Its nothing to say against ordinary people to (proper trained) bear arms. But criminals and instable persons should be barred.
Infact charging organised-crime for illegal gun-possesion is an effective way to get rid of these people, in Germany.
And generally armed robberies are quite few; and burglaries declining since introduction of better window-locks.
4
Including Brasil (proper spelling), Russia, Mexico, South Africa probably not helping your argument as much as you imagine.
6
The difference between the USA and these other countries is Americans are given the right from the Founders to own firearms to protect citizens from their own government. God Bless America
8
Ah yes, the "paranoid prepper" view of life in America. Blinds drawn, stockpiles of canned good and military-style weapons within reach when the inevitable showdown with Washington begins.
Citizens of other many other countries (many of them quite prosperous with restrictive gun control laws AND levels of political and personal freedom that are higher than what exists in the U.S.) simply don't feel it is necessary to be armed against a potential move towards tyranny by their own government. It's truly sad and disturbing that so many Americans feel otherwise, having swallowed whole all the nonsense propaganda directed at them by gun manufacturers, the NRA, and the mostly Republican politicians who are bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers and the NRA.
72
I don't understand how the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," came to be substantively read out of the Second Amendment. It seems to me to say that in order to have a gun, a person should at least in principle be capable of being a member of a "well regulated Militia." This clearly implies having the basic skills and personal qualities needed to be part of such a "Militia," even if a person never joins and can never be required to join in order to have a gun.
So why wouldn't being a member of a private gun club, having proper training, owning a storage locker, passing basic safety and marksmanship tests, passing a thorough background check, and having some sort of insurance not be reasonable requirements for gun ownership here? (The gun club requirement could be waived for people having comparable experience in other settings, or demonstrating advanced skills on tests.)
Isn't that what the Second Amendment says?
35
It would be nice to see similar contrast in laws of immigration to citizenship in other "civilized" countries. Also a comparison of crimes in general from murder to home invasion.
They might not have the gun violence, but they have the other serious violent crimes we do not have.
In most of rural America it takes between 20 to 40 minutes for law enforcement to make it to your door after calling 911. At that point, they can only record what violent crime happened to you. Knowing people are armed is a very good deterrent to those who would/could do you harm.
7
Care to back up those claims with some facts? Quick, cite some studies that show these countries listed have violent crimes we DON'T have a lot of. Also, show me where having guns in the house deters criminals.
Less than 1% of homicides in this country were burglaries with guns in 2015. Between 2003 and 2007, burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries. That fear of home invasion, including rural America, is fueled by a fear over something that's such a statistically improbable thing. You can confirm these numbers with the FBI's crime statistics. Using a gun in violent crime: "After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession." -Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 2009.
Also, the claim having a gun in the home deters criminals isn't accurate. I encourage you to google "most frequently stolen items during a home burglary" and guns are on the list. “NRA sticker on car bumper = Lots of guns to steal" is a quote from a burglar in an investigative report on burglars from Portland. It puts a target on your home when people know guns are around to be stolen.
31
Backed-up.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-n...
Keep trying.
1
the article fails to point out that none of these countries have a 2nd amendment which guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
9
Except the second amendment says "a well-regulated militia". Are you in a militia that is well-regulated within the laws of the land? That's what it's referring to. It was meant to be a standing militia to fight back against tyranny in a time where that was a very real threat just off the heels of the Revolutionary War. Where does it say "everyone gets a gun and to hell with regulation"?
And gun control isn't DENYING the right to keep and bear arms, at least not unless you're a proven violent person.
40
All handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited in the UK. Only shotguns and rifles can be bought - and gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.
19
Over the years, I've come to notice and appreciate that a lot of well-informed and eloquent residents/citizens of Australia upload comments to threads at the New York Times. Can one citizen or long-term resident of Australia please set the record straight with regard to what has happened there with rates of violent crime since restrictive gun control measures were enacted in 1996 following the Port Arthur, Tasmania mass shooting that year?
I ask this because one of the MOST persistent and widely circulated "alternative facts" put out there by American who are absolutist opponents of any laws or regulations regarding the purchase of guns is that stabbings, rapes, robberies, and other such violent crimes became much more common in Australia after 1996. Did this actually happen? The argument by those who believe it did happen is that such incidents increased once criminals realized it could be "open season" on a disarmed populace in Australia's residential areas.
I basically never believe anything written or said by Americans who harbor such extreme views about firearms ownership (because like a lot of people I'd prefer to live in a country where purchasing decent, affordable health insurance is easier than buying a gun), but it would be nice to get confirmation from somebody who's actually lived in Australia for at least a few years since 1996 that people spreading such "alternative facts" online are in fact wrong.
6
Australian Ambassador: My Country's Gun Laws Won't Work Here - CityLab
https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/australia-ambassador-on-why-gun-law...
Australian Gun Control Advocate Admits: Gun Buybacks Don't Work
http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/965732-australians-gun-control-ad...
Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban
https://web.archive.org/web/20161022235941/http://www.freerepublic.com/f...
"New Australian Study Shows More Guns, Less Crime"
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-australian-study-shows-more-gu...
2
I asked for an answer from a person who has lived at least several years in Australia since restrictive gun control measures were enacted in 1996. Have you done that? If not, I'm not interested in clicking on a bunch of cherry-picked links that you provided.
17
Lots of Japanese and other tourists come here to shoot guns. They are many rental ranges in the popular destinations: Hawaii, L.A. and Vegas etc. I wonder why...
7
I don't get the point you're trying to make here. Japan has gun ranges, too, as well as a path to personal gun ownership to use said gun ranges. Just because they go somewhere with lax laws on the matter and give it a try doesn't mean anything? Lots of people go to Colorado and try pot while they're there because it's legal, but that doesn't mean they want to start habitually taking THC.
Japan only sees about 10 gun deaths a year. According to the NPA, as of 2016, Japan has 210,928 registered firearms in a population of 127 million. That number has decreased from 361,402 in 2007. I doubt they'd trade that stat for an easier path to gun ownership.
8
Fascinating to read here how 3/4ths or more of the upset citizenry feels that way to solve this problem is that people who wish to own for odd purposes, think they need, or just want a gun are thinking incorrectly. That is, they need to have their thinking monitored, or adjusted, or somehow controlled. Very little discussion of due process - amending the 2cd, endless blather about how they are right and gun people wrong. It's as though they have no idea how totalitarian they are. Too lazy to do legislative legwork, very anxious to force control minds.
6
Yep - those gun-controllers are totally totalitarian.
And the same mind-controllers won't let us drink and drive.
And can you believe they have stopped us from smoking indoors!
How are they stop us from exercising our constitutional freedoms.
You know what it is: they don't care about anyone else but themselves.
9
American exceptionalism.
This article is valuable because it shows us just how ridiculous we are with our treatment of guns. People who say "it's not the guns, it's the people" clearly have trouble with facts. Yes, we have more inequality, and, yes, we have fewer social support services--but neither are sufficient to explain the disparities in gun violence versus other violence in our country versus similarly developed countries.
We have a gun problem, period. And, as long as we continue to fail to pass common-sense legislation for killing machines, we are going to continue to have an exceptional rate of homicide compared to other countries.
My guess is we aren't going to do anything at a national level because our representatives don't represent us--they are bought and paid for by corporations and associations like the NRA. But, we can make changes locally. We shouldn't have to fear that our kids are going to be victimized by mass shooters at school. That's not freedom.
14
You forgot about Colombia, where people don't have the right to have guns. But still, we got more gun problems than in the US.
It is not about the guns, its about how you educate and include your kids int society.
7
Of course they did.
I think that in many cases in the US (or in Yemen, maybe) the logic is that people who think they need a weapon are insane - while being sane is the least requisite for being able to have or use a gun. This logic tells a lot about your country, so many people that think they need a weapon .....
3
It's insane that we allow non-citizens to purchase firearms in the United States.
4
Many people in the US want guns because they are frightened of the rapid changes in society and because they are fed a bucket of lies about what those changes could mean. My older brother lives in the north-eastern part of Texas and fear seems to sweep through there like the Nor-easter we've been experiencing. Whatever wild rumor can be made up, it spreads like a hurricane and people accept it as truth.
When Obama was first elected, guns and ammo sold out as fast as they could be stocked. Of course, these racially inspired fears were ridiculous, but selling fear to hyper-conservative voters was easy. Fundamentalist preachers with radio programs help spread it, usually not by confirming rumors, but often just by wondering aloud if they could be true. Limbaugh and many others use this sly technique, too, throwing out half baked "truth" and then, later, treating the rumors as confirmed.
We will never, in the next 100 years, have a gun control regime like Germany or Japan. Gun owners would say this: if you have to go to the police to get a gun, they will stop you when you might need it most.
What we should have, instead, is a measured movement to limit easy, quick access to weapons and a national "turn in your guns" program. No guns before age 28 without training and passing a test.
Meanwhile, how about removing the "gun porn" magazines that line up in all of our local grocery stores? Do we need to be encouraging love of guns while children are being shot in classrooms?
13
Holy cow! I went to Safeway to buy my father a birthday card the other day (magazines in the same aisle across from the cards) and was blown away by the gun porn!
No fewer than 5 glossy covers featuring assault-style rifles.....and one of the magazines was called "AR-15." (There's a magazine wholly dedicated to the AR-15? Seriously?)
7
Would be great to see accompanying gun death stats for each country.
11
Two points:
1) Purchasing a gun in NJ is not much different than purchasing a gun in many of the restrictive countries listed in this article. State Police Background check, fingerprinting, 2 character references, then getting your Firearms ID. That is a 30-45 day process, at least in theory. Many municipalities take longer. Then at the gun store, a Federal background check. (The biggest difference is that in NJ, you don’t need a Reason because you have a right.)
The point being that some states are filling the holes left by NRA funded Federal Republican lawmakers.
2). We do need what our last President called “common sense gun legislation,” but don’t tell us we need to be more like China, Russia or Iran. Do I need to state the obvious?
As far as European gun control, let’s remember that is was a bunch of gun-nuts from the USA with our gun-loving culture who sent our children to die to prevent Hitler from over-running most of free Europe. I know that John Q. Citizen with his small caliber hand gun isn’t going to stop a Nazi blitzkrieg, but the point is that our culture is tilted towards the ability to protect ourselves, not to get someone to do it for us.
I’m not a gun-nut, but please don’t tell me that we could have a safer country if we were more like Iran.
Now assault rifles - that’s a whole different topic. I’m responding to the article about how Iran and China’s got personal freedom done right.
4
Gun laws also vary from state to state. In NJ a background check could take close to a year for a first time gun purchaser. This article is simplistic, disingenuous and misleading in it's attempt to offer comparison when all other societal comparisons for a particular culture would fail, i.e., the cultural norms of Japan are quite dissimilar to those of the USA:
"The differing meanings of the phrase 'rule of law' highlight the contrast between American and Japanese views of authority. In America, observes Noriho Urabe, 'rule of law' expresses the subordination of Government to the law. In Japan, the 'rule of law' refers to the people's obligation to obey the Government, and is thus 'an ideology to legitimize domination'.
The Japanese individual's desires are 'absorbed in the interest of the collectivity to which he belongs', whether that collectivity be the nation, the school, or the family. ...The idea that Japanese gun laws should serve as model for other nations is not uncommon. Some Americans propose laws even more severe than Japan's. Often, the suggestion comes as an offhand remark in an newspaper editorial, but even when the suggestion is advanced by scholars, the reasoning is often superficial and unpersuasive..." www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
If comparing our laws, values and norms is really going to be accepted as a reasonable, valid contribution to our "national conversation", I think the purveyors of "wisdom" should at least compare apples to apples.
5
Your account of the procedure for gun purchases in Britain seriously understates the difficulty of acquiring a firearm in this country. Since the massacre at a school in Dunblane (the home town of tennis champion Andy Murray) and other atrocities, it is thankfully nearly impossible for a civilian to acquire a handgun or rifle. Wealthy game shooters can buy their shotguns, but these are not weapons of war. Would-be mass killers have to resort to motor vehicles, home-made bombs or knives, far less efficient than the guns so stridently defended by the National Rifle Association. May this situation never change.
3
Getting a shotgun or rifle isn’t that hard here. I live in a rural area and hunting isn’t the preserve of the rich - it’s a part of the culture across the spectrum. You do need to show that you actually hunt (being a member of a club or society for example). Storage requirements are strict but it isn’t a wealth thing.
1
An addendum on gun violence in each country would be great as well as penalties for possession of blackmarket weapons. Finally, I suspect medical quackery would quickly expand to meet the demand for mental assessments.
3
I've been trying to imagine treating gun ownership as we do the right to drive: attaining a certain age (17.5?), applying for a learner's permit, taking lessons from a licensed instructor, taking a standardized test to obtain one's shooting license, and having to buy insurance for each gun purchased. The shooting license and insurance would have to be updated regularly (and would make a nice chunk of change for the states).
5
The description for Austria looks wrong, you don't have to document a self-defence reason for a handgun or semi-automatic rifle, it just has to be a "good" reason. And it's pretty straightforward to buy a Category C firearm (bolt-action rifles, double-barrel shotgun), which is why there is a 3-day wait.
2
Japan has the best plan. Easier to buy a gun in Yemen than the US.
1
I'll gladly accept Japanese gun control rules if we also implement their immigration laws.
9
Last I checked, mass killers weren't immigrants, in fact 'All American'!
5
Funny thing is, if we had Japan's immigration laws we wouldn't have the breakdown of social cohesion that is causing all the violence in our country. Guns wouldn't be a problem!!
4
And just who did you have in mind to socially glue everyone together, Norwegians?
2
Well at least we're safer than Yemen. I think.
2
Esteban Guerra
You are.
1
What about Switzerland?
4
Just FYI, in Iran private firearms are totally forbidden. Even attacking someone with 'cold weapons', e,.g., a knife, faces the possible death penalty in case of 1st degree homicide. Disputes are settled with fisty-cuffs.
And, to my knowledge, not a single foreigner has been killed in 4 decades. I'm talking about Tehran and the other major cities. Naturally, anyone visiting some border areas (Baluchestan, Kurdestan) is asking for trouble.
Get rid of those guns.
3
In the USA you're more likely according to the FBI to be beaten to death (by those old "fisty-cuffs") than you're by a rifle...
The Gun Grabbers will never you tell you that...
I just did -Thanks to the FBI keeping accurate data!
4
Gun laws need to be more strict. Just look north to Canada. It's safer there. The murder rate is lower.
4
Much, much, much safer in Canada. Average: 2 year vetting time and many who apply to own a gun are turned down.
2
Yeah, bet China it's impossible beyond the black market, while in Iraq they're free and found everywhere. So what's your point--Japan and South Africa, for example, have a constitution just like the United States, i.e., Bill of Rights?
1
American exceptionalism in action.
3
The reality is that in Japan, cannot buy a gun for almost any reason. The only people I see that are able to buy guns are country side safety and volunteer fire fighters who occasionally need to hunt bears or pigs.
4
The background checks in Japan seem very reasonable to me. Why can't we do that here?
It's because the NRA is run by the same kind of people that run the tobacco industry. Making money is the only thing that matters. Killing people in the process is of no consequence whatsoever.
Back when the second amendment was confirmed there were essentially no police, no law enforcement. Within a couple of decades we learned that law enforcement was a necessity and all accept as the norm today.
All assault type weapons belong only in the hands of the military. Even law enforcement wouldn't need them if they were not available to the general public. All semi automatic rifles should be banned. Hunters don't need rapid fire weapons and hunters are the only people who should generally have access to weapons.
3
It's because Japan is essentially a police state well-known for violating civil rights of criminal suspects. Bear in mind the police in that supposed utopia still carry guns routinely. No western country has gun laws that restrictive. Bear in mind you have to through all that to buy an air rifle or a shotgun - only after ten years can you buy a rifle. Air pistols are subject to a quota of 500 licencees and real handguns are limited to the Olympic squad.
