Other Countries Change Their Gun Laws After Mass Shootings. Why Not America?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: network dude
Could you point out the differences in US gun laws? Other than Full auto

Surely prohibiting full-auto weapons and doing more background checks are minor differences and absolutely not some of the only things gun proponents have been asking... Really minor differences...

whatever.

Could you point out where full auto weapons were used in an incident in the US?

I asked you this question because I think you need to learn a bit about what you claim to be against, before you speak anymore.

Even the scary looking weapon used in Newtown CT was just a semi-automatic weapon, no different than any other except for it's black, frightening appearance. This latest shooting? An semi-auto handgun. Point being, there doesn't seem to be an issue with full auto weapons. Yet you seem to be all against "full auto" weapons. Why? In the US, the main owners of full auto weapons are wealthy collectors. Hell, to buy one, you must apply for a Tax stamp, and a weapons permit, then pay the $10-17,000.00 the weapon will cost. (yes, they really are that expensive)

Please follow this rule. Educate before you masticate.

Thanks.

a reply to: network dude

The only recent one I can recall is the North Hollywood Shootout where only the perpetrators were killed.

originally posted by: Willtell
Of course if they didn’t change gun laws when kids are killed they certainly won’t change them when black people are murdered, not in America. Particularly when we have the GOP in control of the senate and congress.

But this article seems to prove the fact that America’s love of guns is detrimental to the safety of Americans.


" The Huffington Post | By Eline Gordts
www.huffingtonpost.com...

President Barack Obama responded to the shooting in a solemn address on Thursday. "I've had to make statements like this too many times. Communities have had to endure tragedies like this too many times," Obama said. "Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. We as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."

The horrifying killings in Charleston, South Carolina, came just two years after U.S. lawmakers failed to pass a proposal for expanded background checks for gun buyers that was drafted in the wake of the horrifying killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The tragic events this week once again prompted activists and pundits to demand tougher restrictions on firearms.

To put those demands into perspective, The WorldPost spoke with Dr. David Hemenway about gun laws and gun violence in other wealthy countries. Hemenway is a professor of health policy at Harvard University and the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He headed the pilot program for the National Violent Death Reporting System and is the author of Private Guns, Public Health.

How do American gun laws compare to those of other Western countries?

Other high-income countries have much stronger gun laws than we have. They vary from incredibly draconian gun restrictions in countries such as England and Japan, where almost nobody has guns, to places like Canada, where a fair amount of people own guns.

 

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Quoting External Sources - Please Review This Link

More gun laws!! LOL!! America has an obscene amount of guns laws... over 10,000. Some studies say as many as 20,000. I don't understand this logic. People who violate the law don't care how many gun laws there are. Why doesn't America create new murder laws every time someone is murdered? FYI you might be surprised to learn thousands of people are murdered without the use of guns. Why don't we create more laws about swimming pools since children continue to die in them year after year? Let's create more drunk driving laws too. That'll stop those law breakers!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude

The only recent one I can recall is the North Hollywood Shootout where only the perpetrators were killed.

I was thinking about Bonnie and Clyde too, but that was a few years ago. Gimme that choppa!

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Fear not, some of us are teaching our children and grandchildren that firearms are a needed tool like all other tools.

And with the amount of participation in our sport shooting youth leagues, the young-uns will have the right to bear firearms for a long, long time!

There is only one way to change gun laws in America and that is to change the Constitution itself. This is because there is almost no ambiguity in the language "Shall not be infringed".

Anyone who wants to change gun laws by any other method is firmly in my opinion an unabashed traitor to American ideals, fundamentals and traditions.

a reply to: JUhrman
Seems you missed the whole point of the meme(or did you?). I won't participate in the building up and tearing down of straw men with you. The only hypocrisy here is yours.

a reply to: Willtell

America is a young and dumb country. They won't change their laws because the people (citizens) are the "problem".

The "problem" can't also be the solution.

Take away the problem maybe.

In answer to the OP question "Other Countries Change Their Gun Laws After Mass Shootings. Why Not America?"
Because America knows no different, a relatively new country that applies original laws to modern day. Allowing arms to be circulated within society is obviously going to increase their use in crime, this being the case, the American citizen feels they need to protect themselves, ironically American citizens are therefore protecting themselves from their own society. Good luck

originally posted by: Gomez321
Allowing arms to be circulated within society is obviously going to increase their use in crime, this being the case...

Except all crime is down and has been trending down for twenty years.

Except all crime is down and has been trending down for twenty years.

Which is always a good sign, however my point was that if firearms are available, they will be used, which is evident in the US. The murder rate in the US is still about x4 of countries without the same firearms laws or right to bear arms. If the rates were comparable, there would be no judgmental comparison. My opinion is that is people use guns in crimes, however a low rate this be, other citizens feel the need to own one too which may create, rather than solve a problem

a reply to: JUhrman

Your claim of fallacy is fallacy.

