Often when coming up with reforms the country that is wanting changes to occur tend to look at other countries to see what they could do instead. It is important to remember that each country has its own unique history that brought that specific country to where it is today. One of the reasons it is important to consider a countries history, is to determine the ease of transition the country will have when the reform is brought into effect. One example that can be used to demonstrate the discussion above is the topic of gun control laws. The topic of gun control has become a very hot topic in the past few years due to the increase in mass shootings. There indeed needs to be some reforms to gun control laws, but the proposed “banning of all guns” solution that is brought on by the example of other countries is not a realistic one. …show more content…
To combat mass shootings, both countries decided to implement board laws that banned certain guns, as well as introducing buybacks that would give money to individuals who turned in their firearms. It is hard to gauge whether that the reforms to firearms did work for Great Britain since there were hardly any mass shootings to begin with (Libresco). Leah Libresco and Carl Bialik also bring to light that “In Australia, homicides declined after the ban and buyback, but homicides had already been falling, according to a 2003 analysis by criminologists Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos.”. Another aspect that individuals fail to realize when using these two countries as examples is that both countries are small islands which creates the task of importing illegal guns harder as well as having a smaller pool of guns to control (Libresco). Finally, the most important difference that gun control advocates choose to neglect is that America has the Second Amendment where as Great Britain and Australia do