There's a reason developed countries with proper firearm regulations do not experience anywhere near the same levels of gun violence as the U.S., where gun laws are so lax they might as well not even exist.
There's a reason developed countries with proper firearm regulations do not experience anywhere near the same levels of gun violence as the U.S., where gun laws are so lax they might as well not even exist.
In Canada, for example, anyone who wants to buy a weapon must first navigate through a legal labyrinth, which is specifically designed to make an effort to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Other countries like Australia, Japan and the U.K. have even tougher gun laws and restrictions.
Not suprisingly, mass shootings in these nations are extremely rare. Following Australia's worst gun-related massacre in that country's history at Port Arthur in 1996, the former prime minister — a conservative, it should be noted — enacted sweeping reforms, including a ban on assault weapons. There has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since, although there had been about 15 over the period of roughly 18 years leading up to that reform.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., mass shootings are not only anything but rare, they are essentially the norm. There has been almost one mass shooting — described as incidents where more than four people were gunned down — for just about every day this past year.
And every time the broken record repeats itself, someone comes out with the predictable statement, "Oh, well the gunman bought the weapon(s) legally, so gun laws wouldn't have changed anything."
The logic here is beyond flawed that it's clear such reasoning lacks any amount of critical thought.
Of course weapons used in mass shootings in the U.S. were obtained legally — there are practically no laws preventing any random individual from buying a gun in the first place. Anyone who is so inclined can find a seller online, arrange a meeting, pay cash and walk away with a firearm, absolutely no questions asked.
Then there's the other flawed argument that restricting certain weapons such as assault rifles is also ineffective because it's apparently super easy to simply walk into a warehouse in the bad side of town and find a black market connection.
Surely someone who wants a gun to commit a crime won't hesitate for a moment if all that person needs to do is find a willing seller online. But dealing with armed criminal gunrunners might get such an individual to reconsider.
An insightful news comedian by the name of John Oliver, who hosts the show Last Week Tonight, did in 2013 a revealing report in which he interviewed a gun lobbyist, who in the end agreed that the more weapons there are around, the more likely people are to be killed as the result of gun violence.
"Right," said Oliver.
"Right," cluelessly responded the lobbyist.
"Right, that's the point I'm trying to make," finished Oliver on an awkard note.
Until the U.S. takes a drasticially different approach regarding its gun laws, incidents such as the terrible attack on the nightclub in Orlando will continue to be the norm.
In the meantime, let's just be glad our government takes the issue seriously enough not to allow gun sales to happen with barely any type of functional regulatory oversight.
