American Gun Laws

[Washington Resistance Army]

There actually is a way for that. You could forbid mentally ill people that are registered in asylums from having guns. As well people under 38, people that registered as depressed, et cetera, et cetera... and gun registries certainly also will help to that. We do have that in most European countries, and thanks to that we have much less gun incidents.

There is literally no beneficial enough reason to not impose gun control.

No, there isn't a way for it because guess what? Most of these people go undiagnosed until after the fact, none of the mass shooters in the past 10 years have been registered in an asylum and would have still gotten guns under that system. All a registry would do is break already existing laws.

In fact, you ALREADY wouldn't be allowed to own a gun if you were registered in an asylum.

[Herargon]

There actually is a way for that. You could forbid mentally ill people that are registered in asylums from having guns. As well people under 38, people that registered as depressed, et cetera, et cetera... and gun registries certainly also will help to that. We do have that in most European countries, and thanks to that we have much less gun incidents.

There is literally no beneficial enough reason to not impose gun control.

No, there isn't a way for it because guess what? Most of these people go undiagnosed until after the fact, none of the mass shooters in the past 10 years have been registered in an asylum and would have still gotten guns under that system. All a registry would do is break already existing laws.

In fact, you ALREADY wouldn't be allowed to own a gun if you were registered in an asylum.

Yet, less people will get guns. A registry won't break existing laws. The only requirement is to revoke a very certain amendment.
Because there are stricter requirements to get guns, less people will get guns. There can be no guarantee that nobody gets guns, but at least, it will rather be the sensible people that get guns, instead of allowing everybody to get it.

Results such as lower death rates by violence will still happen if you impose gun control; it would certainly not ''have no effect''. That is a thing that would still be admitted.
Plus, rates certainly have lowered after people got the requirement to not be registered in an asylum. If it didn't, then another requirement or prohibition has to be introduced.

[USS Monitor]

They're full of shit. It is not necessary.

OTOH, there are some states where the crime rates are low and hunting is popular, and I think it makes sense for those states to keep doing what they're doing.

It's not necessary, but it makes people feel safe, and, may even deter crime if worn openly. Also there is always the possibility that todays the day some criminal decides to rob you, and you need a weapon to defend yourself, and, your property. So overall why not carry one? You don't strictly need to, but it sure is useful if you step into some s***, could save your life.

You could also hurt yourself or someone else if the gun goes off by accident.

I support people having legal access to guns only because some people enjoy gun-related hobbies. I don't believe they make us safer.

[Crockerland]

Anyone who likes basic human rights (especially the right to self-defense) likes guns.

The right to self defence? Really? That's what the police force is for,

That statement was very distanced from reality.
1: The police force is not for self "defence", it's for enforcing the law
2: People living in rural areas obviously cannot rely on the police for protection.
3: The average police response time is more than 10 minutes in many parts of the United States

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times for the police response time, basic logic for the rest

even if yours is racist and corrupt.

What a bizarre statement.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, there isn't a way for it because guess what? Most of these people go undiagnosed until after the fact, none of the mass shooters in the past 10 years have been registered in an asylum and would have still gotten guns under that system. All a registry would do is break already existing laws.

Yet, less people will get guns. A registry won't break existing laws. The only requirement is to revoke a very certain amendment.
Because there are stricter requirements to get guns, less people will get guns. There can be no guarantee that nobody gets guns, but at least, it will rather be the sensible people that get guns, instead of allowing everybody to get it.

Results such as lower death rates by violence will still happen if you impose gun control; it would certainly not ''have no effect''. That is a thing that would be admitted.

No, it would break the law. I'm not talking about the Second Amendment, I'm talking about Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926, part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act which banned any registry of non-NFA firearms to their owners.

You're still failing to understand that there is no mental health system in this country and even if we threw the rule of law out the window and implement a registry these things would still happen because of that.

You could also hurt yourself or someone else if the gun goes off by accident.

I support people having legal access to guns only because some people enjoy gun-related hobbies. I don't believe they make us safer.

