I agree that the debate often ignored existence proofs, but... It can be hard to take this a whole lot further.
The Aussie gun example is used mostly because the narrative fits. The Tassie shooting leading to a buyback. But, there are lots of counties with all sorts of policies and realities. Which to compare to? Details can matter, as can all sorts of context.
Like any-friggin-one! You had to compare to bottom of the barrel to find a country that has the worse situation with guns than US.
There are a lot of places where civilian gun ownership causes problems, gun crime, etc. Some of the places where it does not cause big problems (eg Switzerland) have liberal gun laws and high ownership rates.
There are examples where widespread gun ownership/availability causes exactly the kinds of is "problems" that (according to some) the American founders intended it to cause. Basically, armed revolutions.
There are confusing examples where laws are liberal but ownership is rare. There are opposite examples.
I'm not saying ignore all this. If you want to learn about policy areas, you need to study examples. Just beware the anecdote, attributing cause and effect. Beware within heated political debates, they are known to cause insanity. There is rarely some objective fact that proves your argument, just a collection of facts that may, taken in context, convince you.
Back to drugs policy, Portugal had its own set of cultural norms, problems they were trying to solve, political considerations...
I think Mexico and some other big transit countries need to look at radical liberalisation options. Portugal is a good guide for some of their issues, but overall their situation is very different. They have nasty problems with the wholesale dealing, and the organized crime that goes with it. The street level crime and consumption is not their biggest problem, like Portugal.
From wiki about gun laws there:
In 2016, the defence ministry estimated that 2 million privately owned guns are in circulation, which given a population of 8.3 million corresponds to a gun ownership rate of around 24 guns per 100 residents. This is roughly a quarter of the rate in the United States, and lower than that in the neighbouring countries of Germany, and Austria, but about the double of Italy and France.
Quarter of guns per person US has. If US taxed gun manufacturers an used that money to buy back 3/4 of guns off the market it would surely have bit less gun related problems.
Guns are certainly an issue but not the issue. If you cut American gun ownership by 75% you'd still have more per capita gun crime than Switzerland, why?
 Homicides, not all gun deaths. It's important to compare apples to apples.
Looking at the numbers alone is not enough. Just like looking at the US numbers alone doesn't really tell the real story. Guns are definitely part of the problem, but it's the rest of the culture and economic factors that tells the story of why the US numbers are so high.
Government-issued ammunition is difficult to take home, but there's plenty of commercial ammunition that will work in the government-issued rifles.
Not every relationship has to be linear. Also there might be other factors. They might be easier to spot if you take away 3/4 of all guns in US.
So ... After all the history that passed since then, after all the civil wars and armed revolutions do we still believe they are good idea?
I guess US military thinks so after supporting so many in the middle east. Europe I think has different take on the subject.
Also, I recommend to you the fascinating history of the African-American tradition of arms in the US. Black's used firearms to defend their families and communities against KKK and white mobs.
"A good revolver is the best response to the slave catcher" - Fredrick Douglas
The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? If gun control works, tyrants will use it too. If it doesn’t then you don’t have to worry about it.
Russian peasants actually did stop the government from taking over in 1920. Lenin was forced to enact the NEP because their policies were literally collapsing.
There was no other plan behind the NEP, it was written within a 3 month period.
It took a massive effort and practically a civil war by Stalin to collectivize agriculture.
While the state was eventually successful in that case, it clearly shows that resistance is possible.
In many other countries in the middle east for example, the governments know that they can not implement many polices, so they don't even try.
It also depends on level, if you are 1 of 50 people who oppose the government, its not gone go well. However if there is widespread support then the cost of the government goes up hugly if citizens are armed.
If the reasoning was “don’t pass gun control, or you’ll have an armed insurrection” then that would make sense. But that’s never what gun advocates say. They always portray gun owners as somehow being simultaneously the final bulwark against a tyrannical government, and vulnerable to even mild gun control laws.
A "mild" law will carry all that as an implicit potential consequence, so perhaps it should not be enacted, thus sparing us the possibility of having to deal with an lawfully empowered tyranny (tyranny is usually lawful, btw).
