the USA. That wasn't clear from my post. apologies.

The problem I have is his statements about the sides of the gun debate. The pro-gun-control people aren't arguing against all guns. I'm sure a few are, but most are looking for some reasonable controls put on. Closing the gun show loophole, limiting access to assault weapons, limiting magazine size (if you are in a situation where 9 or 12 rounds of .40 caliber isn't going to stop the situation before you can reload a new magazine, then you are a situation well beyond what can be handled anyhow) and tracking data on weapon crimes. All we know right now is that there are 50 or so suicides a day with guns, 30 or so homicides per day (not counting mass shootings) with guns, over 1,000 hospitalizations due to guns (most are accidental, many of those are children), an unknown number of thousands of crimes (robberies, rapes, etc) at gunpoint, and while general statistics like that inform to some extent, we really need more detailed information on those uses to make more informed choices in gun laws... which is basically what he's arguing for, though he doesn't point out that it isn't allowed under present US law as @oritteropo pointed out above.

It would be nice to think that all we need is data to finally put this problem to bed but it's not. All the data in the world and 99.99 % of the scientists to back it up will mean squat to the 'True Believers' on either side of the debate, climate change is a perfect example of that. Funny running across this just after I finished watching Lord of War on Netflix.

@harlequinn

I see the root of the problem in the US simply being existing gun availability (incomparably high to any other developed country) which makes them cheap, plentiful and relatively easily obtained without a license. I'm sure that better mental health and poverty programs would help in the US but those would surely only chip at the problem and many would fall through the cracks. To me, a more trusted, reliable and locally available police force is more the answer. I guess the relative geographic dispersion in the US is a factor here, and probably why guns took off like they did in the first place.

Comparing to here in Australia, I would much rather bans kept a lid on availability so that we never have the problems the US does. Not that any other country is ever likely to match the US (89 guns per 100 people, versus 15/100 here in AU), but better safe than sorry. I think that statistic better than anything describes why so many Americans have the attitude to gun bans of 'well then only the criminals will have guns'. The ubiquity and accessibility is highly apparent in the US, whereas here in AU and probably most parts of Western Europe they are a rarity and that argument seems bizarre.

I agree. NZ is like a control group for our failed laws. It's seems fairly clear that the firearms laws do not have the largest effect.

The things I mentioned earlier and definitely the culture of the people at hand are going to be large contributors.

Another large contributor will be as @RedSky mentioned, the availability of firearms. Although I'm going to guess that it is the rampant availability of illegal firearms that are the issue in the USA. The reality is that firearms are readily available to regular citizens in Australia and they almost never end up being used criminally. And as seen in the NZ example, the types of firearms that are available don't make a difference.

All weapons can be used for assaulting another person. Do you mean semi-automatic rifles similar to AR15s? If so, the NZ example shows you don't need that. They are not the problem.

Many sports require high capacity magazines. In fact the overwhelming amount of bullets fired from firearms everyday is for sport. Why restrict these sports for security theatre? I write security theatre because a magazine change takes less than a second and you're shooting again. It's not going to change the outcome of an active (criminal) shooter who simply pockets multiple magazines. Plus once again the successful story of NZ who passed sensible laws - and didn't restrict semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, yet have crime statistics that are enviable even from an Australian perspective.

I have my doubts as to whether any new laws would change anything in the USA. I don't actually think it's a good solution for them. And constitutionally speaking, more laws are never a good solution (since they restrict liberty).

I think the USA needs a long term societal change, involving fixing many aspects of their society to gradually make things better.

Yes, they are in a unique situation.

I agree that availability in the USA is a major factor but I think it is the availability to people who intend to use them criminally that is the problem (as I believe you alluded to near the end).

The police force is an interesting suggestion. But remember the USA is so very unalike Australia. Historically, you take care of yourself - that's the price of liberty. That's how many Americans want it kept. I don't blame them, every inch you give in to restrictions is almost never given back. Australia is the perfect example of that. In Australia one doesn't ask themselves "is this illegal", you take the default position of everything being illegal and ask "is this legal" - because it's probably not.

Banning particular types of firearms really doesn't work. As above, NZ is a really good example of how Australia's laws aren't making the difference that some politicians suggest they are (which is backed up by the majority of studies that have examined the situation).

I don't think they're a rarity with the ownership rates we have in Australia. It's a very popular hobby.

How do Kiwis generally feel about their police? I'm assuming there's a reasonable level of trust and confidence there.

In the US, most people are afraid of the police, or at least think them too incompetent to be trusted. Now that we are seeing broad, organized criticism of the police we're also seeing an increase of confidence in the police, because there are 2 things we really love in the states: knee-jerk opposition to new causes and dismissing black people.