Accidental discharges (as in the gun goes off by itself) are EXCEEDINGLY rare, most gun accidents are operator error.

[Herargon]

The right to self defence? Really? That's what the police force is for,

That statement was very distanced from reality.
1: The police force is not for self "defence", it's for enforcing the law
2: People living in rural areas obviously cannot rely on the police for protection.
3: The average police response time is more than 10 minutes in many parts of the United States

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times for the police response time, basic logic for the rest

even if yours is racist and corrupt.

What a bizarre statement.

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.
Furthermore, the average emergency service response time can be increased by building more hospitals, police bureaus, fire departments (even if these three are small) in places further away, and by allowing the police force to buy more and/or faster helicopters with their budget.

[Herargon]

Yet, less people will get guns. A registry won't break existing laws. The only requirement is to revoke a very certain amendment.
Because there are stricter requirements to get guns, less people will get guns. There can be no guarantee that nobody gets guns, but at least, it will rather be the sensible people that get guns, instead of allowing everybody to get it.

Results such as lower death rates by violence will still happen if you impose gun control; it would certainly not ''have no effect''. That is a thing that would be admitted.

No, it would break the law. I'm not talking about the Second Amendment, I'm talking about Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926, part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act which banned any registry of non-NFA firearms to their owners.

You're still failing to understand that there is no mental health system in this country and even if we threw the rule of law out the window and implement a registry these things would still happen because of that.

You could also hurt yourself or someone else if the gun goes off by accident.

I support people having legal access to guns only because some people enjoy gun-related hobbies. I don't believe they make us safer.

Accidental discharges (as in the gun goes off by itself) are EXCEEDINGLY rare, most gun accidents are operator error.

If it breaks the law, then the law could be changed. That's what the Congress is for.
Also, then a mental health system has to be implemented. Of course, the things still would happen, but at a much lower rate and less people would die.

[Crockerland]

The law can't do much to protect you in the heat of the moment. I mean, for example, the police response time in my area averages out to about 15 minutes for them to show up after you first call. Not much they can do to help me in those 15 minutes.



Because there's no way for NICS to identify who is crazy and going to go shoot up a school, and neither would a gun registry.

There actually is a way for that. You could forbid mentally ill people that are registered in asylums from having guns.

Being ableist against the mentally unwell will only result in them not seeking the treatment they need.

As well people under 38,

The demographic most likely to be raped is one of those most in need of firearms.

people that registered as depressed, et cetera, et cetera... and gun registries certainly also will help to that.

We do have that in most European countries, and thanks to that we have much less gun incidents.

They also have that in Brazil and South Africa, the countries with the first and fourth most gun deaths of any state respectively.

[Prolieum]

That statement was very distanced from reality.
1: The police force is not for self "defence", it's for enforcing the law
2: People living in rural areas obviously cannot rely on the police for protection.
3: The average police response time is more than 10 minutes in many parts of the United States

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times for the police response time, basic logic for the rest

What a bizarre statement.

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.
Furthermore, the average emergency service response time can be increased by building more hospitals, police bureaus, fire departments (even if these three are small) in places further away, and by allowing the police force to buy more and/or faster helicopters with their budget.

So, you think guns are so evil that forcing people to move their homes-often to more expensive areas that they can hardly afford-and then just straight-up abandoning farmers, and others in rural areas, who cannot move to a city because, you know, you can exactly plant there, and then bankrupting the nation by buying attack helicopters for every Sheriff Taylor's office in the nation, is somehow better than just letting the people defend themselves?

The idea that "they chose it for themselves" is horribly condescending-do you think that everyone has the financial means to just go and live wherever they please? Rural poor do not exactly have the ability to just buy a home next to a city at a whim, especially when you just massively raised taxes by exponentially expanding every government-funded emergency service.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If it breaks the law, then the law could be changed. That's what the Congress is for.
Also, then a mental health system has to be implemented. Of course, the things still would happen, but at a much lower rate and less people would die.

There's no support for it to change, the only part of FOPA that needs to change is the machine gun ban (which was illegally passed, and there's currently a lawsuit over).

