In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds. We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago. Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country).
Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.
From what I've read, no mass shootings in Australia
before Port Arthur involved semi-automatics with large capacity magazines. If that's true, one unfortunate event led to those restrictive laws. And I've also read that those regulations have had no effect on Australia's overall homicide rate. Regardless, you're talking about Australian society. The culture is different here.
FYI, the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters used smaller magazines and reloaded. IIRC, the Virginia Tech shooter used 17 10-round magazines.
Then there's the slow police response in Orlando, as with Columbine and Virginia Tech. Turns out it took police three hours before police entered the nightclub. Hell, if it really was that long, Mateen could have used a musket. And now Orlando's police chief has admitted that some victims may have been shot by police. What a clusterf***.
Exactly. And - especially if you favor a, uhum, historic interpretation of the Constitution popular in certain quarters - I don't believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment had those types of weapons in mind at all or even thought them conceiveable. Let everyone have their own nuclear bomb then, it's a God-given right.
(sigh) And I said I wasn't going to discuss the Second Amendment any more.
No, the Founding Fathers obviously didn't have modern weaponry in mind. But in District of Columbia v. Heller -- the landmark Second Amendment case -- DC tried to use that argument as justification for their refusal to issue carry permits, and the US Supreme Court
specifically rejected that argument. In any case, there's no popular support for unrestricted weapons ownership.