Ok, we all have to agree, the NRA is never going to ban guns, so what is the long term solutions?

1) Tax bullets (make them $10 a shell) this will discourage a lot of people on wasting bullets and will fund a new education program, that it is ok not to have a gun

2) Each state has only one retail outlet to sell guns, so instead of Walmart and the local grocery store selling to anyone. That retail outlet (owned by the government) is the only place you can buy guns and bullets

3) applying for a gun takes at least 4 weeks wait with a compulsory exam on gun safety and mental health check. No pass, no gun

4) voluntary buy back (funded by tax on bullets)

5) National gun register

6) Increase jail time for anyone found with an illegal gun (and laws that stop lawyers from convincing judges that their client didn't mean to kill those people) by advertising lawyers names who argue for softer gun penalties

7) massive advertising campaign on gun violence funded by tax on bullets (I'm sure a clever advertising agency can convince millions of people to buy fatty hamburgers, they can convince millions to hand in guns,) "It makes you a proud American to have a safer future for our children"

None of these points in the short term will help gun violence , but look how smoking is no longer acceptable, Governments can do something, that still allow you to own a gun.

kirby483,

All that is needed is to change the US Constitution, never mind the social engineering, just ask the people and accept their democratic decision.

But Is mise,
that's the problem most Americans would vote to keep gun laws as is,
they need a strong education program before changing the constitution

The few who protest and complain are in the minority and the powerful gun lobby keep giving millions to democrats and republicans.

Even in Australia, look how many changes in our constitution has happened in 118 years? Just two.

Sorry I just googled successful changes in the Australian constitution and there has been only eight,(not two)
44 have been voted down

"Tax bullets (make them $10 a shell)"

You're thinking too small. Make it $5000 per bullet.....

http://youtu.be/Db0Y4qIZ4PA?t=192

Afraid the set out idea is good but the will to get it done is weak to not existing
The current ruling party is the property of the NRA Americans in numbers big enough to stall change, are stuck in a constitution badly in need of change
Sadly if the Democratic candidate who runs against Trump make it his her policy to change gun laws millions will be given to Trump to fight him/her
America has year by year become a B Grade Movie with a C Grade script

1, 2 and 5 breach the constitution which makes 7 n/a.

1 - Drastically overtaxing bullets (however creative) would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

2 - Again, restricting retail sales outlets would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

5 - Once more, A National Gun Register would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

* It doesn't recongnise a right to keep and bear arms IF you sign up to the National Gun Register;
- It just recognises a right to keep and bear arms.

7 - Impose a tax on the bullets is a grey area, especially if used as a means to forward an agenda that seeks to remove rights enshrined in the constitution.

That leaves 3, 4 and 6

3 - You can impose the wait but even that's a kind of grey area, but you can't impose the mental check because it would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

* It doesn't recongnise a right to keep and bear arms IF you pass a Mental Health check;
- It just recognises a right to keep and bear arms.

4 - You could offer to voluntarily buy back the guns, but you probably wouldn't be able to buy them back faster than new ones are being manufactured and sold. Also it would only remove guns from law abiding gun owners, not criminals, and thus potentially lead to more crime with an unarmed populace.

6 - Send people to jail for longer for just having a gun?
- As opposed to firing a gun?
- As opposed to harming someone with a gun?
- Potentially in self defense?
- When it's already a right enshrined in the constitution and any other laws restricting that right are essentially unconstitutional?

[Cont.]
Is Mise's suggestion that to change the constitution is probably the only real way that you could do it, be even that's a grey area because your essentially still taking away something that is considered to be a 'right';
- As opposed to a 'privilege'.

Finally, a large part of the US is lands which are heavily vegetated and contain many predators, and guns are essential.
Many places you would be extremely foolish with your own life to go into the woods unarmed.
Removing guns from these people is probably both unrealistic and impractical, as it would put their lives and the lives of their pets and stock at risk.

I support your efforts in trying to find ideas to problems.
I hope my criticism does not detract from future contributions.

Dear Kirby483,

Good suggestions.

Well done.

Keep them coming.

Belly,

"America has year by year become a B Grade Movie with a C Grade script"

Is that why the number of guns in civilian hands is going up and crime is coming down?

More guns mean less crime.

In Australia also the number of guns is going up and the crime rate is falling.