I find it odd how you're focusing on mass shootings as what we should base our gun laws off of, they're the extreme minority of gun violence. That seems pretty illogical.

[Crockerland]

That statement was very distanced from reality.
1: The police force is not for self "defence", it's for enforcing the law
2: People living in rural areas obviously cannot rely on the police for protection.
3: The average police response time is more than 10 minutes in many parts of the United States

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times for the police response time, basic logic for the rest

What a bizarre statement.

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.

So trail of tears 2: Electric boogaloo for all the inuit?

[USS Monitor]

Yet, less people will get guns. A registry won't break existing laws. The only requirement is to revoke a very certain amendment.
Because there are stricter requirements to get guns, less people will get guns. There can be no guarantee that nobody gets guns, but at least, it will rather be the sensible people that get guns, instead of allowing everybody to get it.

Results such as lower death rates by violence will still happen if you impose gun control; it would certainly not ''have no effect''. That is a thing that would be admitted.

No, it would break the law. I'm not talking about the Second Amendment, I'm talking about Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926, part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act which banned any registry of non-NFA firearms to their owners.

You're still failing to understand that there is no mental health system in this country and even if we threw the rule of law out the window and implement a registry these things would still happen because of that.

You could also hurt yourself or someone else if the gun goes off by accident.

I support people having legal access to guns only because some people enjoy gun-related hobbies. I don't believe they make us safer.

Accidental discharges (as in the gun goes off by itself) are EXCEEDINGLY rare, most gun accidents are operator error.

Situations where having a gun saves your life are rare, and I didn't specify whether the gun went off by itself or the accident was caused by operator error. Even if people know better, they can still do dumb things.

[Herargon]

There actually is a way for that. You could forbid mentally ill people that are registered in asylums from having guns.

Being ableist against the mentally unwell will only result in them not seeking the treatment they need.

As well people under 38,

The demographic most likely to be raped is one of those most in need of firearms.

people that registered as depressed, et cetera, et cetera... and gun registries certainly also will help to that.

We do have that in most European countries, and thanks to that we have much less gun incidents.

They also have that in Brazil and South Africa, the countries with the first and fourth most gun deaths of any state respectively.

To the first point, no. Subsidise mental health treatment, educate people on mental problems, and they will likely be less inclined to be ignored or shunned, and will seek help faster. A healthy discussion does help to that.
The second point; that isn't really a reliable source if I don't know how many people were surveyed, and if it isn't spelled very well.
Besides, firearms make people die.The cycle then still continues. That is not a desirable outcome. You could as well use pepper spray.

To the last point, that's because the countries are poorer than the Western world. It's also different in those countries.
Brazil has so many gun deaths due to gang and drug wars, and the protests against the current government also will contribute to that.
In South Africa, it's due to tensions between whites and blacks there, currently. Mostly between Afrikaners and the others, I've read.

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.
Furthermore, the average emergency service response time can be increased by building more hospitals, police bureaus, fire departments (even if these three are small) in places further away, and by allowing the police force to buy more and/or faster helicopters with their budget.

So, you think guns are so evil that forcing people to move their homes-often to more expensive areas that they can hardly afford-and then just straight-up abandoning farmers, and others in rural areas, who cannot move to a city because, you know, you can exactly plant there, and then bankrupting the nation by buying attack helicopters for every Sheriff Taylor's office in the nation, is somehow better than just letting the people defend themselve?

Not as you would word it - I certainly wouldn't buy attack helicopters for every sherrif if I were the president (I should have worded it better; most police bureaus, my bad) -, but yes. Subsidise the people to move there, or stimulate it by not stopping small building projects in rural places, and instead support building projects in urban places. Bankrupting the nation by buying attack helicopters... hm, strange to say that. The United States is one of the most powerful, richest countries there was.. or so I thought? Well, then, apparently. But anyways, yes, the US could support that. Reallocate some of the military budget to the police and there's that.

