Have a look at the National Firearms Agreement passed in Australia to get an idea. It's mostly about passing fairly commonsense licensing regulations and offering amnesty to gun owners in the form of cash payments
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
I would like to have a conversation about this topic if you are willing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HealthCareTatts @GidMK
Specifically about Australia, their technical aspects may have been much less complex since there were ~3million firearms in circulation (US had upwards of 300 million) with surely a much smaller percentage of them being the newly prohibited arms.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HealthCareTatts @GidMK
Homicides had already been falling for years, due to other unknown factors (I believe cultural). Armed and unarmed homicide continued to drop at similar rates after the weapons ban. New Zealand saw a similar decrease in homicide, and they did not enact a ban.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HealthCareTatts
Homicide is a very complex issue, although it's perhaps worth noting that a) NZ has more restrictive laws than the US and b) homicide rates in the US have barely fallen in the last 15 years compared to the rest of the OECD
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I fully agree that this is a complex issue, but your original statement was somewhat binary on this. It may be that some type of restriction causes fewer people to die, but I wouldn't call this an uncontentious fact. It also does not address the unintended consequences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HealthCareTatts
Twitter was made for brevity. Check out my blog if you want to have a look at the nuance As for unintended consequences, what are you referring to?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Unintended consequences: cost of enforcement (lives and money), resistance to the prohibition, increased black market crime, reduced security of nation, increased violent crime as people are less able to defend themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HealthCareTatts
The first few have been managed extremely well in Aus and the UK, violent crime has mostly decreased - this is not surprising, guns are rarely used defensively - and I find the idea that civilians armed with cheap small arms would provide increased 'security' a bit weird
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Thanks effectiveness of guerilla warfare is well documented. Some examples: taliban resistance against the Soviets and US, Warsaw ghetto resistance against the Nazis, Palestinians vs. Israel. Southern guerillas in the civil war were only stopped after complete annihilation.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Clearly we define effectiveness differently. But regardless, the idea that somehow personal firearms will protect untrained civilians in the case of an invasion seems a uniquely American conceit. The Swiss attitude, for example, is infinitely more effective
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.