This has nothing to do with my point, or if it does, it certainly isn't clearly elucidated. As far as I'm aware, there is no strong history of armed resistance from either of the groups that I mentioned. And I'll leave you to the research the history of successful resistance movements, as there are many. I would start with the American Revolutionary War and then perhaps the importance of guns and armed resistance by blacks during Antebellum South and the Jim Crow period.
The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression?
Your argument is circular as it's based on a false premise. Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you.
If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal
This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.
So, just to be clear, if the government outlaws your guns, when they come for them, you're going out shooting?
>Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you.
>This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.
It's been interesting, and more than a little disturbing, to watch it change. I'm not a big fan either way, but I much preferred them when their gun advocacy was part of a larger libertarian framework rather than a fascist one.
Both the American Revolutionary and Civil War have only hardened my position on the importance of gun ownership.
There is a fundamental ideological divide between us that drives these positions. You can call me a cook, crank, nutter, clinger, whatever you want, but the fact is this:
I simply don't trust the government and I believe in the right to arm and protect myself at any and all costs.
But you are aware that your government has tanks, drones and vast selection of chemical weapons. Soon they'll have lethal drones small enough to make a person with gun just as harmless as a person without a gun.
People that want guns, I feel, think they are living with their minds in the future where they heroically oppose facist leaning government with their trusty guns. I feel they are in fact living in the glorious past when such thing was possible, not even in the present when goverment has all the power industry manufactured for military since the beginning of industrial revolution. Definitely not in the future when you'll be just labeled domestic terrorist and bombed, gassed, sniped from at least a mile or assasinated by a drone.
Guns today in context of opposing government are just imagination enhacers same way as D&D figurines, just less harmless.
Also, those guys we've been trying to kill for the past 15 years in the middle east keep coming back fiercer than ever.
And who do you think operates all that fancy technology? Men who own guns and whose fathers owned guns before them. No, not all of them, but by and large. So I wouldn't be so sure that they would be on "your" side if push came to shove.
The table titled Belligerents on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War doesn't say "US gov" vs "mudhut villagers".
Do you expect Soviets to help you with your struggle with your oppressive US government?
Besides it was 40 years ago which is pretty much ancient time for military and anti-riot technology.
> Also, those guys we've been trying to kill for the past 15 years in the middle east keep coming back fiercer than ever.
So losses of 15000 isis soldiers for each US military soldier dead is for you "guys ... in the middle east coming back fiercer than ever"? You'd like to be of the loosing side of such conflict for whatever reason?
> And who do you think operates all that fancy technology? Men who own guns and whose fathers owned guns before them.
Not necessarily own, just operate. I don't think that soldiers have significantly higher gun ownership percentage than civilians. Also all of them have a strong opinion about obeying your superiors, kinda goes along with the job. I don't think they'll be sympathetic to bunch of civilians that don't obey their superiors.
Blacks protected themselves, their families and their communities through armed resistance. They could finally "shoot back". In fact, some of the earliest gun control measures were taken up TO KEEP GUNS AWAY FROM BLACKS, so that they could not resist against the atrocities of slavery.
It isn't talked about because white liberal academic elites are so hostile to guns, but armed resistance and guns were a central part of the civil rights movement.
Recommended reading for you:
We Will Shoot Back - Umoja
Negros With Guns - Williams, Martin Luther King Jr., Truman Nelson
Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms - Johnson
So you don't consider suicides to be a 'big problem', eh?
I don't know much about it, and it's hard to deal in "not a problem" terms when it comes to life and death.
I do think even this speaks to my point though, about looking at examples as fully fleshed out examples. There are all sorts of "gun problems." All sorts of "gun rules." All sorts of simple and complex relationships between those two things and a whole lot of other things.
The relationship between gun accessability and suicide is fairly straightforward. But both suicide and gun availability are related to a bunch of other things.
*I'm not talking about gun laws (don't live in the US, own guns or have a strong opinion), I'm talking about how we think of policies using examples.
And then we get into the practicalities and the politics!
In order to have strict gun control you first need strict border control.
Yet the group that wants strict gun control is strongly opposed to strict border control.