[Crockerland]

Situations where having a gun saves your life are rare

[Citation needed]

[Washington Resistance Army]

Situations where having a gun saves your life are rare, and I didn't specify whether the gun went off by itself or the accident was caused by operator error. Even if people know better, they can still do dumb things.

Defensive gun usage is a very hotly debated topic, some sources say it's as low as 40,000ish a year while others go as high as 2.5 million. I kinda wish we had some real concrete numbers on it.

I can certainly agree that people can still do stupid things though, thankfully accidental gun deaths are already at a very negligible level and continuing to go down.

[Herargon]

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.

So trail of tears 2: Electric boogaloo for all the inuit?

Politely, how would it be a Trail of Tears?
I wasn't talking about racial deportations; rather, I was talking about a population in general. You're taking my quote out of context.

[USS Monitor]

That statement was very distanced from reality.
1: The police force is not for self "defence", it's for enforcing the law
2: People living in rural areas obviously cannot rely on the police for protection.
3: The average police response time is more than 10 minutes in many parts of the United States

Sources: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/12/police-response-times for the police response time, basic logic for the rest

What a bizarre statement.

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.
Furthermore, the average emergency service response time can be increased by building more hospitals, police bureaus, fire departments (even if these three are small) in places further away, and by allowing the police force to buy more and/or faster helicopters with their budget.

Trying to control where people live can create its own problems with traffic, affordability, etc. Ironically, packing more people into urban areas would probably lead to higher crime rates. People who live in remote areas already do understand that they will not have the same access to public services as they would get in a city. But they are less likely to get shot in the first place.

[Imperializt Russia]

I feel your being very sarcastic...

Fuck no. Gun laws are a serious matter, and with the way Congress is putting these laws into effect, it's causing more and more shootings.

Regardless of views on what will solve gun violence and mass shootings, it is completely untrue to suggest it is the result of firearm regulation. And frankly fucking insulting.

All guns should be banned.

But realistically for fascist U.S. they should at least ban all Assault rifles and high caliber weapons that are completely unnecessary.

These fear-mongering hicks only need a handgun to protect themsleves.

You don't need an assualt rifle or high capacity magazine or high caliber guns unless you plan on committing a terrorist attack.

Anybody ever heard of Stun Guns/Tasers? (the ones that shoot electrodes)

You know it's always the end of the world with the conservatives when liberals propose some new laws, right-wingers
are so afraid of change and every time something happens, suddenly liberals want to take everything away and strip you of all your rights etc. and then it's the apoclypse! lol xD

I'm not even going to debate anything because i see how far right-wing these guys are. These types are usually complelely unreasonable, and illogical.

You better watch your tongue there, Liberal. You're not in Europe anymore when you come to my forum.

This isn't your forum.

Bring it.

All guns should be banned.

But realistically for fascist U.S. they should at least ban all Assault rifles and high caliber weapons that are completely unnecessary.

These fear-mongering hicks only need a handgun to protect themsleves.

You don't need an assualt rifle or high capacity magazine or high caliber guns unless you plan on committing a terrorist attack.

Anybody ever heard of Stun Guns/Tasers? (the ones that shoot electrodes)

You know it's always the end of the world with the conservatives when liberals propose some new laws, right-wingers
are so afraid of change and every time something happens, suddenly liberals want to take everything away and strip you of all your rights etc. and then it's the apoclypse! lol xD

I'm not even going to debate anything because i see how far right-wing these guys are. These types are usually complelely unreasonable, and illogical.

Please, may I GENUINELY ask, what would happen in the case of an armed lead assault on a building such as a mall... If guns are illegal to everyone, obviously law-abiding citizens won't have any. But criminals never follow the laws, so obviously they would have no problem owning an illegal firearm. So, if the criminal was armed, and no one else was, ESPECIALLY if you're one of those idiots who believe the police shouldn't be armed, how many dead bodies do you think it would take to stop the shooter? All of them? Or maybe until a cop or bystander had a firearm of their own to shoot the criminal... Oh wait, they can't. Because that would be illegal.

