New Zealand just did it. Why not the US?

Six days after the Christchurch mosque attack, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced a ban on "military-style" semi-automatic rifles, prompting questions in the US.

Following a series of mass shootings in the US in recent years, there has been little in the way of sweeping gun-control reforms.

The Trump administration has issued a regulatory ban on bump-stock modifications that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns, and there have been some tweaks to the background check database for gun-store purchases.

Last March, Donald Trump entertained the notion of more ambitious, "comprehensive" legislation, telling senators pro-gun lobbyists had little power over him. But there's been no such talk from the president since.

Part of the reason New Zealand is ability to move quickly, of course, is that it's a parliamentary democracy, ensuring that the government is controlled entirely by one party or a politically compatible coalition. That's not the only explanation for why the US has charted a different course, however.

On the link there are five big obstacles that stand in the way of the kind of the US taking the kind of quick, major changes to firearm policy being advanced in New Zealand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41489552

The story at the link made some good points; I'd just add that the constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it will make it very difficult to ever regulate guns the way the UK, Australia and other countries have.

Basically, at this point, it would take an amendment to the constitution, which is a really complicated process and would require a majority of the states to agree to adopt it.

Another big reason the U.S. may never truly regulate guns is because life in America is so different from place to place. People who live in rural areas don't want solutions designed for high-crime urban areas, and the constitution also happens to give people from rural areas disproportionate power -- if you live in a state with a smaller population, your vote is far more meaningful than it is in a big state like California, New York or Texas.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:The story at the link made some good points; I'd just add that the constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it will make it very difficult to ever regulate guns the way the UK, Australia and other countries have.

Basically, at this point, it would take an amendment to the constitution, which is a really complicated process and would require a majority of the states to agree to adopt it.

Another big reason the U.S. may never truly regulate guns is because life in America is so different from place to place. People who live in rural areas don't want solutions designed for high-crime urban areas, and the constitution also happens to give people from rural areas disproportionate power -- if you live in a state with a smaller population, your vote is far more meaningful than it is in a big state like California, New York or Texas.

it's the same here in regards to vote distribution
my new electorate of 40,000 has the same voting power as my old electorate of 250,000  
this is actually the norm for representative democracy over a large geographical area.

the Constitution is the real issue, it is an unfortunate addition ... but of the 9 countries that had it, 6 have repealed it ... so it is possible


But also the problem is US politics needs everything in sound bytes
the fire arm regulations are complex, living in a rural area entails many exceptions.
For example assuming your haven't been convicted of a violent crime
living on over 100 acres of land is qualification for a gun license for pest control.

there are semi automatic rifles available BUT only through an Application that demonstrates need.
if you're responsible for land in a Rural area with Feral pigs that demonstrates a need.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:The story at the link made some good points; I'd just add that the constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it will make it very difficult to ever regulate guns the way the UK, Australia and other countries have.

Basically, at this point, it would take an amendment to the constitution, which is a really complicated process and would require a majority of the states to agree to adopt it.

Another big reason the U.S. may never truly regulate guns is because life in America is so different from place to place. People who live in rural areas don't want solutions designed for high-crime urban areas, and the constitution also happens to give people from rural areas disproportionate power -- if you live in a state with a smaller population, your vote is far more meaningful than it is in a big state like California, New York or Texas.

Surely that's one of many reasons that the electoral college needs to be altered (which, I don't know, may be more possible to do something about than try to get states to be serious about gun control).

If it was altered to give equal power to more populous states based on population (which it really ought to be), THEN things could actually move on a variety of issues.

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:The story at the link made some good points; I'd just add that the constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it will make it very difficult to ever regulate guns the way the UK, Australia and other countries have.

Basically, at this point, it would take an amendment to the constitution, which is a really complicated process and would require a majority of the states to agree to adopt it.

Another big reason the U.S. may never truly regulate guns is because life in America is so different from place to place. People who live in rural areas don't want solutions designed for high-crime urban areas, and the constitution also happens to give people from rural areas disproportionate power -- if you live in a state with a smaller population, your vote is far more meaningful than it is in a big state like California, New York or Texas.

Surely that's one of many reasons that the electoral college needs to be altered (which, I don't know, may be more possible to do something about than try to get states to be serious about gun control).

If it was altered to give equal power to more populous states based on population (which it really ought to be), THEN things could actually move on a variety of issues.

in the USA currently

Trust me I have to vote in the state election this weekend and even in that 90% of policies are for Sydney.. now I live out of Sydney I realize how little rural areas get beyond freeways which are needed to freight produce to Sydney... in the NSW it is a Case of 'all roads lead to Rome Sydney" 

even with that balance there are over 5 million people in Sydney (split into electorates of 200 to 300 thousand) and the electorate I'm now in, Goulburn, with only 40,000, covers literally 5 times the area of Sydney. the closets hospital is 38km away it is less than a quarter the size of the smallest on in Sydney, and if it were 'flat' voting the region would not even have that (it services about and 80km radius, out to about 200km south and west)  People simply could not survive in regional areas if subjected to flat voting (and I'm not even remote by inland NSW standards)

there are plenty of far more necessary reasons for representative democracies over a large geographic regions to be set up like this, I can't think of one that is not.

eds wrote:New Zealand just did it. Why not the US?

Second Amendment and a Russo-Republic Supreme Court, eds.