Kirby calls it an education program, but as it is designed to achieve Kirby's desired option, it can only be called a brain washing program. Nasty stuff brain washing Kirby, you have no right to try to inflict your ideas on others by attempting such a technique.

You are not going to get the guns off the yank citizen. They are damn well aware that the only safety against a wrong headed government is a well armed population.

The only reason we could stop the Japs on the Kokoda trail was because the kids enlisted in the malattia who were chucked in less than half trained could already shoot, & shoot straight. With the citified petals of today, the Japs would have been in Brisbane before we could have got men back from the middle east.

"just ask the people and accept their democratic decision."
yup.
The only solution is machine guns mounted with CCTV in all marts , gas stations and liquor barns. Each school-room and pool-side, National Guard drones and 2 each law enforcement officer's tank.
1 warning shot , 500 HE rounds.

The US is split on guns. It's not in favor for guns or against guns, but has 2 counter cultures butting heads on the issue. Doing so to the point that no solution can proceed because the other group opposes that direction of action.

That's the main issue. Not the pro gun stance, or the anti gun stance, but that because of both of the group's no action to fix the proplem is made.

Here's a possible solution that I hope will happen some day soon through.

Ban military grade guns from being sold and in the public. There is no reason for a person for self defense, or for protecting their land away from the cities, to have anything of a military grade weapon.

Not_Now.Soon,
Spot-on !

Ise Mise please give reference to your quoted claims
Tell me what evidence you have from what place
I wait for your detailed answer

Now Not Soon

"Ban military grade guns from being sold and in the public. There is no reason for a person for self defense, or for protecting their land away from the cities, to have anything of a military grade weapon."

What do you mean by military grade weapons.

What would you do about sporting firearms that are adopted by the military because they are superior to military weapons?

Belly,

Guns in the USA,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Falling crime rates in the USA,
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

Guns in Australia,
http://theconversation.com/australias-gun-numbers-climb-men-who-own-several-buy-more-than-ever-before-58142

Falling crime rates in Australia,
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

So there you have it, in both countries, the number of firearms in public hands has increased and the crime rates have gone down, indisputable proof that more guns mean less crime, and a direct contradiction of the gun control activists mantra that more guns mean more crime.

Has been,
it is not brain washing, its just common sense,

look how smoking rates have come down, by a combination of high taxes and education (TV ads)

Our road toll has come down by TV ads saying slow down and wear seat belts

Our domestic violence rates have come down due to ads on TV saying it is not OK to bash your wife

So, why cant we have an education program on the benefits of not having a gun.

By all means if you want to have a gun, have one, but be educated on the safety of having one, the cost and the consequences of accidents

Americans will always have guns, but I don't like seeing everyday another mass shooting in the USA and the government making weak excuses (he was a loner, his mummy didn't take him to the zoo, a girl laughed at him, his employer sacked him for being lazy, he wanted his 15 minutes of fame, all weak excuses) and no Answers to the growing problem

You can all go back and forth on the ethics of gun ownership but you must accept the reality of this situation:

Hasbeen's right.
'You are not going to get the guns off the yank citizen. They are damn well aware that the only safety against a wrong headed government is a well armed population.'

The US is headed towards economic collapse, and the government will make a move for gun control prior to this.

- And if I were in the US, I'd support non-compliance.

"Ban military grade guns from being sold and in the public. There is no reason for a person for self defense... "

Try telling that to the families of the dead.

"...or for protecting their land away from the cities, to have anything of a military grade weapon."

You heard of bears, wolves, mountain lions, coyotes and bobcats?

The second amendment states '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.'

In those days 'regulated' meant 'accurate weapons'

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of 'a well regulated militia' means the citizens are entitled to the same weapons as the military, because the purpose of the second amendment is the 'ulimate checks and balances on a tyrannical government'

These rights existed from after they were ruled by the Brits and kicked them out.

Nothing that happens in Australia or is said in Australia is going to have a bearing on what happens in America. Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms; there is no getting around that. They have had that right for a very long time, and mass shootings are relatively recent occurrences. Americans are the only ones who can solve the problem for themselves; it's a people problem not a gun problem.

Australians should be paying more attention to what is happening in Australia rather than jabbering about another country's problems. The Australian media should be getting off its arse and looking for stories that effect Australians instead of saturating the air waves with sensational foreign events that have have become common every day events. Mass shooting stories beyond our borders are getting boring.

"So, why cant we have an education program on the benefits of not having a gun."

