Florida Pulse gay club attacked.

[sc94597]

Hiku said:

I did say that, so the focus of your reply makes sense. But I wasn't trying to suggest that mass shootings is the only problem associated with US gun laws. And the list you provided topped Norway at #5. A country that has had one mass shooting in 1144 years. Over USA that has had 16 just in the past 8 years.

The question is why you should not impose more strict gun laws? What is the argument? Because the gun laws do affect criminals as well. The weapon that was use in the Sandy Hook sooting in the US for example costs $1000, can be ordered online and delievered to your doorstep. That same gun costs $32.000 dollars on the black market in Australia. If that discourages even one person to opt for a deadlier weapon for a crime, then that's reason enough for the laws to be implemented. USA's gun laws are not strict enough, when civilians can gain easy access to these things with no concept of gun safety, and no reason to own them. They've only gone in half heartedly with these laws in the US so far, and that won't always yield the results you want. Even Bill O'riley suggested this week that USA should learn from Australia and their gun law reform.

How I think USA would fair under Australia's gun laws? Well guns are not completely illegal in Australia. They just have much more strict regulations on them. So I think it would have a very positive effect, with the only problem being an inconvenience to gun-lovers. A small price to pay fort the trade off. If someone wants to own a handgun in Australia for example, they can. But there's a probation period of 6 months, and you have to be a member of a target club and do a minimum of 8 target competitions per year. Basically, you need a valid reason to own a firearm.

During the 10 years before Australia implemented the new gun laws, they had 10 massacres. Since then, which is 20 years ago, they've had 0. And gun deaths, homocides and suicides have dropped significantly. (And while the latter numbers have dropped in the US as well, they're still absurdly high.) There is no doubt that Australia's gun laws had a very positive impact. Though like you said, there were way fewer guns in circulation in Australia. I wouldn't expect similar results in the US in the same amount of time. But I see no harm in implementing these laws in the US to begin a longer journey towards the same goal. Australia is also a multi cultural country with mass immigration. They also have a big drug problem with violent gangs and organized crime, but from south east asia instead of south america. Although they are still vastly different cultures with different people, I don't think their differences validates not trying this gun reform, just because some people want to have more easy access to practice their recrational hobbies of firing guns. I really don't.

There are plenty of U.S states that have never had a mass-shooting in the hundreds of years they existed as well. They have populations similar to Norway. I don't see the point. In fact, this goes to show that it can happen anywhere, even the least likely places. 

Well inaction doesn't require an argument or proof. It is the natural state to buy and sell guns. And there is a natural demand for them. People want guns for various reasons. Action is what requires evidence and an argument. It is like, if you said "why shouldn't we ban certain speech? What is the argument?" When there are 300 million guns in the country, the prohibition is not going to drastically affect the supply of guns to criminals. In fact, most law-abiding gun owners likely wouldn't give up their guns regardless. You don't understand the mentality of gun-owners. There are people with entire bunkers filled with arsenals. Do you think they are going to listen to a mandatory buyback? In fact, Canada had a buyback program that has mostly failed. http://thebelltowers.com/2014/07/21/gun-buyback-programs-a-lesson-in-futility/ If Canada can't do it right, with a much more lenient gun culture, more restrictions, and fewer weapons, how can the U.S?  I don't know why you mentioned Bill O'reilly like he is some authority on anything: he's an idiot. 

Australia is really only one data point, and not even a good one to look at for the U.S. It has no bordering countries, it has a low population, it has a low gun ownership rate, it doesn't have the same gun culture the U.S had, it is less diverse, etc, etc. It is not technically, economically, or logistically feasible to reduce the over 300 million guns in the U.S to a small enough supply that the prices on the black market would rise substantially. Rifles in general (including "Assault Rifles" or "Assault-style Rifles") make up about 5% of all gun homicides, so just banning them would do practically nothing. 

Again, I say, you know nothing about the gun politics here in the U.S if you think Australia's solution is applicable. Mandatory buybacks just will not go well with anyone, and they won't work because the supply of weapons is way too large.