Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

billh58

(6,654 posts)

2. I agree, but the USA

Reply to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 06:54 PM

Nov 2017

has a far more difficult situation than Australia had in sheer magnitude of guns and gun owners. The Australian solution could work in the USA, but it would be an extremely divisive battle with a questionable outcome.

I believe that the delegates who framed the Democratic Party response to the gun violence epidemic in this country are focusing on what is actually doable, with an eye toward incremental steps in future platforms statements.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democratic Party 2016 Platform Statement Regarding Gun Violence [View all] billh58 Nov 2017 OP

Australia showed another way after the Port Arthur massacre. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #1

I agree, but the USA billh58 Nov 2017 #2

Agreed. eom guillaumeb Nov 2017 #3

Australia isn't a good example because of the numbers involved. Amishman Nov 2017 #6

What of mandatory registration, and universal background checks for all sales? guillaumeb Nov 2017 #7

Universal background checks is what I had meant Amishman Nov 2017 #8

One way to deal with missing or duplicate numbers is criminal charges. eom guillaumeb Nov 2017 #9

doesn't seem right, it might not be the owner's fault Amishman Nov 2017 #10

Antique weapons could be an exception, guillaumeb Nov 2017 #11

I like what they do in Canada. BigmanPigman Nov 2017 #4

That is not quite correct, they need the signature of a spouse/partner only kelly1mm Nov 2017 #5