Why can't we have the opposite as well?

Ever court sitting day ferrals line up to be fined for being? feral
IF we had American gun laws they may well have guns
Even trying to avoid that truth, and some are, most of us are quite happy with our current laws
The gun supporters will never ever change that

Australian gun laws are only tough on the sane gun owners ! There's no justification for automatic assault rifles !
I'd be quite happy with a single shot .410 handgun but it's so much hassle that I simply give up on the idea. If my personal safety is no reason then sport shooting is no reason at all.
If you do bush walking or crawl around jungle then personal safety IS an issue to me. How dare some lefty bureaucrat who only goes to basket ball can tell me what's safe for me or not.
Come with me & let me see how you deal with an angry sow & piglets.

Belly,

I'm happy with our current gun laws except for a few bureaucratic absurdities.

As I said earlier, shooters have benefited greatly from the laws, the Government said that range attendance was compulsory so had to provide ranges, there are now more firearm ranges than pre 1996.

The Government also said that licenced shooters had to belong to clubs, so the clubs are doing nicely under the new laws as well.

More and more people are taking pistol shooting and the pistol clubs are flourishing as are all the other disciplines.

Inverell shotgun and small bore ranges are a case in point, I drove past there this afternoon and the place has had a complete makeover, it appears that only the new fence now needs to be installed; don't know the cost as I don't shoot there.

All in all the gun laws are a great success, except that they have no effect on criminals.

Kirby just because it is your idea does definitely not make it common sense. Taking guns off honest citizens has absolutely no effect on the nutters or the criminals.

As for training, as a 16 year old kid underofficer of school cadets, & was in charge of a platoon of 30 kids I had trained in the safe use of WW11 303 rifles, when shooting on the rifle range.

When not more than a kid I was given a fighter aircraft, armed with 4 machine guns, & 8 rockets to use to defend my country if required.

When not much older I was trained as the officer of the watch, & given charge of a Daring class destroyer, armed with 6 of 4.5" guns capable of sinking quite large ships.

I along with many ex service men take offence when told we should go & be trained in handling a gun by some civilian.

I need more than a .410 Individual. In the wisdom of people like Kirby, & ridiculous council bylaws, I have to keep my dog locked up at night. Thus he can not defend my young stock from the packs of wild dogs that regularly roam most country areas. Pity the council don't keep them locked up. I need a rifle with a very good scope, capable of taking out a dog at 200 metres if I am to protect a young foal.

I have been lucky, & have not had to put a round through a rifle in almost 3 years, some of my neighbours not so. One lost 2 sheep & an alpaca a few months back. He got one of those herd guard dogs that live with the stock, but was told he has to lock it up at night too. The sheep & alpaca now spend the night in the house paddock with the dogs. It is murder on his wife's roses, but the stock are safe.

God I get sick of city folk, with no idea of which way is up, thinking they have the answer to everything.

To Is Mise. You asked earlier:

"What do you mean by military grade weapons. What would you do about sporting firearms that are adopted by the military because they are superior to military weapons?"

I don't know where to draw the line but a line should be drawn. Perhaps military grade weapons is the wrong term, nonetheless one issue is rapid firing weapons with large clips and magazines of ammo. The debate for and against gun use and gun rights ranges beyond mass shootings.

From stats saying gun ownership is the biggest threat for families and accidental shootings (being a bigger population harmed then mass shootings), one side largely from city dwellers is a ban on all guns. The other side of the arguments is for hunters and those living in the country far from the city, where they should be able to protect themselves and their property. Both sides of the debate have merit in where they come from regardless of their conclusions for trying to ban guns, or to support guns.

That said, there is the middle ground where reality lives in the US. If the whole country isn't going to ban guns then that only puts an increased danger in the areas that have put restrictions on guns. (Because someone can easily obtain a gun somewhere else then move to those areas to either have their own gun illegally, or to sell them to criminals who will have no resistance from the harm they give). Anything less then a nation wide gun ban that harms those in the country only adds to the ability for continued mass shootings.

With that in mind one easy answer is to limit the power of the guns. There is no reason to have a high powered rifle that can shoot quickly and has a lot of ammo. Not for protection, nor for hunting. The only reason for it would be for gaining an advantage in urban warfare or in mass shooting. Neither reason should be encouraged. (Sporting firearms is no excuse in light of the problems that have terrorized the US).