4
Australia, South Africa, Canada & India are former British colonies. If they had 2nd Amendment They would have defeated Britain like the US did. But the world today has changed very much. Today 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. US has the strongest army in the world, Best police force....US is the best in everything as of today. The change should come from the people. People should consider donating guns voluntarily to the army or to the police.
I personally don't support guns anywhere except at shooting ranges.
World outside US is changing fast. US is losing its status as world leader as we are busy quarreling with ourselves more than ever. China is taking the place of the United States on the global stage. They don't have race issues, no minimum wage protests, no illegal immigration, no Russian influence on their elections as they don't have elections.
China is expected to cross the US economy in 5 years. I don't see US reclaiming its crown as our politicians are giving more priority to the illegal immigrants over skilled/talented immigrants. Our politicians busy blaming & supporting NRA over $1.5 Infrastructure bill....
Above all we have ignorant, social media savvy youth who are busy protesting on the streets to save some endangered species while the youth from China,Japan are busy getting their Ph.Ds from top US universities.
It's unfortunate that we are having a debate on the guns even after so many shootings instead of getting rid of it once for all and move on.
1
Historical revisionism: "If they had 2nd Amendment They would have defeated Britain like the US did."
There was no Second Amendment at the time of the revolution. There was no constitution, either. England was pushed from these shores by very brave people who fought against a distant colonial power that could not hope to win. In times of dire need, weapons are made available to the population, whenever and however they can be found and obtained.
9
it is the bill of RIGHTs...not the bill of needs. The government has no business asking someone why they want a gun any more than why they want to speak their mind or demand to see a warrant before allowing a search. Background checks by all means but no requirement to explain yourself should be required or satisfied.
8
I live in Italy which was omitted in the article; at any rate, purchasing a gun here is similar to Germany or England.
Referring to the article, two points were left out: the United States is a nation comprised of 50 states (none of the other 15 are), each state with its own laws
and
it is written into the US constitution the right of citizens to bear arms (none of the other 15 countries, to my knowledge, has that constitutional right).
Italians are flabbergasted that Americans can easily purchase and own guns (I own a .22 rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun in the US, both purchased years ago at Wal-Mart next to the fishing gear).
But what they don't understand is the constitutional and subsequent cultural and historical parts.
6
@ Bret
Please don't fault the Italians for their lack of understanding of the US Constitution as we here in America have many US Citizens who are every bit as ignorant of our Constitutional Democracy as the Europeans are.
In America we refer to those folks who have such a lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights as
Yup!
Gun Grabbers!
5
An important point that should also be noted in response to the conclusion for each of the countries mentioned, "Buy a gun.", is the type of gun. The majority of these countries and others, the ones you would expect, assault style rifles and semi automatics, amongst others, are plainly 'Not For Sale'!
2
It's true that the police come to your home in the UK to conduct an interview and check out how you will store your firearm. I have a friend of mine who is a retired police man - and even he - after 40 years on the force - had to go through this process to get his gun registered after he left.
6
The information regarding firearms in Germany is only partially correct and slightly misleading.
First, it's practically impossible for any "normal" citizen in Germany to obtain a firearm for self defense.
The only acceptable reasons own a gun are:
1. for hunting or
2. target shooting.
To obtain a gun for target shooting you must be a member of a recognized gun club for one year before even making application to purchase your own gun. In this year you must shoot with a loaner gun at the club range at least 18 times and document this in your shooter's logbook, signed by the range officer. This also gives the other club members time to see if they want you as a member of the club.
Before your application with the police you must also take a two day course involving firearms safety, ballistics, function and operation of firearms as well as legal aspects of self defense and use of deadly force. You must pass a written test (not an easy test) covering all these topics then pass a practical live firing test where you demonstrate safe firearms handling and operation. The pres. of your local gun club as well as the national association of gun clubs also sign off on your application.
You must purchase a safe approved by the government for the storage of firearms and ammunition and attach proof with photos etc. to the application.
I've run out of characters here before even getting the application in... but you get the picture: it's a complicated process.
6
And so? The issue isn't the ease of law-abidingcitizens to buy guns, but allowing guns in the hands of criminals. If guns were miraculously taken away from the cities of Baltimore and Chicago, the US homicide rate would drop enormously. Until we can be assured that it's impossible for criminals to have guns, citizens will keep guns for self-protection.
1
"The US homicide rate would drop enormously."
2017: 650 homicides in Chicago, 343 homicides in Baltimore. 15,549 people killed by firearms throughout the US (excluding suicide), and 44,000 suicides - half of which were by firearms.
I'll do the math for you: about 37,000 people died in the US last year by firearms. The combined homicides (not exclusive to guns) in Chicago and Baltimore were 1,000. That still leaves us with more than 36,000 perishing by guns, and that's unacceptable.
1
@ Remy
I've got some good news for you and some bad!
1st the Bad
Your numbers are WRONG
The CDC reported a total of 15,549 Homicides that is a total number due to all causes.
Now the Good
The actual Homicide rate continues the trend started in the 90's (It's dropped in half since then)
We now have a gun homicide rate at levels not seen since the late 1950's early 1960's
In 2017 we had ~11,000 so if Baltimore and Chicago and the rest of America's inner city citizens suddenly stopped killing each other we'd instantly have an ~60-80% reduction in gun homicides.
Which would make our gun homicide rate lower than many European Countries. - Go Figure!
One more thing for you to ponder...
Japan has very strict gun laws YET their suicide rate is HIGHER so if we look at the Japanese model we probably wouldn't want gun control as our suicide rate would go up.
3
Thank you NY Times for this detailed, concrete information about civilized countries’ gun buying laws. Now this has to get discussed on cable TV news, in order to be widely disseminated.
The more Americans know how we contrast with sensible, life saving laws abroad, the less they will be vulnerable to Republican and pro gun, pro NRA propaganda.
Knowing about more positive role models that work, voters can then put more pressure on the many lawmakers who have been 'Colluding' with the gun makers & lobbyists pushing the credo of guns for all everywhere. And pretending it supports American “Freedom”.
As lawmakers share in gun profits through increasing campaign donations, this crowds out sensible candidates who feel a duty to public safety but who can’t get funding to run for office. We're seeing changes in public opinion, from most Americans who don't own guns and gun owners too. But can they get their opinions into political action, under our big money campaign system?
NYT---now do a comparison of how all these countries finance their elections , compared to the US. That's essential.
3
Here we have a neat, well-organized description of how some other countries manage gun purchases, and we still have several comments on the story dismissing 'gun control,' preaching the importance of the '2nd Amendment' and otherwise downplaying our gun problems. We will not begin to address our problems in a serious way until or unless we acknowledge two things: 1) we have way too many guns in circulation that are not responsibly accounted for, and 2) there are way too many people who have guns who shouldn't.
2
For a European outside observer the violence is saddening to watch. The sad truth is that things will need to get worse and worse in order to get better. Violence fuels violence and creates more and more suffering before there is an awakening.
I wish that America can overcome the political divide- regardless of what side of the fence you are on- and make a decision to end the suffering. It seems like the US is still in civil war from neighbour to neighbour.
3
If you are going to cite the rules for other countries at least check your information.
There are any number of routes to firearm ownership that do not require membership or attendance of clubs. There is a safety course and test; which I am told no one is allowed to fail. There is no practical assessment, except for handguns. I have never heard of anyone's family members being interviewed, but it is a perennial item on the "hoplophobes'" wish lists. Permits to Acquire a firearm are for category (A; B; C etc) not a specific type. The 28 day delay applies only to the first permit; which can be for up to four firearms. In fact the only nearly accurate item is the background check; which also assesses medical issues.
In addition to the ostensible process the article should have checked the actual processes. In China, for example, unless you are wealthy or in good standing with the Party, you have a better chance of levitating than obtaining a firearm. China being built on a peasant uprising the authorities live in eternal fear.
1
As stated in a recent NYTimes article, the citizens of the other countries fear guns but Americans love guns.
This means that "gun control" in the USA has to be limited in scope: It can't be so stringent that a black market will develop. This was the lesson of Prohibition and the "war on drugs." It is a lesson the gun control advocates and feel-good-look-good legislative officials have overlooked.
In NY we have gone past the tipping point with Cuomo's [inane] SAFE Act, which has not actually reduced ownership of AR-15 style guns but has pushed it underground, turning in excess of one million otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals with contempt for the whole gun control agenda.
3
The fact is that compliance with the law in the United States is a highly theoretical concept. I've been to many of the other countries listed in this article, and people in those countries are (my observation) MUCH more law abiding and willing to have the government dictate their choices than Americans are.
Need an example? Just look at sanctuary cities. Here in the USA it's accepted as an everyday freedom that entire cities can vote to ignore federal law ... and that's their right ... and good for them. So how are more unenforceable gun laws going to help?
Take crazy people seriously and institutionalize them, now there's the ticket.
Ah but how do you put crazy people in institutions??That falls trippingly from the tongue but that is about it. I remember we had a crazy woman in downtown Seattle who literally camped out on a heat grate in front of Nordstom's Department store. She was there for about 30years and neither the store or the police were ever able to get her institutionalized. She only went away when she died.
The problem here is that mental health specialists are afraid of trying to put someone away because they would be sued if the 'patient' found a sympathetic judge. The problem is twofold, at least, first mental health specialists find it difficult to diagnose angry people who might buy a gun and kill someone, and two, a very litigatious society. The patient, even if he loses, still puts fear in the hearts of the psychiatrists/psychologists who tried to commit him/her. This makes them stop and think twice before trying get someone committed.
2
When I was little this man came to our house with a large metal crowbar. He started hitting our sliding glass door hard with it. He was strung out on meth and wouldn't listen to my dad shouting at him to stop until my dad got his gun out. We had to wait 20 minutes for the police to show up so I shudder to think what wouldn't have happened to our family if it hadn't been for my Dad. I have many progressive values, but I can't get behind the destruction of the second amendment. These mass shootings reflect a breakdown of our social safety nets and a lack of resources for troubled individuals. Lets work on that.
6
Good luck on that. There are very few, if any treatments, for the crazy types that do run around in our society. In your case, it was a drug addled person and all the police can do is take him into a cell for him to dry out. If you had a reasonable prosecutor, they might even take into court to be tried for attempted breaking and entering. I bet he was just turned loose back onto the streets.
1
The first reaction of many Americans to the extremes of restricted access will be this: ridiculous. In some of these countries, the restrictions are so great that effectively people are barred from having any kind of gun. That isn't going to work here.
Consider this. Crime and violent crime in particular is most often the acts of young men. A proposal: no one under the age of 28 should be able to buy a gun without undergoing at least modest training and passing a simple test. This would not violate the Constitution, nor would it represent a major effort to stop people from having guns. It would slow down the process so that mentally deranged people would not have such easy, ready access. While learning and taking a test, perhaps a few or more people could be spotted as potentially violent and stopped.
I got access to my first rifle around the age of 12, not unusual in a very rural setting. My dad did not teach other my brother or me enough about safety and safe handling, but we learned to be careful and to never point a weapon at another person, loaded or otherwise. I own no guns now, nor do I intend to ever own one.
Like most kids who spent time on a farm, I am not intimidated by guns, nor do I want a prohibition against them, unless it proves necessary because gun loving organizations that will not change their absolutist positions. If that change must come, then so be it. I'd rather consider changes to the Constitution than have school children being shot like rabbits.
2
We don't have much gun crime in Ireland. Yes, the gun crime we do have is committed by criminals with illegal weapons, but that's how we know they are criminals, not just neighbours having a bad day.
I had a conversation with a member of our (largely unarmed) police force about obtaining a bee-bee gun to discourage magpies. Could I bring one back with me from a US visit? A cap pistol? A potato gun?
'No.'
I've calmed down about the magpies. It's okay.
And I relish the freedom to be a card-carrying curmudgeon - to be able to disagree with strangers, in traffic or anywhere, without feeling they will pop out their concealed weapon and shoot me.
5
Lets talk waiting periods...
I owned firearms in California - I had to wait to pick the firearms up
If I already owned several firearms how exactly does a waiting period prevent me from doing something "rash" with a firearm
I already own firearms...
In other words waiting periods - next to USELESS
4
Where is Switzerland? 1: Pass a background check. 2: Buy a gun. In per capita gun ownership it ranks third after the US and Yemen. Yet no such tragedies happen there, which leads me to believe that our problem is not so much about gun control, but about our violent and destructive nature. Would that be so hard to believe?
3
Yes, Switzerland has high gun ownership. Subsequently it also has the highest firearm death rate in all of Europe, about 4 times higher than Germany in 2005 for example. Still far lower than the US though. There are likely multiple reasons for that, for example private ownership of automatic weapons is completely illegal, semi-automatics require a special permit. And there are other restrictions. A large stock of Swiss firarms consists of ex-soldier's weapons, but they are not permitted to store their guns at their homes.
2
Coming from a country which was devastated by war not so long ago I can't understand this urge to have a gun. I had a pepper spray (which is legal here) for a time and it was complelety enough to make me feel safe from possible danger of an assault, and now there are even more ways to protect yourself without having to shot anyone.
With this research, it's clear there's a lot of information about gun safety and what keeps citizens of Western countries safe. So legislators, step up and implement the common sense protections the majority of American are asking for.
7
I have always been in favor of strict gun laws and background checks. When I lived alone I had purchased a .22 caliber long riffle for security and peace of mind. I took up target shooting with a friend so that I would know how to shoot the gun. On the day after the Sandy Hook school shooting I drove to the police station to find the best way to dispose of my gun because it was registered to my name. I was done with guns after knowing that the children had been killed because of guns, I couldn't imagine the fear they must have felt and that was the last feeling they had before they were killed. How is the second amendment more important than the lives of those children. Nothing has been done, no matter how many shootings I regret to say that I don’t think anything will be done. Plain and simple the best we can do is educate our kids about what signs to look for and what to do in an active shooter situation. I have lost all hopes for gun control.
14
What a bizarre reaction. Did you turn in your car after the series of terrorist truck attacks?
1
A child's death is worse than my death because the chiid will never get to have what I had.
Strict gun control works in China
Instead of looking at the restrictions on buying a gun, look at the ease of getting one generally. Just in this list, Mexico and Brazil have easy access to weapons even if they don't access the legally. The issue isn't buying guns, it's how the criminals and crazies get access to them. Simple laws and bans are only observed by the law abiding, not by the people committing the atrocities. It's not as simple a problem to solve and the uninformed demanding "gun control", whatever that is, would want you to believe.
6
Uninformed?! Perhaps a little research would enlighten one as to the per capita statistics in every single 'first' world democracy deaths by guns, we're off the charts by huge margins. We're approximately 700% higher than Canada and aprox 3000% higher than Great Britain! Speaks volumes for the 'uninformed' requests for simple laws and bans.
2
The fact that criminals commit criminal acts does not mean that the law is meaningless. For example, limiting access to military-style assault weapons reduces the number of innocent victims before, a fact that is proven more than once in our own history, Putting laws in place is how any society clearly demonstrates and enforces the limit of permissible behavior. The added bonus is that it gives law enforcement one more way to legally protect the public.
@Blanca Perez, where do you imagine criminals get guns? They get them from loopholes in our gun laws. One-third of all guns in the U.S. are sold without a background check. Every country has criminals. We have the highest rate of gun homicides of all Western countries. The N.R.A. would like us to believe there are no solutions, but obviously there are solutions.
It's not a difficult problem to solve if you have the political will. The only reason we lead Western nations in gun homicides (by significant margins) is the proliferation of guns. If we had no N.R.A., we would have solved this problem a long time ago. Whenever a politician tells you that nothing can be done beyond thoughts and prayers, he's speaking for the N.R.A. Don't believe it.
1
America and Yemen. I don't know what to feel except utter embarrassment.
7
ldfinkel
Ask Hollywood, they'll tell you how/what to feel.
[[ South Africa 1 Join an accredited hunting or shooting club, or document a need for self-defense.]]
The documented need for self-defense would be "I live in South Africa."
6
It like comparing apples to oranges.
USA is different from all other countries listed and most of the countries like Japan depend on the USA for their protection from external aggression's.