In 104 "active shooter events" up to 2012, the FBI worked out that civilians ended the event by returning fire in three incidents.
55 of the incidents ended when the shooter committed suicide, withdrew or surrendered. In 14, the shooter was subdued by civilians without firearms.

Don't overstate the ability of CCW holders to intervene.

[Herargon]

Then the average police response time could be increased as much as possible, by making people have to live more near to cities, and by asking those who move to a place far away ''this is your own risk. Do you really want this?''. That way, people cannot complain when they get shot if they live far away, because they chose for it themselves.
Furthermore, the average emergency service response time can be increased by building more hospitals, police bureaus, fire departments (even if these three are small) in places further away, and by allowing the police force to buy more and/or faster helicopters with their budget.

Trying to control where people live can create its own problems with traffic, affordability, etc. Ironically, packing more people into urban areas would probably lead to higher crime rates. People who live in remote areas already do understand that they will not have the same access to public services as they would get in a city. But they are less likely to get shot in the first place.

That's true, I have to admit. These rural people are less likely to get shot. Though, because they do not have the same access to public services as urban people, like you already mentioned, they will be more inclined to be against gun control. It's their own opinion, I can understand, but...

---
Regarding your first point. I think if urban planning is done well, and police districts or such, redistributed, it will not lead to higher crime rates. The Netherlands is known for its urban planning -- they have to rely on that because their country is rather densely populated. As of thus, they need to work together in urban planning and so far it's going well.
Though, I do not know if they can apply the European style of urban planning (slightly sinuous roads, woonerven, bicycle streets etc. there...

[USS Monitor]

Situations where having a gun saves your life are rare, and I didn't specify whether the gun went off by itself or the accident was caused by operator error. Even if people know better, they can still do dumb things.

Defensive gun usage is a very hotly debated topic, some sources say it's as low as 40,000ish a year while others go as high as 2.5 million. I kinda wish we had some real concrete numbers on it.

I can certainly agree that people can still do stupid things though, thankfully accidental gun deaths are already at a very negligible level and continuing to go down.

Defensive gun usage would include people that used their gun to defend their property or to defuse a situation where someone was in danger of being hurt, but it was unlikely to turn deadly. Situations where a gun saves your life is a narrower category.

But I can sympathize with your frustration about the difficulty of getting good statistics. It's very hard to find information that is fair and balanced when you are dealing with such a politically charged topic and so many people pushing one agenda or another.

It can be hard to judge which situations the gun saved someone's life and which ones everyone would have survived anyway, so that's something we're unlikely to ever have solid data on.

[Narland]

The right to self defence? Really? That's what the police force is for, even if yours is racist and corrupt.

False, our police legally are not required to protect you, so sayeth the Supreme Court. They exist to uphold the law, nothing more.

In a landmark decision that further eroded citizens' rights and turned the Constituion on its head, the Supreme Court ruled, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989) Police do not have to protect you when someone comes gunning for you.

A case in the 1970s (71?) the 9th Circuit Court had ruled that their job was to enforce compliance of government policy (not necessarily law), not be peace keepers. (I am still seeking the ruling, the Supreme Court let the decision stand.)
In 1978 iirc, the Supreme court ruled that they Police have the duty of collecting revenue (from confiscation, citations etc.). It did not consider protecting the individual as part of their duty, but again protecting the property rights in general.

They also serve (arrest warrants, fines, citiations, warnings, etc) in an effort to enforce compliance to law and in some Circuit Jurisdictions merely enforce policy and collect revenue.

The horrendous transformation of our police departments from citizen Peace Officers to para-military Policy Enforcers slow, sure and steady.

[Imperializt Russia]

False, our police legally are not required to protect you, so sayeth the Supreme Court. They exist to uphold the law, nothing more.

In a landmark decision that further eroded citizens' rights and turned the Constituion on its head, the Supreme Court ruled, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989) Police do not have to protect you when someone comes gunning for you.