To Kirby.

There is one thought on education that your overlooking. Instead of educating people on the harms of guns as a means to overcome the debate and indoctrinate the anti gun stance, gun education can happen as a nation wide program on gun safety and gun use.

Such a class will have the opposite effect as your idea of education through the media, because it will increase the gun sales and use with an informed population on how to handle a gun.

None the less the lack of education on gun safety and use creates a problem of people getting guns that don't know how to use them, and don't respect them enough to practice safe use. With a better education on guns it may even cause fewer people to use guns as a means to vent their frustrations in a mass shooting.

So with that in mind I agree to the idea of gun education. Just not the education you meant through media campaigns.

Must disagree with the people are the reason gun murders take place
Yes true of America but not in other western countries
America Isn't the United country it claims to be, has never been
The murderers are full of hate for other Americans'
Americas problem is America

Hasbeen,
Of course in your situation a .410 would only result in vermin laughing at you. Its all a matter of need in particular situations. That's what the Gits will never comprehend.
I would love to show some of them around in country with no phone signal, no street signs, no takeaways, no disco etc. An hour with the sandflies would have them screaming & pleading for a gun !

Not_Now.Soon,

There are bolt action rifles that can be fired faster than some semi-automatics and the humble double barrel rifle or shotgun can fire very rapidly.

As for magazines, the difference in rapidity of fire between a 10 shot and a 20 shot is the two seconds, or less, that it takes to change magazines.

kirby483

your suggestions are not 'great' as some mis-informed, naive types will want to believe.
It is short sighted and un-informed to suggest all these stupid patronising actions you suggest that we should adopt.
Mate, if it becomes patently clear to everyone that someone is bad, for whatever reason, and someone decides that this person is a serious enough threat, then it doesn't matter if he gets his hands on a gun or a bow and arrows or or a spear gun or even a nail gun, for that matter, the point is HE will go and kill that person HE believes it the right course of action.
I don't understand why people keep coming up with new reasons to limit our freedoms.
I used to have a helmet exemption some time ago.
I get pulled over one day, by a cop, which was the norm and I accepted that, the price of being different.
Anyway he pulled me up, I produce the same document as always, only to be told that that act was no longer and it was a different act so he then proceeded to write me up, for not wearing a safety helmet.
They could not produce any evidence of having changed the law and advising those of us affected by the change.
Their are so many things that have been made law because of 'common sense'.
You see, I don't want to wear seat belts, don't like them.
The fact that I have never had an incident wrongly called an 'accident', makes me one of the top shelf drivers.
But the law has a one size fits all policy, because it makes things easier for them to control and for administration, but not for me, the people.
So gun control is no different, when you consider a roofing contractor is more likely to kill a customer for non-payment of the account and he has a nail GUN at his disposal, every day.
No all this BS about gun control is to appease the queers, the naive, the jelly brains, the immature and the neuters.

The majority of gun killings in the US is negro on negro drug gang killings. The average US citizen is no more likely to kill than any other.

Get control of the nutters, with incarceration of the mentally insane, or seriously troubled, & you will stop mass killings, even those with bombs & vehicles.

Automatic guns are great if you want to take out a group of a disliked religion or demographic. They gather in their place of worship for you too. A bomb is probably better in that situation as in a Bali club with patrons of another religion.

However a rented van, or light truck is just as good, as we have seen, if the objective is to kill lots, with no special demographic in mind, other than white. A plane has proved pretty successful too.

Gun control, like nuclear disarmament is a mugs game. It will only control those who want to be controlled, & have no useful effect on those who don't. I know it has made criminals of some who would not ever commit a real crime. More than a few high quality guns have been buried, well protected, when some special attachment was involved.

Gee, talk about hatred towards me,

I only wanted to start the discussion on how to reduce the number of deaths by guns, I came up with a few suggestions
yet I seem to have hit a nerve about "social engineering" and our rights.

By all means have a gun and all farmers should have one, educate people on how to use a gun and question do you really need one, taxing bullets still allows you to kill people, it just becomes more expensive.

Just like smoking, by all means carry on smoking, but you pay a huge price via taxes. A lot of young people don't smoke because of the cost, and that frees up a lot of medical expenses in the long term.

My suggestions were just that, suggestions to discuss.

I see a lot of people criticize my suggestions , yet very few answers to mass killings.