Each country has its own ethos and history which is very unique to its creation and the tendency towards firearms varies due to that.
The United States of America is unique, adventurous, individualistic, values freedom of the self and ambitious in its disposition. It is natural and necessary to always have a skeptical eye towards your own government which can be bought and owned by very powerful interests that lay outside the realm of democratically elected offices. In these days of 'activists judges' occupying the Judicial system, even that sacred body is peeling at its seems and it wont be long before it joins the poll numbers of the US Congress.
The gun control preaching leftist groups (useful idiots) acting in collusion with the establishment are only going to increase the scale and scope of guns sales in the country. The vast majority of the American people who own guns, use it appropriately. It is enshrined in the Constitution by the founders for a legitimate reason. Not paying heed to that and acting with a mob mentality as what the left typically does with its radical social, cultural, political agendas
in recent years will create consequences that will be unpalatable to itself and the society at large.
7
"...your own government which can be bought and owned by very powerful interests that lay outside the realm of democratically elected offices."
Perhaps why we should all go out and buy all the weapons we can, we are currently experiencing a state of government, never more evident, owned by very powerful interests that lay outside the realm of democratically elected offices. One of which would be the NRA!
Sure, there are many differences between all countries listed...it isn't possible to make a 100% accurate comparison. But the list does show that it's ridiculous easy to obtain a gun in the US compared to most other countries. The majority of these have moved on and developed a society without the need for any weapons and rather focus on improving life standards for its population.
To be honest, I'm no fan of weaponry of any kind. But I acknowledge the importance of your Constitution and what it stands for. It's part of your national identity and that should be the starting point for any future alterations in the legislation. Because if you somehow could set aside your hatred towards the lefties...there IS a problem that has to be addressed. I understand that your type of democracy, the two party kind, has led to a rather crippling division...but I'm pretty sure there are many democrats that oppose radical changes and either way there are also republicans that understand some changes are inevitable.
This might sound a bit weird, but I actually consider these 'activist judges' to be pretty conservative compared to my country. It's all in the eye of the beholder and that should be fine, in the end it affects everyone.
But unfortunately from across the pond it looks as if your population is currently facing eachother in a nationwide debate, standing and screaming at eachother while having your eyes and ears closed to avoid having to listen to another person's views.
1
The founders were people, not all-knowing gods. We aren't in the age of muskets. This isn't a left or right issue. Other countries have left and right sides, but they also have stronger gun controls and fewer murders. And we don't live in the Wild West anymore. This individualist idea is a made up fantasy. Societies advance by working together. Could the US have won WWII or gone to the Moon if we all had an everybody for themselves and taxes are theft attitude?
2
Thank God for the Constitution.
8
Joe, the Constitution does not give you any absolute rights, including gun ownership. Read the Heller decision again. I think it was wrongly decided, the work of five activist justices. But even Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right, and that governments can impose regulations on the sale and types of legal firearms, where they can be carried, how they should be stored, etc.
4
SandraH.
What is your point?
Firearms are not going anywhere.
I would really like to know the costs associated with gun ownership in these different countries. I would assume that firearms classes in Japan, permit applications in Germany, and gun safes in Israel don't come free or cheap. Thus there are not only bureaucratic hurdles to legal gun ownership, but also financial ones. It seems to me that gun ownership in the US is not just bureaucratically easy, it's also quite cheap.
4
Unfortunately, guns are much too cheap in the US. Gun violence costs us as a country billions of dollars a year--much more than firearms classes, licensing, or gun safes in other countries. Medical costs alone are astronomical, not counting the lost revenues from lives cut short and bodies and minds maimed for life.
One good way to save the country money would be to require gun owners to get licenses, attend firearms classes, and purchase gun safes.
1
Locally our classes range from 35 upwards. Range visits are 10-15 a visit. Ammunition is 13-20 a box and I usually go through a box per visit (monthly). Post range cleaning 5-10. Purchasing a firearm 400 upwards. If safety classes (beginner to advanced) were cheaper I would take more (a safety classes one month, a range visit the next) and I like your perspective. I would support mandatory classes from beginner to advanced like our driver's license, every five years. It would be a large investment upfront but a worthy one.
I am a lawful licenced gun owner in Canada. I even own a pistol. The article is accurate as regarding lawful gun owners such as myself but unlawful gun owners pay no attention to the law. We have open gang warfare for control of the drug trade in BC and the gang bangers pay no attention to the law. However, by having the laws, the police have tools at their disposal to prosecute the gang bangers for gun crimes. Also it is far more difficult for mentally ill people without gang connections to acquire guns to commit crimes. Large capacity magazines, for example, are virtually unobtainable.
12
So sad to see once-free countries so enslaved.
6
There is more to freedom than owning guns. Right wing billionaires are basically trying to enslave Americans. Take away the social safety net, unions, education so that you have easily controllable wage slaves. If you don't realize this, then you haven't been paying attention. Countries have France have stricter rules for contributions to political campaigns, for example. In the US, you've got billionaires buying politicians. How are normal people supposed to compete with that?
1
Well, that seems ironic coming from an American.
In fact it's the good old US of A that seems a bit stagnant with it's current gun legislation. I'm sorry, but the rest of the world chooses to invest in more peaceful improvements that actually might have some positive effect on society.
Sure, there are benefits for having guns, and for Americans it works well and there's no sane person that would want you to change.
But it's rather illusional to think that these countries have become enslaved, while they have democratically decided to get rid of weapons and thus reducing gun violence, crime rates, many casualty's, injury's, costs...but most of all that constant fear. To me weapons are completely irrelevant because I simply never feel unsafe. Anything can happen anytime, but I'm happy that I never have to think about the possibility of ...well anyone being able of having a weapon and therefore even the option of getting shot.
To me THAT's freedom...
3
And yet the USA is only rated as the 23rd freest country in the world. All the Western European countries do better.
It's as if the Americans are so blinded by their "freedom" to have guns that they are completely unaware of their deficiencies when it comes to "real" freedom.
One would almost think that American lawmakers realise this if one were to be cynical.
2
Looks like we beat Yemen - Tired of wining yet Trump supporters?
6
I had a store apologize again and again when it took 2 whole days for my paperwork to clear for an old-school revolver, the second-hand gun I shoot for target practice and carry when deer hunting with my rifle. The clerks and manager were stunned that I didn't really care. I told them "if I feared for my life that much, I'd call the cops and ask to be locked up. Or go stay in a motel."
We need to make it harder to get a gun. That's not the same as making it illegal. And we need to mandate training before taking possession. The conceal-carry classes in my state are mostly a joke. Some are really good, such as our range's $200 course that teaches a lot about handling a gun under stress and takes all day. The instructors are all former law enforcement or military.
At the other end of the spectrum, Cabelas hosted a "couples class" that included dinner this Valentine's Day.
It made me a little sick.
18
In other words if you have money to take all the requirements, that $200 I can use to buy a gun and protect me from the MS 13 gang member that just threatend my family, and the cops told me they cant do anyting until the animals "do" something.
America has probably just as many crazy people as a percentage of its population as anywhere else. But why do we grant the ease to acquire assault weapons to the general population, wherein a tiny minority will be psychotic and have no problem in causing mind boggling tragedy. There will be another act of barbarism with assault weapons, aided by NRA lobbying and immoral, despicable politicians. The NRA would be at home in Yemen.
6
Good point. But please don't use words like "psychosis" so glibly. The majority of gun violence by non-career criminals is not committed by the mentally ill but by people (men) who feel aggrieved, outraged, desperate or vengeful.
People with mental health problems (not simply the emotional problems or character flaws described above) are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
1
Good point! They would be at home in Yemen. When they are eventually kicked out of the US (like that will ever happen), perhaps they could look towards Yemen if they don't already to business there.
In its 240-odd (yes, odd) years, the United States has gone from enlightened to ignorant, impressive to pathetic. Exhibit A: The Gun Problem
(I'd also propose a list of Exhibits B-Z, continuing with AA-ZZ; however, alas, The New York Times doesn't provide enough space.)
5
This article is apparently intentionally misleading. It applies to longguns in the USA only. To buy a handgun in New York State, it takes about four to six MONTHS. Elements include lengthy applications, several written references, background checks, fingerprinting, and in my county a personal interview with the JUDGE that approves the request. Interestingly, there is no requirement for training, safe useage or instruction as to where you can or cannot "carry" which is a glaring error. NYTimes, please, you know not all guns are covered by your article. Please do an article explaining the difference and similarities between the common hunting rifle and the assault weapons that are so despised. Your readers really should be better informed of the details of this discussion. (There is very little difference)
8
They mention different states may have stricter rules, everyone is informed.
Congratulation America, we beat Yemen!
1
Here is the problem with "arms" : any idiot can use one.
That alone is reason enough to outright BAN them, honestly.
3
DKM
Here is the problem with "information" : any idiot can use it.
For one agenda or another.
Next step? Discuss the bastardization of the 2nd amendment.
1
Right. Here is what the 2nd Ammendment says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if you have concluded that "bear Arms" means no limitation on what those "Arms" consist of, like an AR15, then please tell me where I (a well regulated Militia of 1) can purchase a nuclear arsenal? Hopefully at a gun show where I don't need to go thru those pesky background checks.
1
This says it all...shows how ruthless the NRA is. And the rest of the world knows it, but idiots in the US, who stretch the limits of the 2nd Amendment force this down everyone's throat. Go America...your politicians (Republican) are despicable people who do not care about those who have been killed as long as they get their millions annually.
6
As a foreigner it's easy to bash on the US gun regulations but that's mostly because I simply don't understand the need for weapons. I have never held a weapon, used one, or even had one in my near vicinity...never needed one and always feel safe.
For my study History I've read most of your Constitution with some special interest for the 2nd amendment. First I thought it was silly to value this 250 year old 'idea' above anything else. But with years comes (a bit) more wisdom and I understand that's it's the core of your Constitution, it's simply fully interwoven in your national identity. That's something to cherish so it will be a great challenge to somehow alter the regulations without compromising the thing that defines your identity.
The main reason for the 2nd amendment was to allow the people to bear arms and defend themselves against all relevant dangers in 1791, and to make sure the government doesn't screw up like the English.
I'm not sure, but I assume that the most zealous defenders of this right are primarily Republicans? Why does it sound weird to me that on the one hand, they defend the current gun legislation because it protects them against the government, and on the other hand the GOP, and therefore most Republicans allows the same government to invest up to 650 billion dollars a year on defense? Weird.
Seems like the foundation of their argument only provides false security at the cost of a lot of casualty's and injury's.
Good luck!
5
@Snaak, our Supreme Court never interpreted the Second Amendment to confer an individual right to bear arms, This changed in 2008, when a GOP-controlled SCOTUS decided the Heller case. However, this interpretation is only slightly over nine years old.
When the Constitution was ratified, most Americans felt more loyalty to their state than to the federal government. In the Federalist Papers, Madison, author of the Constitution, expressed the desire to avoid a standing national army that could overpower any state militia. To that end, he declared that the federal army should not number more than 30,000, while state militias could maintain as many as 500,000 volunteers. The Second Amendment was added to enshrine the idea that volunteer state militias took precedence over a national army, and that volunteers to state militias should have the right to be armed.
2
Yes, why don't all these gun-owning citizens take their weapons to war and make themselves useful. It would greatly reduce defence spending. Oh, I just remembered that the reason they carry guns is to protect themselves against their own government. Hilarious!
2
This is exactly the heart of the problem. Pupils and students are unarmed. The 50 or so gay people murdered were unarmed, John Lennon and JFK ( to my knowledge), were unarmed, like one gazillion others.
I think the victims' defencelessness is the whole reason of those killings.
As a European you would not distinguish between an assault weapon and other weapons. The purpose of any gun is to assault.
I feel sicker than ever reading this. We're competing with Yemen for Most Lawless. Time to repeal the archaic Second Amendment.
6
Too bad Obama and the Dems wasted 8 years and all their political capital getting no legislation done on guns.
People want to pretend this is Trump's fault bc why? Inflated rhetoric on the campaign trail? Is that seriously what people are going with?
1
I am not a legislature or pretend to know much about how a law is passed. But I think you forgot the part where in order to pass legislation one needs republicans, who are in the NRA pocket.
4
So you completely forget the effort Obama and Democrats made to pass universal background checks after Sandy Hook?
Republicans filibustered the universal background check bill. It's the fault of the NRA, but GOP senators were their enablers.
1
Neh...blaming this on Trump is pointless and seems just as unfair as him claiming to be responsible for the economic recovery. I have little sympathy for that man, but at least he's addressing the issue now, or at least it appears that way.
And what can he do? The NRA is quite the obstacle, and so is the GOP. And that's including support of the senate, something Obama never had, making any progress undoable.
Somehow they have to come up with a solution that restricts the gun sales in a way that safety improves, but without undermining too much of your Constitution...
For the record -
What is Mexico's homicide rate?
4
Mexico’s homicide rate this past year equated with 20.5 murders per 100,000 residents; in 2011, that figure was 19.4. Mexico has recorded its highest homicide rate in years, with the government’s interior ministry reporting there were 29,168 murders in 2017
http://time.com/5111972/mexico-murder-rate-record-2017/
1
Thank you Flo,
Seems like their stringent gun control is not exactly an answer to the problem...
1
Mexico is obviously a poor example, mind you it's mostly drug related and what's created the market for those drugs?! Now let's cite some examples of where heavy duty controls work in a civilized society:
Every Single 'First' World Democratized Country On The Globe - PERIOD!
Yep - ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-t...
6
In the US we NEED easy access to all kinds of firearms.
Half the midwest are either cattle rustlers or horse thieves. The other half are ranchers. This excludes law enforcement and the military.
It's not called the Wild, Wild West for nothing!
2
Netflix released Rotten recently. The chicken episode showed a disgruntled farmer who purposefully overheated three chicken houses causing a substantial amount of loss of income for the owners who were not reimbursed by the producers. The chicken house owners did not have cameras at the chicken houses nor someone from 12a-8a with a gun, taser, bow/arrow, weapon that may have deterred this disgruntled farmers saving them from such losses.
This isn't the 1800s.
If the owners were unaware that someone was in the process of destroying their property, what good would having a weapon do? If they noticed what was going on, but they didn't, they should call the police. That's what we do in Canada. We don't take out a firearm and threaten someone with it. By the way, in the US, people who have murdered or harmed trespassers or intruders have been themselves incarcerated and charged for doing so! You don't have a legal right to threaten anyone - even if you don't intend on harming them - let alone kill or harm them.
Want 2 know how easy it is to buy an AR-15 Sporting rifle in my state?
Order model, manufacturer desired online; ship to dealer in my home state; when called to say weapon was here, filled out National Instant Background Check form; In about 10 minutes left with my new sporting rifle, 30 round magazine and box of ammo Nato 5.56-.226 and sights (purchased separately).
Took some target practice and went home.
2
30 round mag? Or three 10 round mags? Each at a cost of 20$ per mag. and a box of ammo at 20$. I forgot to price in sight (varies). You forgot snake (30$) and range fee (10-20$). What rifle classes/safety classes does Portland offer?
30 round Mag. Sales person went over rifle with me and never took a safety course although they are offered around in my area. What I found was how easy this was to use, how well one could hit it's target and virtually no kick back,light in weight, very comfortable and fun to shoot. Only draw back, if this is one, is how fast one can use up ammo, and that is costly.
But again my point is how easy it was to purchase an AR - 15.
Do you think it should be this easy for a "sporting rifle"in America?
1
Austria has the "Privileged Prince" system
If you're rich like Mike Bloomberg, you can hire armed security
Mike doesn't think you need to worry about your security though so he's all for a gun ban and confiscation program
If you're rich and a politician like Dianne Feinstein, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in S.F.
If you're not rich and or a rich politician, then NO amount of reason will be good enough to get such a permit in SF, no matter what the threat is - you get the same answer from the City...
Go to court and Get a Restraining order...
If your Donald Trump, well then NYC will approve your permit instantly and as an extra added bonus should you need an Einstein Visa then that too will be quickly approved by the Feds.
