I saw a 30min news clip/show about this a couple of weeks ago (on the news, not on The Daily Show - which by the way has been proven to be quite accurate). Anyway one of the interesting segments was when they were talking with people that had initially been very VERY against it. Talk to those people now, after the fact, and they all seem to be ok with it now. The problem, of course, is that the NRA has pretty deep pockets and has the capability to skew and distort the facts...which is understandable since the actual facts make them look like bunch of bafoons. Their goals are the opposite of what the American people really want - which is to reduce gun deaths by ...taadaa.. keeping guns out of hands of criminals. Best way to do this of course is have database of gun ownership and transactions, expanded background checks..etc etc. Now if this happens, the net end result for the gun manufactures is going to be fewer gun sales. If the criminals can't buy guns and ammo somehow, they've lost a HUGE portion of their sales. So now they have to come up with incoherent arguments since there is no coherent ones. Oooh the huge burdon it will put on gun dealers - (have to spend a few minutes typing something into database) or the infringement on ones "liberty" because now if I go buy a gun (which sole purpose is to kill or seriously injure) you have to spend 3 minutes filling out a form. Or how about the one where if you perform background checks or keep database then the government will suddenly turn against the entire population of the country and start taking all guns from everyone. Or the one about why not enforce the laws we have (which thanks to the NRA have been completely crippled) - when all the meantime the NRA has blackballed allowing anyone to gather and store any type of data that would be of any help to law enforcement.
The NRA wants more guns at ANY cost - as that is their mission.... so any reasonable things you come up with have to be skewed and spewed, or you simply have to invent things. In the meantime they've even blackballed the CDC from keeping any meaningful statistics about gun violence because it makes them look like bafoons.

Anyway the guy who introduced the bill is going to re-introduce it again - on the flimsy reason that it's something that 91% of Americans want...hahaha Hopefully the backlash will convince our senators to..ya know..do their f__ing job.



>Jake,
>
>This is about gun related death and violence, Not about general violent crime stats. You twist and turn to ignore the point do ya?
>
>http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
>http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/18/1353811/australia-gun-control-suicides/?mobile=nc
>
>Stop twisting words. You already admitted that you just want guns because you want them and can.
>It does not have anything to do with logic, safety or statistics (Because they are against you anyways).
>
>Stop it Jake, you can't win this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Not exactly true. Any licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do background checks. Only private citizens can sell guns without a check. Of course, private citizens can sell/buy guns anywhere without background checks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No background check at gunshows or on the internet either. It's a huge problem that obviously our senators would rather avoid so their campaign contributions don't dry up from the NRA. At the end of the day it has nothing to do with protecting people or gun safety - it has to do with dirtbag politicians run by the NRA who in turn spew this other stupid crap trying to convince people that we don't have a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dude, quit mucking up the debate with facts. Victor doesn't want to let them stand in his way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most people supporting the current status quo won't let facts stand in their way?
>>>>>
>>>>>Fact. Countries with strict gun laws are a hell of lot safer than the US is. And this is a FACT.
>>>
>>>>Funniest thing I've heard all year. I'll get you started on your education as to why...
>>>>http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicidal-countries-2011-11?op=1
>>>>http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ethiopia
>>>
>>>it is a fact. And no matter how you put, twist it, keeping the gun rights the way they are, is not making your country safer. Check what happened in Australia. The facts... not the NRA's lies on the internet.
>>>
>>>Your logic is so flawed with what you want to hear as you already admitted that you want guns for no other reason that you can. It plain stupidity. Look at the numbers and not the individual anecdotes.
>>
>>Victor previously mentioned this in message#1571515.
>>
>>Since the same point was made to me in an email exchange I had earlier in the day I did a quick search and lo and behold the Daily Show piece had just done a piece on Australia. So I watched.
>>http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-25-2013/australia---gun-control-s-aftermath
>>
>>I then did a bit of research and found this which I posted in message# 1571766.
>>
>>About the source : http://aic.gov.au/about_aic.html
>>Australian Government - Australian Institute of Criminology
>>About the AIC
>>
>>The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. The Institute seeks to promote justice and reduce crime by undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice.
>>
>>The AIC was established in 1973 under the Criminology Research Act 1971. Since July 1, 2011 the Australian Institute of Criminology, a Commonwealth statutory authority, is regulated under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act).
>>
>>The Australian Institute of Criminology is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. We seek to promote justice and reduce crime by undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice.
>>-----
>>
>>On to the numbers:
>>
>>http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
>>- Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.
>>- The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year.
>>- The rate of kidnapping remained between three and four per 100,000 per year from 1996 to 2007.
>>- The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
>>- The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.
>>
>>
>>Here are the individual sections for each bullet point mentioned.
>>http://aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html
>>http://aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.html
>>http://aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
>>http://aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.html
>>
>>Assault and sexual assault have been on a rising trend since 1996. Robbery rose from 1996-2001, declined until 2005, rose again until 2007 and is decreasing since.
>>
>>The chart Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number) shows that homicides were on a downward trend prior to 1996. Following passage of the new gun restrictions, it took a leap up in 1999, returned to trend in 2000, rose in 2001 and spiked in 2002. It then dropped to trend in 2003-4, dropped below in 2005 and moved back to trend again by 2007.
>>
>>The chart Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003 shows a similar downward trend from 1969 to the early 90s. There was a brief leap above the trend line following passage of the gun restrictions before returning to trend.
>>
>>The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.
>>
>>As I previously posted in my response to Victor.
>>Of course whether it "worked" is a matter of definition.
>>
>>The Daily Show piece is a bit of fun but the only definition offered for "worked" appears to be the fact that no massacres have happened since 1996.