First you said "full-auto" and now you're saying "assault weapon." Moving the goalposts, eh?

Hilarious how you keep accusing "us" of being "typical" pro-gunners when you're so much the typical gun-grabber it's hysterical. The only reason you don't want to argue semantics is because you got busted moving the goalpost.

originally posted by: Gomez321


The murder rate in the US is still about x4 of countries without the same firearms laws or right to bear arms.

The murder rate is not the result of a 'gun problem' but more of a mental health and violence problem.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gomez321


The murder rate in the US is still about x4 of countries without the same firearms laws or right to bear arms.

The murder rate is not the result of a 'gun problem' but more of a mental health and violence problem.

Could well be, but according to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, which is quite a lot. I don't live in the US, so only have an opinion, which is without gun ownership that quoted FBI figure would be much lower. I guess this is a debate for citizens of the US and is a hot debate. Good luck in it, it seems to cross many opinions and thoughts. I think that countries without such high gun ownership look to the US as a good example as not having it in their countries. It may be worth gun ownership fans within the US to look outside too.

originally posted by: Gomez321

...which is without gun ownership that quoted FBI figure would be much lower.

Of course there would be less firearms-related homicides if there were less firearms, my argument is that there would still be a large number of homicides regardless as there are some deeper issues at play.

originally posted by: Gomez321

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gomez321


The murder rate in the US is still about x4 of countries without the same firearms laws or right to bear arms.

The murder rate is not the result of a 'gun problem' but more of a mental health and violence problem.

Could well be, but according to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, which is quite a lot. I don't live in the US, so only have an opinion, which is without gun ownership that quoted FBI figure would be much lower. I guess this is a debate for citizens of the US and is a hot debate. Good luck in it, it seems to cross many opinions and thoughts. I think that countries without such high gun ownership look to the US as a good example as not having it in their countries. It may be worth gun ownership fans within the US to look outside too.

Works really great for the law abiding citizens of Mexico,does it not?The average citizen is unarmed.

a reply to: rossacus

THEY have SEEN this since 2011 you just showed UP .
GOOD god,GROW a pair and DEAL with it.
DO YOU NOT have RECCE troops in ENGLAND?
ARE they not motivated?
CAVALRY troops in the US must be different than yours apparently.
MUST be why we win so many MOHs here.

Ok, can I ask two questions?

Firstly, do Americans wish that they could turn back the clock and not have the right to bear arms in their constitution, with the aim of never having such numbers in circulation now? I know Mexico is brought up, but if you had had a gun ban origionally, with harsh penalties for owning, you would have fewer guns in total. Wouldn't this be worth it compared to the situation you are in how, with everyone seemingly to feel the need to have one for security against the bad guys? Yes cars kill, but let's be honest, a car isn't designed to kill, it isn't its main function. A guns main function, in fact it's only function, is to fire a shell at high speed into something to either injure or kill. And some will do so at such a rate that many people can be hit and killed in seconds.

The second question:

Why do you even want guns throughout your population? How can you say you're the greatest nation on earth, a first world nation, and yet feel that you need protecting from your own government? Or Is it purely because of my first point, that because you wanted guns it has now lead to a situation where to feel safe, even the good guys need a gun? It's like you've got yourselves into a really weird circle. You want the right to own a gun, so you ended up with loads of guns in circulation, so now you need a gun just to feel safe.

I can only say what I see from outside, but I think most of us who are not in America find you obsession with gun rights baffling. I have never once wondered if I would be shot today. And I'm grateful that the odds on someone going crazy with a gun is also tiny. After all, we don't need guns to feel safe, even our Police don't carry, unless they are armed response and you almost never see them.

So, knowing how the uk works, and other similar countries too, with our gun crime level compared to yours, Was that right to bear arms really worth it? What have you actually gained from it???

originally posted by: bluesilver
Why do you even want guns throughout your population? How can you say you're the greatest nation on earth, a first world nation, and yet feel that you need protecting from your own government?

Can you give me an example from history of a government that has not imploded at one point?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bluesilver
Why do you even want guns throughout your population? How can you say you're the greatest nation on earth, a first world nation, and yet feel that you need protecting from your own government?

Can you give me an example from history of a government that has not imploded at one point?

Most have at some point, but (a) the reality is that you have millions of guns in circulation on the chance that a first world nation in the 21st century is suddenly going to implode and (b) you are assuming that a gun would stop your entire trained military, when they have for more weapons than you and far more advanced weapons than you. If it really came to it, they could starve you or bomb you before they have to shoot you.

But again, how likely is it really that your government is going to a war with its own subjects? I'd say it's pretty unlikely.