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.
1. The difference between a state and another country is generally much greater than between states belonging to the same country. But whether one state has been better off than another doesn't change that this still concerns the United States.
2. And there needs to be a reasoning behind an argument. That's how adults discuss things. Buying guns is not a natural process like apples growing from a tree. It's a man made law. And laws tend to change over time, as society grows and changes.
3. The intention of the second ammendment is obsolete today, as it was written to allow civilians to form a militia against a tyranical government. That made sense when it was all muskets, but today it would mean guns vs drones, tanks and fighter jets.
4. Inconvenience and lazyness is not a great argument when the tradeoff is lives being saved. "People want guns for various reasons".
5. Well, people in Australia can get guns for various reasons as well. There are just more regulations in place and a stronger sense of gun safety. Which is a good thing when dealing with deadly weapons designed to kill others.
6. Not like in the US where a 13 year old boy, who got denied buying beer and a scratch ticket could easily buy a rifle legally within minutes.
7. Oh I think I understand the mentality of gun-owners quite well. But inconvenience is not a good argument against implementing laws like that. I have no doubt that many would dislike it. But after a while it starts to make sense to more people. Here's an interesting article written by a gun lover in Australia: http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/
8. And why I mentioned O'riley is because he's been very outspoken against more strict gun reform. I think he's an idiot too, but apparently many people listen to him.
9. You can name as many examples of how USA differs from Australia as you want. As long as inconvenience is the only reason to not implement gun laws similar to Australia's, it remains a weak and self serving argument.
1. If anything that is an argument in my favor. If the U.S states are more similar to eachother why do some have lenient gun control laws and less homicides while others have more strict gun control laws and more homicides? Why is a state like New Hampshire (which is quite lenient on gun control) have the lowest homicide rate in the country?
2. Without legislation (or a state) people would still manufacture, buy and sell guns. There is no law saying "produce guns", "sell guns", etc besides the laws of supply and demand.
3. In your opinion as a foreigner. Not in the opinion of the majority of Americans. I think if we consider cost and risk-theory it is quite obvious that an armed popoulation makes it much harder to enact tyrannical solutions than an unarmed one. If Donald Trump decided to deport all Muslims, and the Muslims were armed, it would be a much harder choice to make, and the results would be costly.
4. And if the effect is that no lives are saved, and possibly there is more internal strife in the country? How many people will die when the police enforce their gun prohibition and the majority of owners refuse them?
5. Not for many of the reasons Americans want guns. As far as I recall, self-defense is not a valid reason.
6. He was with adults. If he tried that on his own he wouldn't be able to pull it off. Many kids hunt from a young age (my brother shot a bear when he was 14.) This is quite normal actually.
7. We aren't even talking about inconvenience. We are talking about practicality. You failed to describe how you would go about restricting the 300 million guns that are already out there.
8. I reiliterate, O'reilley is an idiot. He is not the spokesperson for all gun rights people.
9. Again, it isn't inconvenience it is practically. How would you finance the mandatory buy back? How would you enforce the buy back on those who refuse (and trust me, they will exist?) What kind of draconian methods would you use? We already saw what drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition has done.
