Current Events > "Other countries that banned guns don't have mass shooting problems"

(+) Yeah! (+)

What is the counter argument to this? That banning guns should be done as other countries like Australia have shown that it works.

Or if someone who has that opinion can express it better than I can, or point out any faults themselves

---

japan is safe and has strict laws on this

---

They'll bring up the one time those countries had a mass shooting in the past 50 years or how there's been attacks with knives or some dumb bullshit.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

They'll bring up the one time those countries had a mass shooting in the past 50 years or how there's been attacks with knives or some dumb bullshit.

This

---

I don't think guns should be banned because, in the long term, it's the one thing that makes America untouchable.

You cannot invade America without having to fight almost every citizen in the country, in addition to the military.

---

DocDelicious posted...

I don't think guns should be banned because, in the long term, it's the one thing that makes America untouchable.

You cannot invade America without having to fight almost every citizen in the country, in addition to the military.

No-one is going to try and invade America, or any other huge country for that matter, in the 21st century regardless of whether or not the civilians own guns. Anyway, if there was World war 3 we'd all get nuked by each other's armed tactical subs stationed around the world LOL

DocDelicious posted...

I don't think guns should be banned because, in the long term, it's the one thing that makes America untouchable.

You cannot invade America without having to fight almost every citizen in the country, in addition to the military.

Less than half of the country has guns and I'm willing to bet that the majority of those people probably still don't have the equipment or the will power required to defend themselves against soldiers or MP.

ArchiePeck posted...

No-one is going to try and invade America, or any other huge country for that matter, in the 21st century regardless of whether or not the civilians own guns. Anyway, if there was World war 3 we'd all get nuked by each other's armed tactical subs stationed around the world LOL

I'm willing to bet if there was a WWIII it would probably be another cold war except for the fighting in the middle east which would probably just continue as usual.

---

DocDelicious posted...

I don't think guns should be banned because, in the long term, it's the one thing that makes America untouchable.

You cannot invade America without having to fight almost every citizen in the country, in addition to the military.

i think the whole idea is to prevent Americans from shooting Americans lol

How would a gun ban in america work? When every other country "banned guns", what was the gun culture like? How easy do you think it would be to disarm 500 Million+ guns from citizens? Especially in more dangerous areas.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

They'll bring up the one time those countries had a mass shooting in the past 50 years or how there's been attacks with knives or some dumb bullshit.

How is that dumb? People who want to kill will find ways to kill even if guns ceased to exist

DocDelicious posted...

I don't think guns should be banned because, in the long term, it's the one thing that makes America untouchable.

You cannot invade America without having to fight almost every citizen in the country, in addition to the military.

I think out military being able to roflstomp half the planet at once is deterant e oigh without having to rely on Jethro Bill and Cletus with their shotguns and pistols.
---

SH_expert44 posted...

How would a gun ban in america work? When every other country "banned guns", what was the gun culture like? How easy do you think it would be to disarm 500 Million+ guns from citizens? Especially in more dangerous areas.

You can't, but you can make it a slow, bureaucratic process that drags guns down over the course of 20 years.

---

coh posted...

How is that dumb? People who want to kill will find ways to kill even if guns ceased to exist

The point is that when a thing is harder, it's going to happen less often.

---

ArchiePeck posted...

No-one is going to try and invade America

Idk man...you say that, but Canada has been eyeing us up for years.

---

Heineken14 posted...

I think out military being able to roflstomp half the planet at once is deterant e oigh without having to rely on Jethro Bill and Cletus with their shotguns and pistols.

This is what I'm saying. If our military couldn't handle it, the civilians sure as hell won't. And on top of that, Jethro and Cletus probably have a family and aren't going to charge head first into some bullets when they've got people who they need to take care of.

This belief that the US has its own redneck militia is so weird to me.

coh posted...

How is that dumb? People who want to kill will find ways to kill even if guns ceased to exist

Because we have mass shootings regularly. If you have to bring up a mass shooting from 50 years ago, you're just proving your own point wrong.

---

Guide posted...

The point is that when a thing is harder, it's going to happen less often.

Just like how knife crime in the UK has been plummeting over the years despite the crack downs on sharp object possession.

---

most countries that ban or restrict guns typically just ban sales and then do a government buy back at first I think. It is a slow process but it takes those fire arms while not introducing new ones onto the market.

---

The US has that significant matter of needing 38 states to approve the means for any substantial firearms ban.

The difference between other countries and the United States when it comes to guns is that there are already millions of guns in the US, whereas other countries don't have the same absurd numbers of guns or gun ownership for that matter.