Surely doing something is better than doing nothing?

over 90% of Americans charged with murder do not attend a church. Given that about 50% of the population goes to church their is an obvious glaring link between god deniers and murderers. Thy shall not murder!

'a boy growing up without a father is 20 times likely to end up in prison' Barak Obama in 2008. Feminist and emasulated males have a lot to answer for.

Kids of parents who are victims of Bureaucrats don't get much chance of getting on the right track either.

Kirby 483 sorry hope I am not one of the haters
But see the very subject gets the right of reality springing into action protecting the Devil
ANY thoughtful caring person would not side track the story in to one race killing its own members
We SURELY are talking about the guns used to murder unarmed children in Schools
To gutlesly shoot innocent in shopping malls or workplaces
NRA is not alone in sidetracking the debate
Even saying anti gun protesters LOVE MASS KILLINGS
So be prepared for some to leave empathy at the threads door as they push their well worn rubbish that gun control is not needed

Hi Kirby 483,

What we have in Australia is a gun lobby which outwardly speaks of so called reasonable gun control. Their mutterings are nothing more than subterfuge, their real agenda is to see no effective gun laws what so ever. Controlled and financed by international arms dealers these sycophants are in lockstep with the powerful American NRA, and more than not will toe the line every time, they follow instructions from their foreign controllers.

All we can do in Australia is to be vigilant and keep the gun lobbies political mouthpieces out of the ear of government. Not long back, a gun crazy Australian supporter Steve Dickson from the far right One Nation Party was attempting to gain an extra $20 million from the foreign NRA with the objective of taking political control in Australia. Fortunately the moron was exposed in time, and it came to nothing (we think) this time.

Paul,

"... they follow instructions from their foreign controllers."

I know that it goes against the grain, but could you give a reference for this assertion?

I see that you are still going on about the One Nation bloke who proved that the US NRA won't give money to Australian supplicants.
Like to give e reference to where anyone in Australia has succeeded in getting some dosh from the US NRA?

Belly,

I'm all in favour of gun control, good safe sight picture, controlled breathing and a controlled, light trigger squeeze.

Surely doing something is better than doing nothing?

Posted by kirby483,

Definitely not so Kirby. Doing the wrong thing is much worse than doing nothing. You trying to restrict others doing something perfectly legal what they want to do will ALWAYS be the wrong thing.

I can't be the only one to notice that lefties, particularly lefty bureaucrats always thing they know what others "really" mean. They believe they have a gift of second sight, & can see what others are thinking.

"Their mutterings are nothing more than subterfuge, their real agenda is to see no effective gun laws what so ever" from our bureaucrat greenie mate Paul. Keep trying Paul. One of these days you just may figure out which way is up, & get a chance to join the human race. Unlikely of course, but just possible.

Americans have a history of shooting each other, especially with the start of American Civil War. And if they weren't shooting at themselves they were shooting at anything else that moved. It's part of their political culture. In fact it's almost a cultural pastime. Depriving Americans of guns would be like telling the French not to drink red wine or telling the British that the Royal Family is really not one of them.

Belly,

Gun control is needed, gun control bases on evidence, on effectiveness and not on emotional hopefulness.

Bans are utterly useless as they do not stop criminals or terrorists or nutters from getting weapons and I could go to Bunnings this morning and buy all the necessary items to build a machine gun, including projectiles for less than $400. and have it firing within a few hours.

If you doubt the above have a look at
http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/168024098304/moores-centrifugal-machine-gun-in-june-1918

or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_gun

and technology has advanced considerably since the early 20thC.

kirby483,

Just re-read your OP and you forgot about air guns.

No tax on ammunition.

Texas, reeling after El Paso shooting, is about to loosen gun laws.

"...And Texas is not alone in relaxing gun laws after deadly attacks, he said.

“A lot of legislatures are responding to these shootings by saying, the way to make our country safer and the correct thing to do is not to restrict access to guns but actually to make it easier for people to have access,” he said.

One law going into effect Sept. 1 will prevent homeowners and landlords from forbidding residents to have firearms on their property. Others say gun owners have a right to keep their weapon in a locked vehicle in a school parking lot, or in a safe place in a foster home. Another states that people can carry arms at a place of worship, clarifying what the bill’s sponsors described as widespread confusion."
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/texas-reeling-after-el-paso-shooting-is-about-to-loosen-gun-laws/ar-AAFu9nH?ocid=spartanntp