highlyeccentric | (no subject)

Port Arthur was the tipping point for Australia, after many years of avoidance by politicians who knew the gun laws needed reform but lacked the guts to do it. The murder of 35 people on one afternoon marked the end of the prevarication. The laws were overhauled with resounding success: annual gun deaths have dropped by half, and we have not had a mass shooting since 1996. An evaluation by researchers at the Australian National University found the laws saved, every year, 200 lives and $500 million.
Other developed countries that have suffered such calamities have also toughened their gun laws. The massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School reprises the tragedy at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland in 1996, where 16 children and their teacher were murdered and 12 more children wounded by a disgruntled man with a gun. The only eventual glimmer of consolation for those grieving families was that Britain reformed its gun laws, and it is extremely unlikely that such a horror will recur in that country.
Commentators in the US are shocked and horrified, of course, but they have come to see mass shootings as an inevitable feature of the American way of life. ''We know it's going to happen again and again," they say, but the experience of Australia shows it doesn't have to be that way.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/will-the-sandy-hook-massacre-be-americas-tipping-point-20121216-2bhfy.html#ixzz2FG9jjArL

I'm absolutely sickened by the number of people trying to assert that now, in the wake of a mass shooting, is *not* the time to talk about gun law reform in the US. Yes, it is possible that people (particularly privileged white male people) might still get hold of guns illegally. It's LESS LIKELY. There is *concrete evidence* that gun ownership restrictions reduce the number of mass shootings. Which, hey, saves money! The US could do with saving $500 million dollars, surely.

As someone was pointing out on tumblr - immediately after 9/11, airport security was rapidly tightened. Why is it not the same with gun laws?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

People do not have the constitutional right to fly (and certainly not to privacy; that's an invention of the Court that decided Roe v Wade, which is self-evidently the worst decision the Court has ever made, see how it brought us ~~many women who are alive/healthy/not in poverty because we have~~ legal abortion); people do have the constitutional right to interstate travel, but cars still work fine.

The right to bear arms, on the other hand, is absolutely not to be infringed upon. How dare anyone suggest a maximum number of bullets per magazine, or a maximum of one gun purchase per person per month, or requiring that someone who wants to be a gun owner pass a gun safety test and get a license the same way someone who wants to be a car driver has to pass a driving safety test and get a license. And of course the Founders never intended everyone who has a gun to have military training and oversight, we have a standing army now, the 'well-regulated militia' part of that amendment is a historical artifact with no current relevance, and never mind that the Founders were very pointed on the subject of not wanting a standing army.

(Somebody pointed out elsewhere that if someone were to found Arab-Americans for an Armed America, the AAAA could have a platform word for word the same as the National Rifle Association and the NRA would still flip their shit over encouraging nonwhite folks to be even more dangerous. Also Florida's Stand Your Ground law, the one that's protecting the white-looking guy who killed black teen Trayvon Martin, did not protect Marissa Alexander, the black woman who shot her abusive husband with the understanding that SYG would be on her side.)

I can grok several arguments re: gun control not being *the most important* solution (mental health resources and research would help a damn lot too), but this is clearly the time to debate ALL of those options.

Yeah. I know.

And there are people suggesting we arm teachers. Because when someone barges into a classroom with a rifle, the teacher will have enough time to get to the gun cabinet keys, get to the gun cabinet, unlock the gun cabinet, remove the gun, get to the ammo cabinet, remove the ammo, load the gun, aim, and fire, all without getting shot the moment it looks like she's going for a weapon. Or, alternately, because it is a really good idea to have loaded guns in easy reach of children and abusive teachers.