Austrailia hasn't had a mass killing in over 20 yrs.
Not true. People like to go, "They haven't had a mass shooting in Australia since 1996!" But it's simply not true. In 2011, there was a mass shooting in Hectorville. In 2014, one in Hunt. And again in 2014 one in Wedderburn (a 4 hour siege of a neighborhood).
Sure, Australia certainly has far fewer mass shootings than we do in the US, but then again they're a country of about 23 million people, whereas we have about 320 million here. You start looking at per capita shootings, Australia wins in a landslide.
But there have been a lot of mass killings without involving guns in Australia. Examples include the Cairns killings in Australia where someone killed 8 children with a knife, the Quaker Hill Nursing home arson in Australia that killed 11, and the Lin killings that killed 5 with a hammer.
In places where guns are easy to get, guns are used 's lot in homicides. In places where guns aren't easy to get, other things get used. Hammers are easy to get. So are baseball bats. And matches. This shouldn't come as a surprise, but the most commonly used weapon to kill someone in a kitchen is... a kitchen knife.
How is it that 2nd amendment advocates have NO constructive suggestions to this problem. It's unacceptable imo.
Follow the Golden Rule isn't constructive? Be nice to your fellow man isn't constructive?
Here's s start .... BAN automatic & semi automatic weapons immediately! Outright BAN.
It's much better to set aside an argument based on emotion in favor of an argument based on facts. It just is.
Automatic weapons have already been banned for decades. Soooo ... wish granted.
Did you know that a regular ol' 6-shooter revolver is a semi automatic weapon? One shot gets fired every time you pull the trigger. OK, technically it's not a semi automatic weapon because it's not self loading, but the end result is exactly the same: one trigger pull, one shot fired.
The 2nd amendment does not specify which type of arms.
This is where it gets tricky. Any infringement on a right can equally be applied to any other right. The First Amendment doesn't specify what kind of information the press is allowed to print, or what kind of speech is allowed, or what kind of religion is allowed to be freely exercised.
If you can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then you can ban criticisms of Trump in the press, you can ban any speech that criticizes Hillary, or speech that offends the feelings of anyone, and you can ban Islam outright.
One of the more interesting things, to me, in all this is, despite the overwhelming evidence that banning guns has virtually no effect on homicide rates, and does not even eliminate mass killings, people still knee-jerk to banning guns as the remedy to both homicides and mass killings.
Fact is (and the FBI has the stats to prove it) more people are killed with Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) than are killed by shotguns and rifles
... combined.