If we were to outlaw guns(only outlaw present and future sales, not seize already existing), the only thing we will accomplish is creating a black market for the gun market, which already exists, and just make it a lot bigger. Guns are already expensive. Outlaw them and you're going to suddenly have people peddling guns for huge profits.

Seriously. I think it's stupid to own anything other than a shotgun or handgun myself, but its not hard to figure this out with basic intelligence. There is quite frankly no solution to this matter which would satisfy or resolve the issue for both sides of the argument.

We are left with 2 alternatives. We either spend the millions of dollars to put highly professional and vetted security guards in every school with school designs focused on giving students cover from shooters...which is a wholly silly idea

Or we wage a 10-20 year war on guns and try to collect every gun we can

---

DEKMStephens posted...

most countries that ban or restrict guns typically just ban sales and then do a government buy back at first I think. It is a slow process but it takes those fire arms while not introducing new ones onto the market.

sounds successful

---

SH_expert44 posted...

Just like how knife crime in the UK has been plummeting over the years despite the crack downs on sharp object possession.

This makes no sense as a comparison, unless you mean to say that knives are just as easy to kill with as guns are, in which case lol

---

The issue is that those countries weren't steeped in a culture that basically jerked off to guns. Nor did they have nearly as many guns in the country. Nor did they have a constitutional amendment protecting gun ownership as a right.

---

SH_expert44 posted...

How would a gun ban in america work? When every other country "banned guns", what was the gun culture like? How easy do you think it would be to disarm 500 Million+ guns from citizens? Especially in more dangerous areas.

Gun bans and buybacks don't work, period. All it does is turn gun ownership into an underground scene and creates a black market. Even Australia to all its credit recovered only 20% of newly-illicit firearms with their gun ban and buyback program. Attempts at creating gun registries have also seen similar compliance rates.
---

Take away guns, and people will use knives. Take away knives, and people will use sticks. Take away sticks, and people will tear out each other's throats with their bare teeth.

I get that you can do less mass casualty damage with knives/sticks/etcetera, but the root of the problem is hatred in the hearts of people, not guns.

A gun ban won't work. Even if you do find a way to disarm everyone (even the "Try and take em" folk) there are still hundreds of thousands if not millions of unregistered guns here. There is no solution to the gun problem.

"if they don't use guns, they'll use knives and trucks like in britain. which are much more painful and destructive than guns."

---

DocDelicious posted...

I don't think guns should be banned because, in the long term, it's the one thing that makes America untouchable.

You cannot invade America without having to fight almost every citizen in the country, in addition to the military.

LOL

---

Generic shortsighted argument about why it wont make a difference even though I know it would, but I don't care how many people have to die for me to keep the right to own a gun to compensate for having a small penis.

OfDustandBone posted...

Take away guns, and people will use knives. Take away knives, and people will use sticks. Take away sticks, and people will tear out each other's throats with their bare teeth.

I get that you can do less mass casualty damage with knives/sticks/etcetera, but the root of the problem is hatred in the hearts of people, not guns.

People are going to get hurt if someone decides to snap and attack as many people as possible, but it would absolutely be preferable for a mass murderer not to pick up a gun.

Counselling and addressing issues that make people snap in the first place - untreated mental illness or xenophobia/racism, for example - can help, but there will always be a murderous jackass waiting to make a name for themselves through mass murder. Guns are an issue when mass shooters use them to rack up double-digit to triple-digit body counts. It's true that the issue lies with the individuals who think this is okay, but it's also true that having access to a gun lets them kill more people than a knife, a stick or their bare hands.

"the root of the problem is hatred in the hearts of people" - and these people who feel hatred in their hearts use guns to enact this hatred. The root cause doesn't overwrite the role of guns in mas murders, especially in America.

---

Right off the bat the problem is that other countries don't have mass shootings including those that DON'T ban guns like Switzterland.

Second to that is that no nation on Earth has the same gun problem the US does. Both in terms of literal lateral amount of guns that are everywhere and the gun worship culture.

You can't just "Ban Guns" or "Allow All Guns" in the US like you can in Europe or New Zealand or Japan. There's no possible way to introduce or enforce that and the result would be a bloodbath.

So it's a silly point beyond trying to mock others
---

I copied this topic and made it on LL. Hope you don't mind, TC. It's already gotten 19 posts.

---

The U.S. has a lower mass shooting death rate than several of the enlightened European countries.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

---

---

I've now received 110 posts in the very same topic I made on LL.