A case in the 1970s (71?) the 9th Circuit Court had ruled that their job was to enforce compliance of government policy (not necessarily law), not be peace keepers. (I am still seeking the ruling, the Supreme Court let the decision stand.)
In 1978 iirc, the Supreme court ruled that they Police have the duty of collecting revenue (from confiscation, citations etc.). It did not consider protecting the individual as part of their duty, but again protecting the property rights in general.

They also serve (arrest warrants, fines, citiations, warnings, etc) in an effort to enforce compliance to law and in some Circuit Jurisdictions merely policy.

The horrendous transformation of our police departments from citizen Peace Officers to para-military Policy Enforcers slow, sure and steady.

Given that in the late eighties the US still had like 15-18 thousand firearm homicides a year, it reads more as "if we say police are duty-bound to protect people, it will put their lives at risk too which would be a bad thing".

Besides, upholding the rule of law is and always was the job of police. It's why they're called god damned law enforcement.

[Narland]

In a landmark decision that further eroded citizens' rights and turned the Constituion on its head, the Supreme Court ruled, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989) Police do not have to protect you when someone comes gunning for you.

A case in the 1970s (71?) the 9th Circuit Court had ruled that their job was to enforce compliance of government policy (not necessarily law), not be peace keepers. (I am still seeking the ruling, the Supreme Court let the decision stand.)
In 1978 iirc, the Supreme court ruled that they Police have the duty of collecting revenue (from confiscation, citations etc.). It did not consider protecting the individual as part of their duty, but again protecting the property rights in general.

They also serve (arrest warrants, fines, citiations, warnings, etc) in an effort to enforce compliance to law and in some Circuit Jurisdictions merely policy.

The horrendous transformation of our police departments from citizen Peace Officers to para-military Policy Enforcers slow, sure and steady.

Given that in the late eighties the US still had like 15-18 thousand firearm homicides a year, it reads more as "if we say police are duty-bound to protect people, it will put their lives at risk too which would be a bad thing".

If they cannot put their lives at risk, they do not need to be peace officers. Their purpose is to keep the peace, protect the rights, privileges, and immunities of every human being from encroachment, and to serve writs; this is a very dangerous vocational choice.

It is safer to create an order in the name of law enforcement that instead harrass the general law abiding public with legal policy violations in order to genrate revenue for the state; create a criminal class with diminished rights to mine; and go after milk farmers with full swat teams and military gear.

[Crockerland]

To the first point, no. Subsidise mental health treatment, educate people on mental problems, and they will likely be less inclined to be ignored or shunned, and will seek help faster. A healthy discussion does help to that.

Subsidizing mental health treatment will not make it any better to discriminate against the mentally unwell. Regardless of whether they want to be treated, there will always be at least a few, especially in areas with a lot of murders and rapes, who will forgo the treatment knowing they will lose their right to self-defense if they admit their sickness.

The second point; that isn't really a reliable source if I don't know how many people were surveyed, and if it isn't spelled very well.
Besides, firearms make people die. The cycle then still continues. That is not a desirable outcome.

That's subjective. In India, rape carries the death sentence.

You could as well use pepper spray.

Unless your rapist decides to wear eye protection. A paintball mask or something like that to conceal his identity would make your pepper spray useless. A rapist who is peppersprayed is more likely to get away and rape someone else than a rapist who is shot.

To the last point, that's because the countries are poorer than the Western world.

Brazil is richer than every nation in the world except France, the UK, Germany, Japan, China, Australia, and the US. (Source is International Monetary Fund 2014)

It's also different in those countries.
Brazil has so many gun deaths due to gang and drug wars, and the protests against the current government also will contribute to that.
In South Africa, it's due to tensions between whites and blacks there, currently. Mostly between Afrikaners and the others, I've read.

There are definitely both tensions between races and drug/gang wars in the US.

[Imperializt Russia]

Given that in the late eighties the US still had like 15-18 thousand firearm homicides a year, it reads more as "if we say police are duty-bound to protect people, it will put their lives at risk too which would be a bad thing".

If they cannot put their lives at risk, they do not need to be peace officers.

This statement does not make sense.