Now should you actually be Einstein well then your Visa to come to the US may take some time to get processed and approved.
We fought a REVOLUTION 200+ years ago to make sure we didn't have to put up with the "noise" of a monarchy.
Yet here are the Gun Grabbers saying that's exactly what we need to return to...
No Thanks!
5
So let me ask you this, as a fellow gun-owner: what is wrong with defending life and limb with a 17-shot 9mm or an old-school .357 like the one I keep in my gun safe? Do you really need a battlefield weapon? I kill deer just fine with a .30-06 made the year I was born.
The lack of compromise is going to lead those you call "gun grabbers" to grab them all. Instead of responding to tragedy after tragedy like a paranoiac, why not educate folks and give a little ground?
That's why the NRA will never get a penny of my money. Gabby Giffords' organization, however, does.
12
@Peak
Make NO mistake about this
They get to ban semi auto rifles and the very next argument you're going to hear is this-
"Well Rifles only kill ~300 people per year, what we really need to do now is ban semi-auto pistols" -
There goes the 2nd Amendment! The Gun Grabbers have subverted the Constitution and your right and my right to self defense. Gone -that's what this fight is about
I'll ask it again How does taking away my right to self defense solve the gun violence problem in Baltimore or Memphis or Chicago?
@Java, I'd go to the mat to allow you and other law-abiding citizens to keep their guns. As tactical rifles are not involved in most murders annually, we need to to better at getting cheap handguns out of criminal hands. I'd be open to buy-backs, traffic stops to confiscate concealed guns w/o permits, making background checks universal (including those by private sellers at gun shows), and, frankly, making all high-cap guns cost more. Libertarians and the ACLU would scream bloody murder, but the body count is too high. Any other nation would call our murder rate, down though it is since the early 90s, a war.
Used striker-fired semiautos packing over 15 rounds can be found for under $350, if you know where to look. They should start at twice that. As for ARs? $3000 and up should be their price + mandatory tactical training for any self-defense weapon + annual recertification before buying any gun. Keep them expensive and, yes, crooks will still get them, but gang-bangers on the lowest rungs will have less access over time.
Gun owners who do not secure their guns and get them stolen should also be prosecuted. A quick access gun safe is not rocket science and costs a couple hundred bucks. Require them by law. That's the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.
We need to eliminate gun shows where a large number of weapons exchange hands with minimal checks.
2
Barry, I frequent them to buy reloading supplies. Dealers selling have to run the checks. The problem is with private sellers. Since a check costs $2, there should be a vendor who does them for all the little guys at the shows. Buyer pays the fee. No pass? No gun. Done.
1
Japan does not have a right in its constitution for citizens to own firearms, the United States does so, end of comparison. The gun rights that the democrats want (read gun confiscation) will only hurt legal gun owners, it does nothing for illegal guns. I'm curious to know if all the democrats in congress and their enablers in the media will give up their private security since no one needs guns?
4
First, you push the usual straw man argument. No one is talking about gun confiscation or gun bans. This is absolute nonsense.
Second, you assume that the Constitution confers an absolute right to own firearms. It doesn't. Even the Heller decision makes clear that the government has the right to regulate firearms.
Nikolas Cruz was a legal gun owner. Do you think he should have been? Should he have been able to buy an assault rifle at eighteen?
1
For the US, don't forget about the question that asks applicants if they've been "officially" deemed crazy (is okay if your family, coworkers, classmates, and neighbors think you're nuts).
Countries in this list with a 2d Amendment - USA.
6
Countries on this list with a constitution conferring an absolute inalienable right to own guns: none, including the U.S. You'll have to play a different trump card.
3
Still having the outdated (December 15, 1791) 2nd amendment in our constitution is our sheer bad luck. That was added in those days where people have to form "well regulated militias" themselves locally to protect themselves during the initial formation of the country. It is completely unnecessary now. I am hoping for it to go away sometime in future. But, it is strengthening day by day due to stupid misrepresentations. Guns are made only to kill. It is shameful that a well developed country like USA is almost equivalent to a country like "Yemen" in this respect!!!
5
KP
"It is completely unnecessary now."
A lot of people say the same thing about the First Amendment.
It is absolutely disgraceful and very telling of why we have so many mass shootings, handgun murders & accidental shootings in this nation. I have had enough of this disgraceful NRA hijacking my nation and obfuscating the true intend behind our second amendment.
3
1.In Israel granting a license to hold any firearm is at the discretion of the police department. If you are not a settler or in a job that requires travel in the occupied territories you will not get a permit. Period!
2.If you do get a permit it would only be for a handgun, not an assault rifle .
3.If you want any gun control in the US you have to bypass the second amendment and instead of regulating guns, start regulating ammunition.
There are 300 million guns already in circulation, even if you ban them you can never collect them.
Start with regulating calibers: "only certain new calibers are allowed to be manufactured, imported, or sold in the US" (second amendment says nothing about regulating manufacturing or sales of any specific calibers)
Then ban manufacturing /importation/sales of all common caliber ammunition .
Then regulate sales of new caliber ammunition by requiring permits/ training/ background checks.
Then limit the amount sold to any individual to 10 bullets per year against submission of same amount of used shells.
3
What a dubious crown! I cringe when I find Yemen is the first runner-up.
1
Take a look at Mexico and Brazil, both on this list for a hard process to buy a gun, and see how much gun violence those two countries have. The issue isn't buying guns legally, it's getting one whatever it takes.
If you want an accurate picture of the effectiveness of "gun control" and restrictions on firearms, look no further than our neighbor to the south. I worked as a federal agent in Mexico and I'm amused each time I have to produce my drivers license and wait for them to run my name to buy Sudafed. Meanwhile the Mexicans are buying precursors by the pallet load and smuggling fentanyl and meth into the country. They have more money than you can imagine and buy full auto AK's from international arms brokers by the conex container. Officials are bribed and the only people who don't have weapons are the common folks. Meanwhile full auto gunfights take place on the street and mysteriously no police can be found unless they are in the gunfight on one side or the other. With CNC machining it is easy to produce firearms. I think I'll hold on to mine including those "deadly assault weapons." I'm not a threat to anyone and a Life NRA member so despite all the dramatic rhetoric, there is no blood on my hands.
5
And what about your neighbours to the North?
2
The Las Vegas shooter was a law-abiding citizen for 59 years, and a big defender of gun rights. The Parkland shooter was a law-abiding citizen for 19 years, and he went on his shooting spree wearing a M.A.G.A. cap. With all due respect, some law-abiding citizens become mass shooters. Some kill a domestic partner in anger. Just because you're law-abiding doesn't mean that you won't misuse a weapon at some point.
Mexico is almost a failed state because of the drug trade. Its murder and kidnapping laws are also often ignored. However, that doesn't mean that laws against murder and kidnapping are useless. You're making a faulty generalization.
I believe that the NRA has blood on its hands.
4
Yemen, with the second highest gun ownership rate per-capita in the world, also has one of the highest mass shooting rates for countries over 10 million people.
Source: http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/the-only-country-with-more-mass...
What this wonderful article fails to mention in its comments for Mexico, and which is an interesting fact in the current drug-war that has killed almost 300,000 Mexicans, is that the supply of guns in the black market comes from the USA. So think about how access to guns in the USA is killing thousands of people across the border.
7
I think you may have lost some of your audience to instant patriotism-fatigue by beginning this article with: ‘Many Americans can buy a gun in less than an hour. In some countries, the process takes months’ – this fact just shows the superiority of the American Way.
3
I don't know about most of these countries but the part about Mexico and Brazil are a joke. You mean to tell me that all of those cartels go to mexico city to get their guns. That is a joke. I lived in Brazil and I can assure the vast majority of guns there are not obtained that way. I have seen guns there that can be smuggled through metal detectors. As for Israel virtually everyone is in the army and they have guns everywhere. I have never seen so many guns. The security guard at the mall and the bouncer at a nightclub visibly carry uzi machine guns. Take a bus from tel aviv to jerusalem on a sunday and it is filled with young soldiers returning to their assignments and they are fully loaded. As for Japan I am sure the yakuza let police inspect their gun storage and that they pass background reviews. If we suddenly stopped all gun sales in the US the cartels in mexico would pick up the slack the next day especially since they are losing marijuana and human smuggling income.
5
@aaron, the Mexican cartels wouldn't be able to pick up the slack. They buy their guns in the U.S.
You seem to be arguing that every country has the same gun problems as the U.S. Look at the statistics.
1
The US is a " Developed " country. And yet we keep company with an underdeveloped terrorist state like Yemen with regards to buying guns. Even Yemen comes second after the US which gets top-billing. How depressing!
1
if you think that background checks will cure anything, you have another think coming. The ugly truth is that there is no "list" of those mentally ill. Yes, we have list of criminals convicted of a crime, but a nut case does not show up on any list and never will. How would you certify the nut jobs? You need a trained professional psychiatrist or psychologist to do that. However, what happens to that list when the first certifiable nut job sues the mental health expert? He or she will claim that they are not crazy but fall well within standard norms. Now, even if that nutcase loses in court, the fear of a law suit will be instilled in the mental health experts. Heck, it will just be easier to let the less violent crazies to go unreported, they will never make that list. Only the worst and most obvious will be put on it. Great! At least we cut the number of crazies with guns but that is a shallow victory since one gun now can kill dozens and dozens of innocent people--look no further than the Las Vegas shooter.
1
Other countries have the same proportion of mentally ill, but they don't have mass shootings.
The reform that would immediately address mass shootings would be to ban the sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. However, your argument that universal background checks are useless is debunked by the data. States with universal background checks almost always have less gun violence that states without.
If you have a different solution to the problem, share it.
2
There are a variety of reasons why other countries are successful, e.g., culture, an early impression on the psyche that they don't need guns, etc. You are missing the obvious in my comment. But keep in mind that most mass shooters in this country would not have appeared on ANY list so a background check would not have found them!!! I think your belief in background checks is delusional, it is a nice thought and sounds good but like many things in life, it will not do much.
The answer is to get rid of guns entirely, it ain't gonna happen--at least in my lifetime or perhaps yours. There are far too many in this country who live in a delusional state that actually believe in their deepest part of their souls that somehow, they armed with that AR-15, are going to stop the "guvment" coming after them. They will be part of some kind of "militia" to stop the government from trampling on their "rights"--whatever they perceive those rights to be.
At the end of the day, my opinion is that talk about background checks are just blather that makes everyone feel good that they are discussing something meaningful. Sadly, our mental health sciences are just not good enough to ferret out crazy people. And even is an expert found a nutcase, they would be very fearful of putting him or her on any list. Take a look at the case in Germany were a co-pilot suffered from depression and could not broach patient-doctor privilege. Over a 100 people died when he crashed the plane into a mountain.
The 2nd Amendment is the Killer Amendment. It serves no purpose in our modern world, other than to enable killing on innocents. That none of these other nations need such to inculcate such a "right" into their laws is telling. We stand alone as the nation that enables death and destruction at the hands of guns at a catastrophic pace.
6
Meh!
Three hundred million guns in this country, we long ago should all have been killed in a Tarantino-esque blaze of gore. But the vast majority of legal gun owners don't have any problems.
I would rather see law enforcement tighten up their procedures for when multiple people call in reports of a dangerous person with a gun.
2
Oh, speaking of killing innocents, we lead the pack in abortions, too. Strange that abortion is considered a "constitutional right" even though it's not spelled out anywhere in the actual Constitution, unlike the "right to bear arms" ...
1
Interestingly enough, the things that the other countries do could be implemented here ... and nothing would change. Laws for the law abiding, by definition, don't effect the lawless.
1
That must explain why gun deaths of all types are so much less common in all other first world countries. Who knew it was that simple?
But you're right in a way. Laws don't make the culture with respect to guns. The gun laws in those countries reflect their culture - which is one that rightly fears guns of all types. Those laws wouldn't work here because first and foremost, we like guns. A lot. More than just about anything. We not afraid of guns. We're acutally just afraid of each other.
3
"Laws for the law abiding, by definition, don't affect the lawless."
Ok then, remove all background checks and gun laws that certainly only affect lawful and responsible gun owners anyway, and see if the death toll rises.
You commit a common logical fallacy, the faulty generalization: "Laws for the law-abiding, by definition, don't affect the lawless."
Laws do affect criminals. They permit prosecution and punishment. Sometimes they deter crime. Stricter gun regulation would obviously make it much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. That would be fine with me.
1
In Canada, you actually have to go through the process to get a long gun licence first. Includes a federal police (RCMP) background check, and a certified firearms course. Literally takes weeks. Guns have to be locked in a safe in your home. Ammo locked in another. Trigger guards. Can't transport in a car except in a locked case and not loaded and then only to a gun club or your cottage, or hunting. Ammo has to be in a separate locked box. Can't just carry it around. At all.
And then after all that, you can apply for a handgun licence. And once to get one – more and more weeks later – you can only use your handgun at the range/gun club you are a member of. Nowhere else. Can't carry it around. Anywhere. Can't transport it loaded. Has to be locked in a case in your trunk if you have one on the way to the range, with ammo in a separate locked box. And when you’re done shooting at the range, straight home and into the safe it has to go.
Good Lord, how do they stand the lack of freedom? I guess very few gun deaths is its own reward.
10
Can attest to this. My father owns hand guns and belonged to a gun club, he also owns antique revolvers and rifles. Taking equipment to the shooting range was serious business as you've stated! At home they were locked in a safe and ammo stored separately. outside of a display case for the antiques (which no longer fired), all other guns were locked out of site and access. Was no hardship for my dad to apply, write the tests, prove membership and register his firearms in order to target shoot. All part of the process in responsible gun ownership for those who partake in the hobby.
1
The processes described for countries other than Yemen and the US (that's really stellar company for us, no?) would go a long way toward weeding out a large percentage of mentally unstable and irresponsible gun owners. Make no mistake guns kill people. The guns used in most mass shootings were designed specifically for that purpose. (Would a real hunter use an automatic rifle to bring down game?) I agree that all of the people who perpetrated the mass shootings over the past 20-30 years were mentally ill, but I wonder how many people they would have killed without access to a gun - or at least without access to a gun that could discharge multiple rounds quickly. It is disheartening to see just how many people are more concerned with the ease of purchasing a gun (which is what the "2nd amendment" argument is really about) than preventing the unnecessary deaths of so many innocent people.
2
Unless I missed it, and most astonishingly, I didn’t see any country requiring liability insurance.
1
Seems that we need to rethink "American Exceptionalism in the arena of firearms. Start with collecting the data. Yes, I'm a former Boy Scout with a marksmanship merit badge. A former Army Officer with an expert badge, and a 75 year old grandfather who believes sometimes the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
6
Seems like most of the steps taken by these fifteen countries make sense. Many include a requirement to be part of a gun club (gun range).
Availability of Assault Rifles and other firearms of mass slaughter should be limited and restricted to gun ranges - like China does for all guns - they are the only possible place for the "safe" use of military weapons. We don't allow dragster, Formula 1 cars and giant monster trucks on civilian roads. There is no rational reason for these weapons to be out in the open and in civilian areas and homes. One could effectively buy an AR weapon and have a gun range keep safe custody of it for the owner's use at the range. Moving the weapon would require Authorization, like in Brazil, and could be sent disassembled in various shipments via USPS, UPS of FedEx and reassembled in the safety of another gun range. Sale amongst members could likewise be done within the confines of gun ranges licensed to do so.
I am more worried about sane angry people with guns than mentally challenged individuals with guns. To complement "mental" or psychiatric certifications, a test to assess and determine Anger Management should be done. Any road-rage episodes or DUI, for example, should bar access to firearms for 10 years, say, from last episode. Perhaps analysis of social media to determine "anger issues" that seem excessive.
There's a sex-offenders registry. Perhaps we need a no-gun-permited registry.
Like Yemen, "the law is largely unenforced" in the USA.
2
I think American media, commentators and public miss the real reason gun laws are so lax in the US compared to the rest of the world. In most countries, the political power is concentrated in the hands of the person that is Prime Minister or President. In the US the power is diffuse so nobody is really accountable and a determined minority can buy legislation or stymie administrative action. When a big incident like the Florida school happens in any other country, the head of the government has to react because everybody knows he has the power to fix it and he cannot escape his responsibility, otherwise he will be blamed and voted out. Diffusion of power in the US is its biggest weakness and its biggest strength.
1
That's just so not really true. Canada's gun laws are not in place because of the Westminister model of government. It's because they don't like guns. As a society. As a people. Laws don't drive their culture. Culture drives their laws. #1 We like guns . #2 we're afraid of each other. If you've been to Canada, Or Britain, you would see that they don't/they aren't.
2
@SGoodwin, I think your premise is wrong. There's nothing inherent in our nature that makes us different than other people. Laws do drive the culture, and sometimes they must be enacted before the culture changes (i.e., Civil Right Act, Voting Rights Act, etc.)
A minority of Americans are gun fetishists. Most gun owners aren't, and most Americans don't even own guns.
1
This is a false statement:
"Roughly a third of American gun owners buy guns without a background check, which federal law does not require when buying directly from a private seller."
It's in the low single percentages. How would they know that one third of all gun purchases are private sales? At gun shows? The mythical gun show loophole? I just went to a gun show here in Louisiana this past weekend. All gun purchasers must have a background check. I asked the person who ran and organized the show.
4
Federal Firearms License holders are required to conduct background checks of potential buyers, but under federal law, private sellers are exempt from the background check requirement. Only ten states require background checks for all gun sales.
Many private sellers are in fact gun dealers who routinely sell multiple guns They violate the spirit of the law but adhere to the letter, which exempts anyone "not in the business of selling guns", which means deriving at least 50% of their income from gun sales. Other non-licensed gun dealers violate both the spirit and the letter of the law. The gun show loophole may be poorly named - many private sales happen in other venues - but it is real.
Some conclusions from a 2009 GAO report on firearms trafficking from U.S. to Mexico:
"ATF officials stated certain provisions of some federal firearms laws present challenges to their efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico. For example, they identified key challenges related to (1) restrictions on collecting and reporting information on firearms purchases, (2) a lack of required background checks for private firearms sales, (3) limitations on reporting requirements for multiple sales."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/291223.pdf
2
Anyone who sells guns as a business enterprise must have an FFL. There is no requirement that it be more or less than 50% of their income. You made that up.
I just looked it up.
Åsne Seierstad, author of "One of Us" - the story of how Anders Breivik murdered 77 fellow Norwegians - described how over time Breivik acquired weapons, ammunition and chemicals (for homemade bombs) by using the internet. Timothy McVeigh plotted the Oklahoma City bombing in the same methodical way. Cruz purchasing the AR-15 a year before the Parkland shooting tells us he was preparing for something...someday.
Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, with his multiple suitcases of death, his detailed planning of the bloodbath (cameras! two hotel rooms for maximum window access!) makes me wonder how many months or years he had the whole thing planned.
Thank you for this story - I'm envious of these other countries, but especially of our neighbors in Canada.
3
The article is all well and good, however, Gun Rights for US citizens are enshrined in the US Constitution.
Until the Supreme Court re-interprets the 2nd amendment, I don't see much hope in restricting gun rights.
BY THE WAY - I am in favor of background checks etc. just saying.......
1
Unlimited gun rights are not enshrined in the Constitution. This is a common misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. Even the Heller decision (which reinterpreted the Second Amendment to include an individual right to bear arms) would allow licensing, banning certain weapons, waiting periods, storage requirements, and most of the restrictions mentioned in this article.
2
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand?
And please don't give the argument of needing draconian prerequisites for "permission" to own a weapon. Overbearing obstacles become infringement if it makes it difficult to arm oneself. I mean, if requiring something as simple as a state issued ID to vote is considered burdensome, then how much more can you ask of gun owners?
what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?
5
There is no unlimited right to bear arms in the Constitution. The 2008 Heller decision does not limit the government's right to regulate guns.
You have to register to vote. Would you agree to a requirement to register to own a gun?
3
Having laws and regulations that would mimic the requirements from even the most stringent country listed here would in no way violate the supposed rights granted by the 2nd Amendment (which I also believe to be anachronistic and misinterpreted). You would still be able to bear arms but just have to work harder to do it.
1
That is why the founders included "shall not be infringed". Just about all the hoop jumping being proposed is simply an attempt to nfringe.
The right to self-defense is not granted by the federal government, simply protected.
1
@SSS, you don't have an absolute right to bear arms. Sorry. No Supreme Court has ever interpreted the Second Amendment that way.
By the way, do you belong to a well-regulated militia?
3
This is actually very misleading about Britain. You do not follow four simple steps and then "buy a gun". It is almost completely impossible for a civilian to own a hand gun, and the ownership of rifles and shotguns is severely restricted to those who can demonstrate a need to own one. The ownership of "assault-style rifles" is completely unthinkable. The UK has one of the lowest rates of firearm ownership in the world and one of the lowest rates of firearm-caused injury and death. It is not very hard to figure out cause and effect.
4
The only country whose process for purchasing a deadly weapon does not make sense is ours. It is disappointing that U.S. private enterprise has become the moral authority in this matter and not our elected leaders. The latest tax bill and ongoing lack of action from our federal government on common sense gun safety provides additional evidence that the only Americans Congress and the Senate want to serve and protect are themselves.
3
A little more info on Japan.The only type of firearm which a Japanese citizen may even contemplate acquiring is a shotgun.[5] Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap (p.27)shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[6] Without a license, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands. It also has to be kept in an offsite approved locker.
You can not own a hand gun.
2
Anyone notice in this great article how easy it is to purchase a gun in the US? No wonder we have so much gun related violence and deaths. What an embarrassment. It should also be pointed out that the background check is trivial and not very robust. The systems that are used for doing Federal background checks are flawed because the systems are old, under-resourced and not digitally integrated across the country. Also, the background check process allows for the buyer to get the gun if the Feds do not complete the check within a very short time (3 days?). And it's easy to circumvent the process without consequences. Our background check system is almost useless because of politics.
3
My 87 year old mother (in a wheelchair) is legally allowed to buy an assault rifle - but she is not allowed to adopt a cat. Enough said.
4
Sad huh? An affordable graduate degree or a dog of my own would improve my life more than a monthly dose of range time but even with a large non-refundable pet deposit most landlords say no and continuing college costs too much. A very sad state indeed.
1
You know what would be really interesting to go with this article, are a few facts (a) how many legal gun owners there are (b) how many legally owned guns (c) how many gun deaths - deliberate & accidental there are a year or in a given period and (d) how many illegal guns there are estimated to be.
Cos just jumping through legal hoops, doesnt' give a full picture, interesting though it is in isolation.
2
There are approximately 300 million legally owned guns in the U.S., and about 36,000 gun deaths a year from all causes.
How many are there in the U.K.?
2
The USA's death by gun rate on a per capita basis compared to the UK is in the 3000%+ higher category!! The closest any first world industrialized democracy comes to the statistics of the US is Canada at 700% less!! The US is off the charts with all of the aforementioned countries - controls and restrictions work, plain and simple.
Shortening the US process to 2 steps, and then admitted in a sidebar that reality is considerably more complex, is a bit of a mislead. I'll venture out on a limb and say that the authors have never actually purchased a gun.
For someone in California, the process is considerably more complicated. For states that allow CCWs, it can be as extensive as process as described for other nations.
5
Many states that allow CCWs have very lax processes. California's is more robust, but obviously CCWs should be restricted. Most of the countries listed don't allow CCWs.
We're fortunate in California to have better gun regulation, but it's not as strict as most countries on this list.
1
Agree. I would really like to see more journalists tour ranges, go to a gun show and find out what they need to buy a gun, talk to gun owners at the range, ask the gun store/owner what it would take to transfer a weapon, go to their local law enforcement and speak to them, read their states gun manual. Apply for a gun, buy ammo, etc. I ponder though whether this process scares them as to what they would learn about everyday citizens who own handguns and rifles.
SandraH.
You sure are making lots of comments about firearms/laws and such concerning the Second Amendment.
Have you ever tried purchasing a firearm? Didn't think so.
"Many states that allow CCWs have very lax processes."
Never been to Massachusetts have you?
"We're fortunate in California to have better gun regulation, but it's not as strict as most countries on this list."
Sure hard to acquire a firearm legally but easy to get shot by an illegal alien. Why isn't the entire state of California a sanctuary for illegal aliens?
Priorities I guess.
Violent crime is increasing in the UK. Criminals break into occupied houses because they know the people aren't armed and the criminals can get money and jewelry from wallets and purses which people bring with them when they leave the house. In America criminals break into unoccupied homes. In the UK it's usually a home invasion of an occupied house where they frequently beat and injure their victims.
3
This is highly misleading. In the US there exists great variance between states. Buying a handgun in NY, for example, approximates some of the most restrictive countries on the list. Also, in NY one may no longer purchase an assault rifle, and those already owning such firearms must resister them with the state police.
4
As usual, the NYT is generalizing. In California, you have to fill out a two-page form and take a firearms knowledge test. Then you have to wait a minimum of two weeks (it's usually a month) while a background check is done.
Then, when you go to pick up your gun, you have to buy a gun lock for it.
Numerous other states in the U.S. have similar requirements. Sure, these are not federal laws. But to fail to mention that most Americans live in states with tighten gun regulation than the ones outlined here is misleading at best.
3
What a useless article. Not sure about other countries but in the US gun laws are administrated at the state and local level. And it's all over the place. In some the laws are almost as restrictive as places like Japan. Heck in MA, if you are able to get a firearms license, you are actually placed on the same database that criminals are tracked on. At least it used to be that way.
And we all know that criminals do not follow the law. As is often pointed out Chicago has a murder rate that exceeds that of many 3rd world countries. In fact for nearly 20 years there was a total firearms ban. Even after that was struck down Illinois has some of the most restrictive firearms licensing laws in the country, which has had little impact on crime committed with firearms.
5
@Mark, you seem to be saying that laws in general are useless because criminals break them. Is that really what you believe?
Chicago has the misfortune to be near Indiana, which has lax gun laws. Your example illustrates why we need strict federal laws, and why the process described for the U.S. in this article is correct. Our nation's gun laws are only as effective as the weakest state laws.
2
Every crime committed in Chicago with a gun was purchased in Indiana?
How are Indiana's firearms lax? Be specific?
No point even mentioning healthcare in other countries by comparison. Profit reigns supreme here for everything no matter what the cost to human life.
3
Wish you had included Switzerland as well! Their love for guns is a bit more comparable to the US, but they pair that with strong safety training courses and a ban on assault rifles.
You have to mention though that all swiss citizens have to go thru a once a year military training exercise and are allowed to take their weapons home, in preparation for a 'possible' country invasion. Probably a WW II heritage...
1
I think this could have been a brilliant and useful article if it were comparing apples to apples, in other words comparing the US to other westernized, first-world countries. Instead the comparisons to countries including South Africa, Mexico etc..., with lack of education, huge income disparities etc etc and the violent crime rates that go along with these characteristics makes the piece irrelevant. What a shame
Hate to break this to you, but if you look at levels of income inequality and violent crime it does make sense to compare the United States to South Africa and Mexico. Sad but true. Murder rates in Britain, Australia, Japan, and Canada are way, way lower than in the U.S.--a country that can accurately be called the Brazil of North America.
5
Sorry not to see Finland on this list. Globally, Finland has one of the higher per capita rates of gun ownership (think moose and grouse hunting), but also one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths per capita. Purchase, sustained ownership and use of firearms in Finland are all strictly regulated, with severe fines for any infractions related to basic safety. It really comes down to just plain common sense and logic, which Finns excel at. The second amendment has proved to be a pox on the American experiment in democracy, and may well prove to be a factor in its undoing.
5
It would be interesting to see a graph of per capita gun deaths for each of these countries to see the relative effectiveness of the various systems.
1
15 countries non-randomly selected from 195 does not make a representative study - though to be fair, the NYT did not claim it to be. Would be interested to see how the level of gun restrictions correlate to gun violence across the world.
1
We should be talking about what it takes to "buy an assault weapon," not to "buy a gun." And step 1, perhaps the only step, should be, "Enlist in the armed forces."
3
And how many active and reserves own assault rifles in addition to a handgun? I think after serving recently the purchase of one is even more likely. Just check instagram.
Great article! Do the same with health care. We have a lot to learn from best practices in other countries.
2
All of the discussion on banning this gun or that gun or guns all together is nonsense. The prices of 3D printers and CNC machines are in a free fall and will soon be commodities like ink and laser printers are now. There will not be a need to purchase a gun when you can download (or create your own) plans, buy some raw material and print the gun you want at what will cost a few dollars. As of a few years ago plans were readily available to print a plastic gun that could fire a handful of shots without failing. The plans were "removed" from the Internet by the creator, but as with anything that has been on the Internet it's out there somewhere. We know the criminals won't make guns just like they don't make counterfeit money.
1
I think the description of the British system is somewhat simplistic and under states how difficult it is to own a gun in the UK.
The is effectively NO legal handgun, automatic or semi-automatic gun ownership in the UK.
The regulations described apply to shotguns- It is very unlikely you would get a licence if you could not demonstration that you needed shotgun for pet control or sporting use. If you live in a city it unlikely you would get a licence- they tend to be th preserve of the countryside.
1
The question shouldn't be "to buy a gun." It should be "to obuyan assault weapon." And the very first step should be, "Enlist in the armed forces." Perhaps it should be the only step.
We keep confusing "gun control," which many people object to, and "massacre control," which has far fewer opponents.
2
https://www.wikihow.com/Buy-Firearms-in-California
How to buy in California see all steps above link
Before buying firearms in California, fill out and submit a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check request form to see if you're eligible. If you are, take the test to receive your Firearm Safety Certificate. Once you pass the test, visit a gun dealer, choose the firearm you'd like to purchase, and fill out an application. Wait up to 10 days for your application to get approved and then pick up your new firearm.
Hey NYT international staff. May I suggest that your next collaborative international piece be about how various countries got out the guns of homes that were already in the general populace after a mass shooting/ change in gun laws. Let’s just hope the tide is turning and if so, I’d love to read about the carrots and sticks that effectively pulled the guns out of other closets in other countries. This is the one argument I keep running into. How do we get the 300,000,000 guns already in homes out effectively?
You don't.
I am sorry to say but, as far as I know, in my home country of Brazil it is not difficult to buy a gun in the black market, without any kind of process.
2
As Homer Simpson said when he first bought a gun, "Wow, this must be how God feels--when He's holding a gun." Is it that feeling you don't want to live without, or do you actually need a gun? If you do, then you should be able to demonstrate that need in the permit application process. Everybody who just wants to feel powerful--find another way. The Second Amendment was about protecting the country (and the government) from foreign invasion, not about protecting your guns from the government.
3
Some countries just involve more red tape than others in doing most anything. In Singapore and many other countries, it takes multiple steps to buy a private motor car. In this country, you just go to a dealer or individual and buy it. You don't even need a drivers license, or you may be a habitual drunkard or have dozens of moving violations. Heck, in many states, you can register it without insurance.
I know it's probably irresistible to compare gun purchase laws in the United States to Japan, given the latter's famously (I'd say "admirably) draconian restrictions. But there's a big difference between members of the racial majority populations in these two countries.
Unlike the United States, Japan isn't full of "paranoid prepper" types who feel they must stockpile massive quantities of military-grade weapons in order to be prepared for an inevitable showdown with their own country's national government when Tokyo attempts to "go Soviet" and impose tyranny as all governments are naturally inclined to do.
Huge numbers of white Americans clearly buy into this kind of scenario, convinced that mass private gun ownership is the only factor that prevents the United States from becoming like North Korea. If NRA representatives were foolish enough to travel to Tokyo and warn Japanese people that their country would inevitably turn into a place like North Korea unless gun purchase laws were made less restrictive, the sons of Wayne LaPierre would get laughed out of the room faster than you can say "sashimi."
Looking at the USA, without question the oddball and weirdo of the advanced industrialized capitalist democracies, I can only conclude that there is something deeply wrong with how many members of the racial majority are conditioned to view their own government. It's for this reason that anti-tax fanatics like Grover Norquist hold such power, along with the gun lobby.
35
I've found that people in many countries outside the US have a much more nuanced view of the relationship between freedom and responsibility than do most Americans, who seem to define freedom as the lack of responsibility, and responsibility as interference.
1
one key difference is that in Japan and the UK where we have similarly draconian laws and guns are unusual and gun owners viewed with somewhat more suspicion and 'well why do you need that'? certainly in the UK, is that there's not great tracts of wilderness with wild beasties like there is in the USA, the USA has been relatively recently intensively populated, in the Japan and hte UK they've been intensively populated for longer and our wilds are mostly not teeming with game or predators. So if you don't think of having guns for hunting, you tend not to think of them for self defense, I think but I am just hazarding there. All I know is, gun ownership does feel slightly hinky in the UK, ok for rabbits or game or target shooting, but generally we don't see any earthly reason by anyone but security people/ police/ army would even need a gun. I read recently there's about 300 illegal guns or rather 300 guns have been used in multiple crimes over the years. bit late for other countries, but in the uk as guns have never been that widely available to anyone, not huge numbers of criminals have them either. I like that the majority of our police aren't armed. It stops 'accidental shoot to kill' like the usa seems to get a lot. I think it's easier for the police to talk a situation down if they aren't armed. (terrorists are different and there's armed teams for that)
I am originally from Tokyo. Not to disagree with you, but we have our fair share of oddball and weirdo with all kinds of doomsday scenario.
Their arch-enemy can be anything. Remember the 1995 Tokyo subway attack by a religious cult?
But how many students have become victims of "school shootings" in Japan? To my knowledge, none. There was a school massacre in Osaka in 2001, but the culprit did not have a gun.
'Yemen has the second-highest gun ownership rate in the world, after the United States. '
Yea! We beat the Yemenis too!
14
Thank you, NYT.
30
The article makes you wonder how many of the illegal black-market guns in the world come from the US.
The US tobacco industry moved into other countries to maintain their profits, because smoking declined in the US, so what are US gun makers doing around the world?
14
Keep in mind that US tobacco products are revered around the world and have been sold overseas for several decades. They may have stepped up their marketing to offset any US downturn. The oddest thing about cigarettes is that the government imposed price hikes (regulation through taxation) have had nowhere near the impact they had hoped. The biggest tragedy was the states who squandered all of the money they shook down the tobacco companies for in the 90's. Instead of keeping the annuity and spending it as planned they sold their future payments to get a lump sum and then proceeded to blow it on everything other than smoking. Government at its finest.
Canada is inundated with illegal guns from the US, which is why our gun crime rate, while not high, is much higher than European countries.
1
Yes. Mexico is of particular relevance:
From a New Yorker article: 'The American Gun Glut Is a Problem for the Entire World'
"Mexico’s gun laws are extremely restrictive, but the proximity of the U.S. and the lack of regulation here make them relatively easy to smuggle into the country. As arms trafficking experts Sarah Kinosian and Eugenio Weigend wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed last year, Mexican criminals tend to get their hands on U.S. weapons the same way American criminals do: through straw purchases, in which one person buys a gun legally and sells it or hands it off illegally.
Gun trafficking, they add, is “a high-profit, low-risk activity,” as trafficking within the U.S. is not illegal under federal law and straw purchasers rarely face harsh penalties when caught. In this manner, the U.S. is arming both sides of the drug war in Mexico, between the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and other equipment our arms manufacturers ship to the Mexican military and police; and the lucrative business of illegal trafficking, from which one study calculated that half of all U.S. gun dealers earned $127 million in 2012. Without the Mexican market, many of these dealers would go out of business."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-american-gun-glut-is-a-...
1
I wish The NY Times would do an article on the origins of the Second Amendment, and how the "well-regulated militia" was in lieu of a standing army, which we didn't have at the time the Constitution was written.
If you read the Federalist Papers there are many references to "calling up the militia" and how it would or could be done.
The National Guard is our "well-regulated militia" today.
72
The second amendment is the oldest right in the Bill of Rights. Its history in English law goes back about 1,000 years. As far back as 1181 Henry II proclaimed that all free men, those who were not serfs, were required to have arms of the day, and their feudal lords could not take these weapons from them. By 1285 Edward I required all men, not just free men, between the ages of 15 and 60 were required to be armed.
And what is your point? Are you trying to imply that we need to live in the past? Well I live in a country that lives in the past and I can tell you that is not a formula for success in the future. But of course those who want guns just need an excuse because otherwise they might be considered to be paranoid, which is most likely the truth.
1
I thought the militia was ment to empower the states to fight the federal government if the fed got out of line.
1
STEPS FOR OPPOSING GUN CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES
1. Trot out some tired old argument like "Why don't we ban cars? They kill more people than guns."
2. Cherry-pick that one part of the 2nd Amendment that you like.
3. Convince yourself that you could somehow stop the government from taking your guns if it chose to do so.
4. Place a higher value on your guns than on the lives of young Americans.
5. Act like you have a monopoly on words like "patriotic" and "freedom".
6. Refuse to acknowledge that change is coming and you can't stop it.
7. Declare victory and crawl back under your rock.
121
2a. Be incapable or unwilling to view an 18th century amendment through the eyes of a 21st century world
2
Careful buddy before you run out of straw.
2a. Be incapable or unwilling to view an 18th century amendment through the eyes of a 21st century world.
Agree, let us look into the First Amendment and see if you "need" that computer, printer, sheet of paper or crystal bic.
How about this? If you want to buy a musket, you can pick one up today (remember, the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791). For everything else we match the requirements of Israel. Do do we have a deal?
23
@EPB. Israel is an interesting example to follow, as the NYT recently pointed out.¹ Essentially *every* Israeli citizen has been trained in firearms, due to mandatory conscription at age 18. While I think it'd be great if every American gun owner was at least as well trained as a 20-year old Israeli, I somehow doubt you meant every American should go through mandatory military service. Right?
_____
¹ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/middleeast/israel-guns-mike-huc...
1
EPB Acton MA - Israel is a military religious dictatorship. I want nothing to do with trying to match it in any way related to law.
1
Do we limit people to print books and newspapers for full First Amendment protections (when it was adopted in 1791)? That kind of logic is comically unsound.
If Israel is our model for gun control, we should be forced to adopt their border wall and immigration policies, too.
It's worthless to talk about gun laws without being honest about the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment was designed to 1) ensure that citizens could be easily mobilized into an army to fight an outside enemy, and 2) to ensure that citizens could adequately defend themselves if a tyrant took control of our standing army. Well, our modern military obviates the need for #1, and weapons of mass destruction make #2 impossible. So what we have is an amendment that is a complete anachronism. But we're stuck with it, and the only solution is to abolish the 2nd amendment. Stop pretending you can make meaningful gun-law changes in this country without abolishing the 2nd amendment. You can't. Of course, this will never happen in America, so get used to living with endless gun violence.
31
We don't need to abolish the 2nd amendment to end gun violence. We just need to return our interpretation of the 2nd amendment back to common sense.
Here's an example. In 1967, in response to the Black Panthers openly carrying rifles, Ronald Reagan said that he could see “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” It was common wisdom at the time that the 2nd Amendment did not convey any such right. Then, as Governor of California, Reagan signed the bipartisan Mulford Act which banned open carry anywhere in the state.
Ronald Reagan is a great example of someone who supported both gun rights and gun control. He's famous for the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act which loosened gun regulations, but it also banned the sale of new fully-automatic firearms. Some people believe Reagan wouldn't have signed the law if he had known about the ban, which was a last minute amendment, but that doesn't fit with his later actions. In 1991, Reagan wrote an op-ed for the NYT that supported the Brady Bill. One might discount that, too, as being because Brady had been shot in Reagan's assassination attempt. But then, In 1994 Reagan's vocal support for the Assault Weapons Ban was instrumental to the bill becoming law.
Now, I'm not saying Reagan was the perfect example of common sense, but when our current politics makes him look like a bleeding heart liberal, we can be sure our common sense has gone off the rails somewhere.
3
Another civil war would be tragic. But don't be so dismissive of #2. While I don't think your average American has an ounce of the toughness of an Afghani fighter, look how well a minimally equipped force has kept the full might of the United States at bay. In reality its the threat of actual resistance that is most potent in keeping the a future Tyrant from going down that path.
I also don't agree with your second premise. There is plenty of opportunity for incremental change that could do good. Snatch the opportunities when they arise rather than decrying that the only way things can get better is if there is a "ban." As you point out, in the face of the 2nd amendment an all or nothing approach is futile.
It only needs the word "unreasonably" added.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be UNREASONABLY infringed."
Under that revision, the right to keep and bear arms can be reasonably infringed. Reasonably can mean anything a legislature wished it to mean, therefore voters can have their say.
2
In the U.S., another requirement should be to join a "well-regulated militia."
25
Bingo! A "well-regulated militia" aka the National Guard. Plus buy your own weapon and basic uniform. Also serve and train for several weeks and weekends. A new category of weekend warriors. Managed adroitly this could in a small way help reduce the national debt.
2
OR
Just read the Constitution
You know the part that says
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT be Infringed"
Notice it doesn't say the "Right of the Militia"
2
yikes! nooooo... the conspiracy theory nuts who think they need automatic weapons for a trip to walmart will live in an even more febrile bubble of self rigtheousness as to the necessity of being armed beyond their capabilities.
Or.oooooo good idea, it'll teach them responsibility and civic duty, oh, and how their nutjob conspircay theories about the likelihood of 600lb johnny surviving an urban armageddon of shops runing out of food or plague hitting the electticity plants because they've got an automatic gun may just be punctured.
Nope the jury's out I can't decide which of the two scenarios is most likely (NB that was satire, there's LOTS of gun owners who are responsible sensible pillars of the community who are genuinely worried about guns in the wrong hands. Wasn't aimed at you! You aren't the ones whose kids get hold of a loaded gun and shoot a friend or family member, shoot your own foot or butt in the walmart queue or fail to encourage troubled adolescents to use their words instead of bullets when school gets tough).
Those countries don't have our Second Amendment to assist gun sales.
5
Nor do most of them have anywhere near the rights we as US citizens do. It's very easy to overlook illegal search and seizure, freedom speech, freedom of religion, and due process. A lot of countries covered in the article don't have these rights. The US has moved to a position where people believe they are the only ones who are right and differing opinions should not be heard. BLM, the various white supremacists and Antifa are the modern clan whether anyone wants to admit or not.
All Western democracies enshrine the same rights as we do in their constitutions. The only thing they lack is an ambiguous amendment about militias and guns.
I sometimes wish Madison could return from the grave to explain what was intended in the Second Amendment. The framers never intended that our citizens buy assault weapons to shoot up schools and churches.
4
Don't our collective governments look like absolute idiots in their approach to gun safety and regulation.
3
This misinformation in this piece is astonishing even by NYT standards of (not really) fact checking. All states have restrictions on private sales to 1) buyers of legal age and 2) those who are not legally allowed to own a firearm. Some states have requirements for the seller to keep records of the sale. Most states will hold the seller liable if the weapon he sells to a private individual is used in the commission of a crime.
Please, please, please stop, or at least minimize, the misleading and fake-rage inducing packaging of your pieces
11
From an outsiders point of view, I'm Canadian, doesn't the fact that different gun laws between states is pretty useless since there are no check points between states, and guns can and do move freely?
One thing that is different about Canadian gun control laws, and probably most of the other countries listed here, is that the gun laws are federal. So exactly the same from province to province and territory .
This of course steers the conversation into states rights etc, but could be part of a solution. Consistency.
1
You use the words Some and Most trying to get your point across but most people see right through !
1
US firearm requirements for private ownership are for all practical purposes minuscule or non-existent. Don't heap scorn on the NYT for reporting it as it is. Suggest you find another hobbyhorse. This one has shaky bones and could fall down any time.
1
Prepare for such brilliant retorts as, "Criminals will still get guns!" and "Do strict gun laws stop all of the gun violence in Chicago?"
6
Why not it's true? Making fun of it doesn't make it incorrect.
All this gun hysteria never comes from pistols, responsible for way more deaths.
And Chicago is ignored bc the left refuses to point the finger when murders involve minorities engaging in criminal behavior.
1
This is not a tit for tat...
@Jackson25, these are straw man arguments. And they're predictable.
The first argument is a logical fallacy. Of course criminals break laws, but that doesn't mean that laws are useless. The second argument has been debunked many times, but you haven't listened. Chicago's guns come from Indiana and Wisconsin. It doesn't matter how strict the city's laws are if guns can cross state lines. These facts have nothing to do with race, and your bringing up the race card is offensive.
2
Praise Jesus and guns!
"Two Fatally Shot on Central Michigan University Campus"
By MITCH SMITH MARCH 2, 2018
More angels for Jesus in heaven!
2
His father was a 48 year old policeman. How did the son get a gun, legally or illegally? Was the gun his fathers? Why would a 20 something kill his parents who were picking him up for spring break? What about a drug issue teaches a young man to kill his parents? That is where society has failed. When a young man resorts to killing his parents (by axe, gun, hammer, etc) something is truly wrong.
To the people who are so in love with guns, please enlighten me and direct me to just one study that says more guns equals less killings.
Thank you for your replies.
7
There are all the facts you need to help you, individual American, awaken to the American exceptionalsm disease if you were not already aware of it. You can add Sweden to the list of advanced countries the Times provides.
Only In America.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
8
Why wasn’t Russia on the list, and why wasn’t the murder rate also included
I earnestly suggest the writer go back and carefully read requirements for all the countries reported. All tough and realistic.
And for avoidance of doubt, Russia was included, to whit:
RUSSIA - 1 Get a hunting license, or explain why you need a gun for self-defense. 2 Pass a test of relevant laws, handling and first-aid skills. 3 Get a doctor’s note saying you have no mental illness or history of drug abuse. 4 Attend a firearm safety and handling class and pass an exam. 5 Apply for a license. 6 Pass a background check. 7 Buy a gun.
Consider carefully how much of the carnage just over the past two decades would have been avoided had the perpetrator been held to this standard.
They were:
Russia 1Get a hunting license, or explain why you need a gun for self-defense. 2Pass a test of relevant laws, handling and first-aid skills. 3Get a doctor’s note saying you have no mental illness or history of drug abuse. 4Attend a firearm safety and handling class and pass an exam. 5Apply for a license. 6Pass a background check. 7Buy a gun.
You really want to be compared to Russia?
It's about time America thought about amending the 18th century 2nd amendment. Apart from it being simple common sense, updating rights and laws (as most countries do) to be relevant to the modern world in which we live,It would also stop the cowardly NRA hiding behind it.
35
Knee jerk article. Devoid of cultural and legal distinctions between the two countries. But before anyone jumps to a conclusion, please read this all the way through. Guns simply are not the issue. There are millions of illegal weapons already in circulation so to criticize lawful gun owners does nothing to solve the problem. Nor is the NRA. It sponsors safety classes of all kinds; it does not sponsor reckless behavior. Further, all studies point to the primary issue being the mental condition of the possessor. Liberals shut down the mental health clinics & hospitals (due to deplorable conditions), and never thought of the consequences. Instead of cleaning up the facilities, they did a disservice to the patients as well as to the community. So the proposal: fix the mental health system, and absolutely require a nationwide background check.
8
Bob. Failure to adequately fund community mental health clinics, to cover the new drugs to treat depression and schizophrenia, in the mad rush to provide billionaires and wannabe billionaires like Trump with tax holidays created the inevitable failure of the community model of treatment vs dumping patients who were mad, sad, retarded, deaf, mute into abominable insane asylums with inadequate staffing and inhuman conditions. Not Liberals. Just over-selling a good idea that was Never going to be funded, because guys like Donald won't pay tax adequate to support the society in which they live and grift.
Most accidents resulting in dead kids from guns don't involve insane people.
Most wife beaters who make up a large proportion of future mass shooters aren't nuts, they're just angry.
18
The millions of illegal guns in circulation is a direct consequence of weak regulation of legal guns: https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/the-criminals-get-guns-anyway-f94931266484
E.g. most illegal guns used by the cartels in Mexico come from the US. It is not a coincidence that pretty much all criminals smuggle guns FROM the US, not into it. More than 60% of all guns used for crime in Canada comes from the US.
In fact the massacre of 69 teenagers in Norway by right wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik happened in large part due to weak American gun regulation. He failed to obtain illegal guns in Europe. He also failed to get a high capacity magazine in Norway. "Forunately" for him, and "Unfortunately" for everybody else, the American assault rifle ban had expired which allowed him to purchase high capacity magazines in the US and bring to Norway.
So please stop pretending gun control doesn't matter.
3
Guns absolutely ARE the issue.
In the most comprehensive study ever done and recently released, it is proven beyond doubt to anyone with a brain that the more guns that are available, the more gun incidents there will be.
That's it - no suggestion that Americans are more violent than other people or that they have more criminals or more mental illness,
IT'S JUST ABOUT THE GUNS!
3
"Britain 1Join a shooting club, or document hunting arrangements. 2Ask for a character reference. 3Arrange proper firearm storage. 4Pass background check that includes a police interview at your home. They may check your storage arrangements. 5Buy a gun."
A rather simplistic summary of British firearms law (not Northern Ireland). The vast majority of firearms are double barrelled shotgun. Rifles are permitted but under severe restrictions and controls. Firearms have to be secure at all times, rifles have to be transported in locked metal cases. No handguns, no automatic weapons and you need a licence to purchase ammunition.
The only problem we have is the smugglers, who bring weapons for criminal gangs, from Belgium (not listed in the article) and the USA. Those that have been caught go to prison for a very long time.
10
Very interesting and there are some more interesting questions.
1)I am surprised there is not more re-registration. What percent of gun owners registering now will have some mental condition, if not crisis let's say over 20 years which leads to imminent danger?
2)Who pays(the gun owner or non-owner) for the costs of registration, enforcement, and as we have found for the indirect destruction of persons and property?
in the uk if for example the GP feels you are at risk of self harm through depression, they tell the police, the police come and 'look after' your guns at the station for a while til you are better.
yeah it doesn't always work and people find other ways to kill themselves and the loved ones they are not in sound mind about, but it's better than the mass shootings scenario... every country has ongoing checks and balances i imagine.
1
As a fervent supporter of gun control, I must point out that several of the countries referenced in this article as having tough laws -- are among the most violent countries in the world, or, at least, have a perception of being such here in the United States
I'm not sure why South Africa, Mexico and Brazil were chosen as examples of a strict gun control policy. I wish the writers of the article had either picked different countries or explained why these countries were chosen as examples.
5
Read again please. The article was not about the effect of gun control. I simply reported the steps other countries have taken to minimise gun violence
There was a very interesting study completed recently, the most comprehensive re: guns that has every been undertaken.
What was discovered is that it's not about propensity to violence or mental illness or any of the other red herrings constantly mentioned, because in fact, America is no different from other countries in that regard.
The one and only significant difference between the US and all the other safer countries is the availability of guns.
That's it - more guns, more gun violence.
That's it.
1
Norway should have been included here. The Olympics just now showed that they know how to shoot, even when being on slippery slopes.
7
A bit of a mix of the ones mentioned here. You need to be member of a club or do hunting. Acquiring a firearm for protection is not permitted. You also need to have proper storage which is checked by the police. One particular thing not mentioned here is that in Norway a gun license is not permanent. If you stop e.g. participating in a club or do sports shooting, then your license expires. You can't keep a gun if you don't use it.
Norway has a long tradition for hunting, so gun ownership is fairly common. It is quite different from say the UK, where I get the impression that hunting is an upper class sport. In Norway hunting is definitely NOT an upper class sport.
1
I think the entry on Austria is slightly misleading - any citizen over 18 can buy a (non semi-automatic) rifle or shotgun without the checks described (the 3 day cooloff period applies, though.) The storage of these rifles is not monitored by police, either. However, it is correct the long permit procedure with mental health & handling ability checking applies for semi-automatic rifles and handguns.
4
I'm not surprised by the lengthy process in buying a gun in Japan. To even compare Japan's gun laws to America's is apples to yuzu.
3
Thank you for doing the research on this, and providing this very pointed and meaningful comparison. We need all the 'ammunition' we can get, to help further demonstrate just how warped this country's lackadaisical approach to gun-ownership is. A gun is not just a 'right', but a massive responsibility and 'privilege' to own. We require training, and licensing, and periodic testing, for so many other things in this country. It is simply stupefying that we don't have these same levels of oversight, for items that are intended for one purpose only: to maim and to kill.
5
In India people have no rights. Brutality by cops is common and is taken for granted. People are afraid to be hit by a cope even for traffic violations. Literally random laws, poorer enforcement . Recent demonetization came close to being confiscation of property. Apathy by government and deeply entrenched corruption. All because citizens are not empowered. Poor property right and records. Yeah people dont die. But is that how you'll want to live?
6
So, having access to weapons to kill each other quickly, or seeing their toddlers accidently shoot their moms will make poor Indians more free? Happier? Really?
5
This understates the rigour of UK firearms licensing. You cannot buy a handgun, nor a semi or automatic weapon of any kind. Nor an assault rifle- at all ever.
4
Many great, common sense ideas that can be implemented here without "infringing" on anything. If only the GOP congress and the president had the nerve to do it.
Don't forget to vote in November!
6
We can learn a lot from other countries when it comes to guns. Same goes for healthcare.
10
Anyone ever find it a bit ironic that Congress members, the President, and other government officials who all violently support the 2nd Amendment work out of offices and institutions in which carrying a weapon, unless one is law enforcement, is banned?
Gosh, why?
6
If you want Japan's system
Here is what you need to do...
You get 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4's of the States to agree to your proposed repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Oh and 1 more thing
Japan has very very restrictive gun laws BUT and this is a big one
Japan's suicide rate is much higher than here in the USA.
So you're going to need to figure out how to prevent a couple of things from happening when you get your repeal passed.
1) How to keep our unacceptably high suicide rate from going up to Japan's very very unacceptably high rate
2) How to prevent the "explosion in armed robberies" that Australia suffered through in the years immediately after they enacted their failed policy.
3) Get 100 million Americans to sell 300 million guns to the Gov't
4) Find the money to pay for those 300 million guns
5) Figure out what to tell the public when after you've collected all the guns -we have another mass casualty event
6) Figure out how you're going to get the 1st Amendment repealed so people cant complain about #5
Good Luck!
3
Very odd conclusions Java Junkie.
You don't need to repeal the 2nd amendment. You just need to make people aware of the fact that it says "a well REGULATED militia..."
1. How on earth did you decide that Japanese suicide rate is somehow related to their gun restrictions? Other countries with strict laws don't have high suicide rates, while it has been shown to be universally the case that more guns means higher rates of gun violence, across all countries.
2. None of the other countries with strict gun regulation has had this problem. How do you decide the gun laws are the cause?
3. That would be ideal, but simply registering the guns properly and regulating the sales more strictly means huge amounts of these guns wont keep leaking into the illegal market as they do today.
4. Probably costs less than the cost of all the gun violence.
5. Invariable that will happen, but then you will tell them that over time we will see the number of these incidents decline as tighter regulation takes effect.
6. Why? The majority of American want stricter gun regulation, so more people will exercise their 1st amendment rights express their gratitude that something finally got done.
2
Not sure what suicide rate has to do with gun control but I am sure you will have some rational on this matter.
The best way around your number 5 is easy. Just provide them with your "thoughts and prayers".
@Java Junkie, since the Second Amendment confers no absolute right to guns, why would you need to repeal it? We're talking about sensible regulation. No Supreme Court justice has ever argued that the government has no right to regulate gun ownership.
So? I bet you can buy a Samurai sword at any candy store in Japan. They are pretty deadly too (can slice through light armour). Face it folks; guns can kill, but so can knives, axes, hammers, screwdrivers, ball point pens, drunk driving, etc. People kill, and taking everyone's guns away won't change much. Yes the body counts will be lower per incident, but the underlying social problems we have in America need to be addressed, or this insanity will continue.
If you want to see a second American civil war start quickly, just try to repeal the 2nd amendment, or prevent people from buying guns, or force people to relinquish those they already have.
This will never happen.
2
When people stop killing people they can have all the guns they want. I wish I could remember who made this comment originally because it is brilliant.
Nope, you have to be a licensed collector who is registered w/the authorities, and go through background checks and interviews similar to those gun buyers face before you can approach a listed dealer.
Hello from Japan!
Actually, it's not easy to buy "samurai" swords here; they are regulated as well. If you want to buy a kitchen knife in a store here, even in a regular, not fancy, store, they are locked up.
Societies make choices. I am happy to live in a safe country with strong gun regulation. The availability of guns, and politicians who protect gun rights, is a choice the majority of Americans have made, historically. I am excited to see, though, that there may be changes there. Good luck to the #neveragain movement!
Thanks for this. 2 things: 1) What about Switzerland? This is often the country pro-gun advocates use to try to counter gun control advocates, and it would be interesting to see similarities/differences in process there.
2) Many people jump to the assumption that gun control doesn't work because of the black market/internet sales. But the black market operates in different ways, at vastly different scales, in different countries. There is also an assumption on the part of some people (stoked by some unnamed cable news channels and talk radio hosts, perhaps) that there is constant danger of violence in our country, and thus we need weapons (many weapons) to defend ourselves at all times. It would be useful to include a short blurb on this (violence/corruption/black market vs law enforcement) with each country to give it context: Perhaps the country's corruption rank, random violence per capita in that country, and/or estimated size of black market vs law enforcement capabilities to respond to it.
2
Good point. The US media gins up fear 24/7, and offers a plethora of paranoid pundits and shock jocks to choose from, which has to have an effect on the mindset of those who spend their days with alt.right TV or AM radio.
1
Black market, no black market - it really doesn't matter, except in how it influences how many guns are around.
The more guns, the more gun crime - it really comes down to that.
1
If only women (and not men) could buy guns, there would be a 72 day waiting period, the woman would have to go through counseling about her decision, and if she were unmarried, a significant male might have to consent.
39
With the exception of the husband wife scenario in California we don't see a lot of women committing mass shootings. Why is that?
And not at that time of the month
In a better world, those who enjoy guns would band together and support ideas that will reduce mass shootings. The requirement for 2 personal references to buy guns used in Canada and elsewhere is such common sense. Certainly most of the recent mass shooters could not get 2 references to buy AR-15 style weapons.
6
Thanks for the article. Time for America to wake up and do something about it.
4
The US need only establish a data base of those (i.e., the mentally ill) to include in the background check (that is done via the FBI) and we would prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns legally as well as the criminal element.
What are we to do to preclude dishonest people and criminals from possessing guns illegally? I don't know either. Anyway, let's cut out the mentally ill and see what happens. We may be more successful than others may think. Plus, in the meantime, the mentally ill are receiving the treatment they so desperately need and deserve.
Just remember this: Most of us cannot afford security guards to step forward when we hear the shard of glass hitting the den floor downstairs in the middle of the night. You best (as we learned in Boys Scouts) Be Prepared.
In the meantime, the public schools should provide the same standard of protection as Groton, Phillips Exeter, Sidwell Friends, or Choate. My grandsons' public schools in Texas do.
You know, if your state allows it, you can just find a third party seller online and meet up somewhere. There's no paperwork involved if both are third party dealers.
When I was in KY, I found a dude on armslist and paid the guy in cash.
Why do the gun control liberals object to concealed carry permits? Why do they object to a national reciprocity law that allows states to recognize each other's concealed carry permits?
If one were to research the requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit in each state one will find that most of the requirements are very much the same as the requirements of the various countries mentioned in this article.
Russia, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico all have gun murder rates worse than the USA.
The NRA is a gun club.
1
What are you so afraid of that you have to carry a concealed weapon? Calling the NRA a gun club is like calling a prison a social club.
3
I don't know why a person would want to carry a concealed weapon. No one is forcing you to have one.
The NRA is a gun club. They have activities, train people, provide safety classes, all of the things one would get from a gun club.
Great summary. Please add firearm-related death rates per year to hammer the point home. More guns inextricably lead to more gun related deaths, including homicides, which get all the press, accidents, and sadly "successful" suicides. Safe storage cannot protect you from you in a passing moment of despair.
2
I am weary of the media, and many people, simplifying a very complex issue. I had a permit and owned pistols for over 20 years. I took the classes, practiced on the range and kept my firearms locked up separately from the ammunition. I have witnessed the changing gun regulations and have despaired at the lack of accompanying supports. How do you regulate honesty on the permit application? There is a question about ones' mental health status and people lie. Those who cannot legally own a firearm need to be prevented from obtaining one via other means. There need to be channels that people can easily access to report any concerns they have about the stability of someone they know, be it loved one or patient, without fear of reprisal. People need to be made comfortable with the fact that it is better to report someone and be wrong, than to not report and live with guilt. Guns are inanimate objects, if they're not in someones' hands they can't fire. Too many guns is a problem, but it's not THE problem, homo sapiens are the real problem.
4
Since the second amendment mentions militias, it's also interesting to look into how militias service firearms are treated e.g. US national guard, Israel, Singapore, Switzerland. (Notwithstanding the argument of whether the second amendment only applies to militias.)
I for one served in the Swiss armed forces. We keep (only) our service rifles and pistols at home. Ammunition can be bought privately. At the end of active service the firearms can be purchased (proof of participation in target shooting contests required). The army obviously assesses the mental health of recruits. Gun handling is a central part of basic training. It's a civic duty to serve but but there is no right to own firearms. Little difference to the US there.
3
One thing left out about Canada and hand guns, is that once you purchase the gun, you must also purchase a lock box. The ammo is kept at the gun club, you can not keep it in your home. You must also get a permit to transport. Once you have that you can transport your locked hand gun to the gun club, but you must go directly there. You can't even stop for gas.
Also, police in Canada do not take their weapons home.
A totally different mindset.
4
I appreciate the editorial comments regarding places like Mexico. They certainly add to the discussion and demonstrate that higher regulations alone are not the end of the matter.
3
Terrific review. Thank you. Can you match data on mass gun shootings or gun deaths per country, so that we can glean what policies seem to make a difference?
2
We need some tougher laws with respect to gun use and ownership in this country. I'm on board with that. But these comparisons do not advance the ball when addressing what to do. That is, and for example, if you think we should adopt something like Japan has in place with respect to guns, then you're saying Japan handles these issues well. If so, then why shouldn't we also adopt Japan's immigration policies? Would be a lot tougher than we what do in this country now with respect to immigration. But you don't see much country comparisons in the media on issues that don't fit a idealogical narrative.
1
I am curious as to the gun purchase process in Switzerland, probably the nation that mostly closely tracks our constitutional right to bear arms.
A huge percentage of Gun sales come from impulse buyers . More background checks and longer waiting periods give time for critical thinking skills to kick in . The NRA represents the concerns of fire arm manufactures not their members or the general public . The NRA will fight any legislation because it all ends up eliminating the customer base of the people they represent !
3
The 2nd amendment and for that matter most anything in the Constitution can be interpreted as one sees fit. That is why we have a Supreme Court.
If viewed strictly, only well regulated militias should have guns, if viewed more liberal, like the Supreme Court did, every American has the basic right to own a gun.
What the 2nd amendment doesn't say is since we need a well regulated militia, it is ok for 100,000 Americans a year to kill and injury themselves and each other, an aberration re our peer countries and a perversion of the 2nd amendment.
4
Method compatible with the 2nd amendment, US Constitution:
Take the Japanese regulations as an outline.
Substitute "militia" ( a well regulated organization run by the federal government) for "hunting and shooting club" (and maybe "police" also).
Make everyone who owns a gun join the well regulated militia.
2
None of the other 14 countries has a constitutionally protected right (that the government cannot abridge) to bear arms. So, your comparison is mischievous at worst, and apples and oranges at best.
in fact, the goal of NRA is to ensure that you have the proper training to handle a firearm. Were it not for the NRA, our Union soldiers would have LOST BIGLY to the confederate army.
