We need to stop talking about other countries laws period. Both sides of the fence are using cherry picked arguments in favor of their own views.

Gun rights folks see places like Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK and New Zealand having suppressors available for purchase without the burdensome tax stamp and paperwork as a plus. Some countries will allow you to purchase full auto rifles, SBRs, SBSs.... But the flip side is all of those countries have other very onerous and burdensome laws for the purchasing of firearms. Limits on what you can purchase, how often, storage, strict medical requirements, etc...

Australia - the new shining example of gun control for the anti-gun crowd. Still has gun crime. Paris had the shoot out on the streets about the artist and the attack at the concert (yes terrorists)

While we know and expect that the AG crowd will never stop beating their ill-informed and pink-pussy hatted drum calling for the complete ban of all firearms larger than a .177 caliber spring action Daisy Red Ryder and that's a stretch because someone may be offended or scared by it.

This is still the USA and we need to keep putting forth our ideas and thoughts for firearms in the constraints of what is legal here today.

I believe analysis of other countries gun laws is important.  Yes, data can always be cherry picked, validity of data questioned, etc.

I have many Aussie friends who are gun enthusiasts.  Yes, gun crime exists, but it is way down after the ban.  A point antis cherry pick.  However, the crime statistics since the gun ban appears to show a gradual increase in violent crimes like armed robbery (knives, clubs, etc), assaults, etc.  I thought I recall the same thing happening in the UK. 

Can't help if the antis skew things in their favor.  But I believe it's important to know the facts and be able to counter that kind of BS where opportunity arises. 

6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn't Coming Over To Your Side On Gun Control

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith
2. The 'Blood on Their Hands' Attacks Are Offensive
3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant
4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy
5. We Seriously Don't Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries
6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right

I definitely agree we need to know other countries laws, statistics on crime and the effects the laws have on crime. We just need to remember at the end of the day it really doesn't matter.

Mexico blasts us for wanting to have a wall on our southern border but they have their own with Guatemala. They deport roughly 150,000 illegal immigrants each year but you don't hear our media talking about it.

Facts matter only if you agree with them, otherwise you're just some type of -ist..

I believe analysis of other countries gun laws is important.  Yes, data can always be cherry picked, validity of data questioned, etc.

I have many Aussie friends who are gun enthusiasts. Yes, gun crime exists, but it is way down after the ban.  A point antis cherry pick.  However, the crime statistics since the gun ban appears to show a gradual increase in violent crimes like armed robbery (knives, clubs, etc), assaults, etc.  I thought I recall the same thing happening in the UK. 

Can't help if the antis skew things in their favor.  But I believe it's important to know the facts and be able to counter that kind of BS where opportunity arises.

Not really. Get ready to read.

Good short summary with links to original material:

https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/06/did-australias-ban-on-guns-lower-violent-crime-rates-and-lower-suicide-rates-2/

The sources:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/

[The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy...]

[U.S. had same/similar declining rate of firearm homicides, but substantial increase in the number of guns...]



But at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea that Australia’s gun ban must be the reason for its decline in gun crime.

However, what’s more important is the fact that overall suicides and murder have not “plummeted” in the years after the gun ban. Yes, as with the gun-happy United States, the murder rate is down in Australia. It’s dropped 31 percent from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012.But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban.

In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/australia-sees-spike-in-gun-crime-despite-outright-ban/

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/10/cprc-testimony-today-on-gun-control-before-the-australian-senate-legal-and-constitutional-affairs-references-committee/

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf

I don’t have time to look at that stuff now Puna and I will have to dig up the data that was provided to me as well. However, that’s part of my point. Depends where you get the data, looking into the source, how one interprets the data, etc. My point was that the “Aussie” was of gun ban isn’t all that anti 2as make it out to be.

A lot of what gun control advocates seem to imply is that getting rid of guns will reduce the overall crime rate. That's demonstrably false, and it's useful to dislpay other countries data to show that.

After all those kids in Japan seem pretty determined to kill themselves no matter what.

The anti2a point to the low rate of mass shootings in Australia. There doesn't seem like a definitive correlation between the gun ban and mass shootings since there is a big difference between gun homicides and mass shootings. I also look at it culturally. Australia is still subservient to the Queen, the same monarchy that we told to take a hike over 200 years ago. Like most socialist countries, the citizens are more likely to obey their government. Many of the Australian politicians lost their jobs after they spent $5M buying back the firearms. Compliance with the ban probably occurred along the coast cities but not with the less populated open country. The effectiveness of the ban might depend on the population densities, but the liberals point to success if the larger cities are mostly gun free and no mass shootings. Cities like Chicago and Washington DC have tried to enact their own handgun bans which the 2008 Heller decision declared unconstitutional but they can enact reasonable restrictions. It's not a simple matter of comparing countries because of their existing laws and cultures.

US gun control advocates exaggerate benefits of Australia's gun restrictions

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/23/us-gun-control-advocates-exaggerate-benefits-australias-gun-restrictions.html

US gun control advocates exaggerate benefits of Australia's gun restrictions

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/23/us-gun-control-advocates-exaggerate-benefits-australias-gun-restrictions.html

That article is by John Lott. The second to last link I posted above is by Dr. Lott and is a longer more detailed version of his testimony before the Australian Parliament regarding the effects of the "gun ban".

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf