Okay, so what needs to be realized is this:
Firstly, the person that committed the Sandy Hook school shooting was not the legal owner of the guns used there. Nor were those guns even semi-automatic. He was also a diagnosed mentally ill person with violent tendencies. His mom, who was killed with her own gun, should have never had guns kept inside the house with that specific dynamic as part of the family unit. Not to mention stored in a manner that allowed access to the son. The guns became illegal as soon as the son decided to take them. Still, I believe the fault lies with the mother. God rest her soul.
Secondly, the United States is not Australia.
When the mass shooting of 1996 happened there, that caused the voluntary cesaation of private gun ownership for certain guns, more people than not were on board with it.
That's quite a different set of circumstances than what is currently the American situation. Currently about 68% of people here believe in the right to bear arms.
Thirdly, as an inherent right predating our constitution, and given the facts that this country was not founded upon peaceable practices, but rather by the force of arms that were used to throw off the yoke of our oppressors, I find the second amendment to be acceptable. Furthermore I feel it to be something that most definitely predates the Constitution and therefore the government may issue controls, but not ban the right unilaterally. At least not without the majority of the populace on board.
In other western civilizations, the absence of guns have done little to stop the tide of killing. The means of delivery however have changed. Cars, knives, chemicals, bombs....
Just take a look at European homicide rates, where land borders are an issue.
There are 300 million legally owned firearms in this country. A ban, followed swiftly by a confiscation effort is quite likely to be brutally ugly and could very well spark an insurgent movement that could rip the foundation of the United States to literal shreds. Something that would be good for no one. The globe relies on the United States more tham many would like to believe.
On sovereign soil the government would be hard pressed to use military might to insure compliance. They could do it, but the consequences would be dire with just about a 65/35 split on the issue. Especially seeing as most favor private gun ownership.
It's no so much about what is right, as it is about what is best. It might be right to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. But it definitely would not be for the best. Especially considering that the estimated amount of illegal guns are just over half of the legally owned guns. While the government has access to the addresses of most legally owned firearms. They have very little insight to where all the illegal guns are. Therefore it would only result in the confiscation of legal guns of mostly law abiding peoples.
I'll say this once. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And, while I have never owned a gun..., never sought out a gun..., and have only fired guns under the guidance and tutelage of others, I still agree with the conceptual understandings laid forth in the 2nd Amendment. The amendment merely acknowledges a preexisting right that was there long before our living document was created.
I am all for universal checks. I'm all for universal laws that will help curtail the legal purchase in one State and the subsequent illegal transfer selling to people unknown in other States. I am all for sensible restrictions such as automatic weapons bans, and higher penalties for those who skirt laws or transfer ownership without proper documentation, and/or muntion rationing.
While there is no doubt that firearms deaths in Australia have decreased substantially in the years since the implementation of the NFA, how much of that decrease is directly attributable to the NFA is still subject to debate. Much of that debate focuses on the fact that the gun death rate in Australia was already decreasing prior to the time the NFA was introduced. NFA-like plans wouldn’t necessarily achieve (and have not achieved) the same results in the United States, in large part because Australia’s geography makes it much easier to control the flow of arms into the country. Whereas the United States has 2 land borders.
The southern most being a typically notorious setting for illegal gun traffic (along with drug traffic). Add to that the reluctance of much of this country's citizenry to allow for the stemming of the tide of illegal immigration with forcible means at the Mexican border(which presents a myriad of issues), it's just a recipe for disaster.
Australia and Australians should be proud of their success to this point. However, any attempt to pretend that all variables between Australia and the United States are the same are simply short sighted amd completely misplaced.