Our background checks include criminal records, and many states have long waiting periods as you concede.
Of course, anyone can buy a weapon in the black market, no questions asked. None of the guns purchased in the Gun shows without background scrutiny has been implicated in mass shootings.
You need to do better.
20
"Were it not for the NRA, our Union soldiers would have LOST BIGLY to the confederate army."
Alternative facts, probably brought to you by Wayne LaPierre. The U.S. Civil War ended in 1865, the NRA was founded in 1871. So what happened, did NRA members jump in Dr. Brown's DeLorean time machine after borrowing it from Michael J. Fox?
12
"in fact, the goal of NRA is to ensure that you have the proper training to handle a firearm. Were it not for the NRA, our Union soldiers would have LOST BIGLY to the confederate army. "
You mean the NRA that was founded after the end of the Civil War? Of course if the NRA was really in favor of ensuring gun owners could properly handle them they would be in favor of that being a requirement to gun ownership, but alas, it isn't.
2
I think it is a fair comparison. Humans live in all 15 of these states.
Forget the politicians in Congress who are deathly afraid of NRA for their jobs. Only way to enact meaningful gun control in the US is to bypass the Congress through direct citizens actions - National Referendum Against Guns (NRAG)!!!
7
All you need are millions of supporters - like the NRA has.
If I have to learn the regulations to get a driver's permit, then learn how to drive a car, and then take a driving test, why shouldn't a buyer of a gun be required to go through the same process? Both the car and the gun have the potential to kill.
139
Maybe AAA should fight any and all driving regulations. Just turn 16, jump in the car and go!
Much smaller potential with a car however - cars are designed to transport people from one place to another - guns are designed to send them to the next world.
3
Because driving a car is not enumerated in the Constitution as a fundamental right; having a gun is. You want change? You have to abolish the 2nd amendment.
1
Please also share gun ownership levels (legal and illegal) in each of the countries listed.
4
Seems like we're tied with Yemen. Remarkable.
113
With all our gun deaths, we could have had excellent data to recommend best buying practices. Time to stop prohibiting NIH research on this topic.
46
Depending on what state you live in there are people tracking this data which is given to the CDC which is part of the HealthPeople2020. They are call "violent death registries" and they catalog suicide and homicides by all means, guns or otherwise. Your local coroner or state department of health would have data on handgun suicide/homicide deaths, some rifle. But with all your "gun deaths" I would look at the why before the how? What are the triggers for committing suicide in your area instead of "they used a gun"? What is being done to decrease suicide/homicide (by gun, hanging, etc.) rates in your area from a primary and secondary prevention aspect? If you want to decrease gun deaths find out why they are killing themselves in the first place and get involved.
For much of the 20th century, Americans did not have to do step 1 (pass instant background check). You bought your gun from a local hardware store, no age limit. There were no AR-15s, but a lot of semi-automatic carbines, pump shotguns, and high-caliber hunting rifles.
Household gun ownership was historically much higher (it's been declining for decades). A majority of US households had firearms, which were often not secured (in gun racks in trucks, behind a door, in a closet). That is much less prevalent today.
Yet, we didn't have school shootings back then...with AR-15s or WW2-era M1 carbines or even hunting rifles. What changed? it's not the guns.
How come we were able to avoid carnage in 1950s/60s/70s schools, but not today? Don't tell me it's AR-15s, because if that were the case, then we should have still seen a lot of school homicides (albeit with less victims).
Again, what changed?
12
The culture changed - it's ruder, cruder and violence is glorified in movies and video games. Also, in the post-WW2 decades, you had more people who had seen actual gun violence, and didn't have to wonder whether it was "fun" to fire an M1. My dad was a marine in the south pacific - he never had a gun in the house. One Florida GOP congressman - a disabled veteran -
is coming out against AR 15s as a civilian self-defense weapon. He would know.
1
This "it is not the guns" argument rests on some pretty shaky ground. What changed? There are far more firearms in the US than ever before - particularly semi-automatic firearms with large capacity magazines and handguns. This halcyon picture of the 50s is a fantasy of anecdotes. Any other "explanation" offered by pro-gun enthusiasts fails a crucial test - these explanations do not account for the high rate of gun violence in the US AND the low rate of gun violence elsewhere in the world.
2
The law obviously didn't change as there are so many easily available assault weapons for kids to murder their schoolmates.
2
Can you also show gun violence statistics for each country.
I think there are two factors: Laws and how they are enforced. I imagine that India and Mexico score low in enforcement.
I also think there is one true test of how things are working, and that is violence statistics.
You can then quickly realize the steps you need to get to lesser violence.
Of course if people are saying that our rights to own guns are more important that how many people die .. then all of this is a futile exercise.
1
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-...
1
The Japanese and other countries' processes makes way too much sense. Americans can't count pass 2. Shameful and embarrassing.
58
"An armed society is a polite society" -- or so the idiotic saying goes. I lived and worked in Japan, where, as this article states, it is very difficult to buy a gun. It is also an extremely polite and safe society. I don't think I really knew what polite meant until I lived there. As for safe, I saw kids who had to be 1st or 2nd graders ride the trains in Tokyo -- by themselves! I would routinely leave my apartment unlocked, and would routinely walk around with way more cash then I ever would in the US.
34
I also lived there for 5 years and never was afraid to walk around even in the late evening. My children walked to the playground by themselves and also, oh horrors, home from school by themselves. It was a culture shock when we returned to the US with the people's disregard for politeness and common rules.
Another reason the U.S. is the least civilized country in the western world.
55
An excellent bit of reportage and a smart way to contrast our reckless and poorly regulated (see 2nd Amendment) gun laws with those of other civilized, and less civilized, countries. Well done.
48
This is the kind of analysis I subscribe to The NY Times for. (Among other reasons.)
64
This is a great compilation. It seems that the US is as exceptional as Yemen. Should serve as a rebuttal to all those who argue that there cannot be gun control in the US; every other country seems to be able to do it.
10
Pretty interesting comparison. But as always, there is the formal process and then there is reality. Case in point, Mexico (selected purely for convenience, and because I know little about the other countries listed): Do all the criminal gang members whose handiwork we see on the news almost daily, do they all get their weapons from that one authorized store in Mexico City? Can I buy shares in that store?
3
No, those illegal guns come from the United States. I'm seeing a pattern here.
2
Many if not most of Mexican gang purchases of guns are from the United States. Sadly, our lax gun laws in this country are a major cause of all the violence in Mexico, El Salvador, and other neighboring countries. We not only endanger our own citizens but the citizens of other countries. Shameful.
3
They probably buy them in the United States.
The promotion and celebration of easy gun access and ownership is misguided. If you still think a gun is what will protect you from harm, you have bought into the lies that the 1% has been selling you. That you should fear some scary "other" or your fellow Americans more than the outright fleecing they intend. That's what will really destroy you.
The truth is, the size of your bank account is better protection than the glock in your drawer when the really scary thieves come knocking.
6
What they don't say is that, in Canada, the process can take two years and there are not insignificant numbers who are turned down. All the better.
13
Hello Audrey and Sahil:
I think that your article and information about guns in Japan is very misleading. It is a high crime to possess a gun and set it off in Japan. So called gun clubs don't exist there. I think you need to check up on Japan's penal codes before printing what you did. Obviously, Japan has laws involving "exceptions" but in now way can citizens be armed as they are here.
3
Absolutely amazing reporting you two. The interesting thing is that NONE of countries' laws would violate the 2nd Amendment so there's no need to reinvent the wheel. The whole planet gets it and our lawmakers can't. Sad state of affairs.
97
If none of these requirements infringes on the right to own a gun, then of course, you would agree that the same type of requirements would pass muster in terms of the right to an abortion.
G, Australia throws illegal immigrants into off-shore prisons. And the USA should follow that model?
Hmm ..
Dear NYT,
It would've been more balanced to show homicides per capita. I read the gun law in Mexico with utter disbelief. In my opinion, simply saying that Mexico has a "thriving black market" is a serious understatement.
Thank you for listening,
Patricia Hoehn
2
Hooray, we're number one!
Alas.
5
"Germans who keep firearms in their homes agree to let the police conduct unannounced home inspections to check that they are kept safely. The United States has no requirement for how firearms must be stored."
How would unannounced home inspections for guns (thats what they say at least), EVER be allowed in some place like the US? People should be thankful for our legal protections.
9
Sure, but those countries don't have regular mass killings.
1
USA...USA...USA.../s
The comparison among countries is comical.
1
If the United States legislated the first rquirement of every single country besides us, the number of hunting or shooting clubs would almost instantly number in the thousands.
I sincerely doubt there are currently more than a million active hunters in this country, and I'll wager 50% of all gun owners have only fired their weapons once or twice. If we allowed the CDC to study such things, we would quickly become aware of just how small is the tail wagging this dog.
6
You'd think the New York Times of all news organizations would know that you can't just buy any gun anywhere anytime in all states. Sure you can buy a shotgun in New York without a lot of hassle, but not a handgun, as is implied here.
If you want to have really free access to firearms, become a resident of Vermont.
1
Countries that deny to civilians the firearms provided to the police are called police states.
Why in the world would we seek to emulate how they do it in China or Russia?
None of the countries mentioned have a Bill of Rights that guarantees the natural rights with which all American citizens are born. That is why they do not have citizens in Britain -- they have subjects.
I support much stronger laws, e.g., no ownership of AR or AK style rifles by people under 25 years of age, and enforcement strategies, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those with histories of abuse, violence, and mental illness. But as a free-born American, who cherishes all of the natural rights enshrined in our Constitution, I reject the notion that my right to bear arms is dependent on the whim of some government official.
9
"Countries that deny to civilians the firearms provided to the police are called police states."
That sounds like an NRA or Fox News play on words, like "if owning guns is criminalized, then only criminals will own guns."
Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
These "natural rights" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe careless gun ownership is an impediment to all three.
4
In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees any number of rights for citizens (yes, we are citizens here too). And here too, the Supreme Court of Canada hears Charter cases related to the rights of Canadian citizens. So no, the monarchy isn’t in charge here by any stretch of the imagination...it is primarily symbolic.
1
actually, here in canada, we have the charter of rights and freedoms. essentially equivalent to your bill of rights. don't know if you've ever taken the time to come north and visit us but i can say with certainty that we are the furthest thing from a police state.
im a free-born canadian with all of the rights and freedoms enshrined in our charter. it just takes me a little longer than you to get my hands on a gun, and im fine with that...because i know my next door neighbour who suffers from paranoid delusions and schizonphrenia will never be able to buy one in this country.
as to why in the world you may want to emulate countries such as those listed in the article?? just a guess here but.....maybe to reduce the number of people who die from gun violence in the US every year, especially kids. just a thought!
6
NYT, we get it, you can't be bothered to fact-check Russia anymore, yet your data is inaccurate. In our country you need to buy a gun safe in advance, bolt it to the wall, and have it inspected by local police, you must attach their written statement to your application. You can apply for owning grooved gun only after at least FIVE YEARS of having smooth-bore firearm. You can't own more than 5 items of guns. You can't own automatic rifle. You have to renew your permit every 5 years. Local police can visit and examine your gun safe at any time. You must store your gun unloaded. After buying one you have 2 weeks to report the purchase to local police station. You have to provide SAMPLES of the bullets shot from your grooved gun in the lab to the police station, so that they, if needed, could trace criminal usage of the gun back to you.
1
Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US. Because 2/3 of our "gun violence" are suicides it mean Japan is a more violent country than the US if we apply logic to the pathological world of liberals "facts".
Tip: restricting gun purchases does nothing to address the suffering of suicidal people. Absolutely nothing.
1
AN interesting list. Now I feel the need to compare this with reports of violent crime, and shooting deaths.
There are good ideas about requiring training, and education in addition to passing a background check which includes criminal and a check of records for behavioral concerns on record - drug use, child abuse or spousal abuse along with criminal records. I like the idea of someone demonstrating safe handling techniques - kind of like a drivers test. That could even be a model - learner's permits for starters
Delaying the purchase of a gum on a whim - or because at that moment someone is angry or despondent - in itself can be a lifesaver at times. Other commented about Mexico's violence; I suspect that Indian laws would make it almost impossible for many to acquire firearms - and no one here is going to show tax return to local police.
In order to deal with the black market, we need uniformity in approaches in different states - or a federal law.
1
I'm now more thankful than ever to live in the United States of America.
13
For the past 5 years my wife and I have traveled to Europe, previously for one month at a time in one place and most recently a month in three different large cities. Sadly, we we feel safer from murder in Europe than in America including our hometown of 16,000!
Today, the reasons for preferring American living are declining although as this article shows we should begin to observe other countries' considerable progress often from what they learned from us.
14
Have you ever had a family member or friend gun-murdered? It's a real game-changer.
7
Er curt, 100k+ Americans kill and injury each other year after year with guns.
The death and injury rate among our peer countries listed with guns are practically non existent.
We resemble more a drug plagued country like Mexico or a war torn country like Yemen with guns deaths than a modern western democracy.
James Madison, the architect of the 2nd amendment is turning over in his grave.
5
Well, this has obviously worked super good in Mexico because no one ever gets murdered there. Same with South Africa, no violence there to speak of. Brazil is another haven of personal safety. Australia does pretty well because they have the biggest moat in the world surrounding the entire country. This article really only underscores the cultural and political foundations of violence. The Swiss have about half as many guns per person as the USA, which is still a lot, and they manage not to slaughter each other on a regular basis. Additionally, the NICS check incorporates a lot of the steps that the NYT has padded other countries processes with
15
Every country in the world has violence. The difference is the US is the world leader in gun-related homicides by a staggering margin.
NICS is a joke. Remember Dylan Roof? His NICS came back clean. Besides, it's dead simple to buy a gun in the US without a NICS.
4
Those countries don't have the same rates of gun-related violence.
1
But those you mention countries also have a large low socio-economic population and corruption in government. How that ties in -- I don't know. There's a world of connections.
2
The second amendment refers to organized malitias with the aim of a government without absolute power, not to gun ownership with the intent of individuals sself-policing Just saying
72
Abl The SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. You are howling in the wind. You must do something like change the Court or amend the Constitution but in the mean time there are ways to tighten up gun control.
1
Except according to George Mason who helped write the Bill of Rights once stated "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
There is also further documentation that arms were to be used in self policing because the US did not have an official police force as we know it today. It generally consisted of a single law enforcement official for an area who's main purpose was to serve legal documents. Policing in colonial America was literally in the hands of the communities. It wasn't until Boston created a watch to go on patrols that started to change the practice.
2
The Supreme Court has established that the Second Amendment does apply to individual gun ownership.
1
Criminals in the US go right to step 2. I believe in gun control, but unless the government can deal with purchases of guns by criminals on the black market first, you leave honest citizens too vulnerable.
10
Why do (most of) these other countries not have that problem? Answer: they don't have 300 million guns in circulation. We have to get rid of most of the guns already out there. Australia and other countries have done it with a government buy-back. Offer people enough money and most of them will sell.
97
I really hate this particular circular logic by NRA types. The reason criminals can go right to step 2 so easily is precisely because it is so easy to "legally" get guns in this country. So I completely disagree with you. If we have tougher gun control, criminal will find it much harder to go right to step 2.
22
I am a long gun owner in Canada -- I own a rifle and shotgun for hunting and sport. As do many Canadians. Yet gun violence here is rare because the firearm acquisition process is sane and may be the best one for America to emulate as it strikes a balance between individual freedom and the common good.
The US is the wild west by comparison. I lived there and step 1 in this article ("Pass an instant background check") is optional. Gun shows and private sales mean guns change hands with no checks and no documentation. Private sales should be prohibited unless done through an FFL (Federal Firearms Licence) holder. Bump stocks should be prohibited. Magazine limits shoudl be implemented. Safety courses should be mandatory -- if you are required to take a driver education course before you can operate a vehicle, you should be required to take a firearm course before you can own a gun.
78