---

The difference is culture, that's not going to change unless an NRA meeting gets shot up and hundreds die or something. When that mass shooting in Australia took place that led to a gun ban or just assault rifle ban, the entire country was shocked and horrified and then voluntarily gave up their guns. When there is a mass shooting here people run out to buy MORE guns. You tell me how the fuck you change that?

---

DifferentialEquation posted...

The U.S. has a lower mass shooting death rate than several of the enlightened European countries.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

Did you not read the article? Or is this some type of reverse trolling?

---

It completely ignores that we have around a 1:1 gun to person ratio, so it's unrealistic at best. Even ignoring the massive backlash due to centuries of gun culture, such a project would be near impossible or take like a hundred years. There are measures that can be taken to try to reduce it, but that isn't one of them.

DifferentialEquation posted...

The U.S. has a lower mass shooting death rate than several of the enlightened European countries.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

The death percentage of Norway's total population that died when Anders Breivik blew up a government building and gunned down 80 or so people was higher than then percentage of the US population that died on 9/11. All this means is that smaller incidents will have larger statistical significance in a smaller population group.
---

SH_expert44 posted...

How would a gun ban in america work? When every other country "banned guns", what was the gun culture like? How easy do you think it would be to disarm 500 Million+ guns from citizens? Especially in more dangerous areas.

You get 3/4ths of the states to ratify a new amendment that repeals the second amendment. Then a gun ban looks like however the fuck you want it to look.

If you can do that, it would mean gun culture is changed enough that banning guns isn't hard.

---

Gamerguymass posted...

Did you not read the article? Or is this some type of reverse trolling?

Given who you are responding to, it is 100% trolling.

---

Gamerguymass posted...

Did you not read the article? Or is this some type of reverse trolling?

Snopes does not deny that the U.S. death rate is lower. They admit that that part is true.


---

DeadBankerDream posted...

The death percentage of Norway's total population that died when Anders Breivik blew up a government building and gunned down 80 or so people was higher than then percentage of the US population that died on 9/11. All this means is that smaller incidents will have larger statistical significance in a smaller population group.

And? Mass shootings are statistically rare.

They're statistically rare in Norway and staitically in the United States. A higher raw number of statistically rate events will occur in a country of 300 million versus a country of 5 million.


---

Mass shootings are not a serious enough incident in this to country warrant a abolishment of the 2nd amendment, a ban on all firearms and the goverment going full on fascist toward previously good, law abiding citizens to enforce it.

That and while I admit most people would roll over in the face of a tyrannical goverment for those willing and able to fight.....guns are better then nothing.


---

ArchiePeck posted...

No-one is going to try and invade America, or any other huge country for that matter, in the 21st century regardless of whether or not the civilians own guns. Anyway, if there was World war 3 we'd all get nuked by each other's armed tactical subs stationed around the world LOL

*strategic* submarines.

---

the notion of that statement isnt technically true. most of the time governments rephrase what constitutes as a mass shooting (domestic incidents tend to be left off the table in a lot of instances) and in general those incidents may happen less, but are never completely eliminated. theres actually a lot of shootings in the countries everyone likes to bring up, they just dont have high body counts largely do to them being personal 1 on 1 affairs or gang affiliated.

a lot of time when someone also mentions that phrase they like to cite countries who rarely had very many mass shootings to begin. countries that may have had 1, then enacted heavy gun control and that went down to 0 or maybe 1 every several years. that type of ratio is impossible to get any real type of data from especially in comparison to america where mass shootings vary wildly year by year. its incredibly difficult to get a consistent result.

another area that tends to get over looked when spouting about gun deaths is that it rarely ever takes overall homicides into account. when heavy gun control gets enacted you usually see an increase in other forms of deaths (especially arson) that tend to either replace or take up a good percentage of deaths that may have theoretically been taken up by guns. on top of homicides other forms of crimes also get an uptick like rapes, home invasions and robberies.

a lot of the other places that have heavy gun control also have a lot of other safety nets and social programs in place that tend to curb unease and the will to lash out. the US has a strong issue with this that breeds discontent and resentment which makes it easier for people to turn to violence. theoretically tackling stuff like healthcare, less pay gaps, better job security ect. could significantly reduce over all violence each year without ever touching guns and humanity as a whole could be in a better place going forward.

lastly the US has a liberal estimate of 400+ million guns in it. there are more guns than people. because of that it stands highly likely that they will be used in more crimes and deaths. thats the way everything works. however taking that into consideration and how some people think if guns truly were the problem, if true then the US would be a mad max apocalyptic wasteland right now. this isnt the case and based on what we know only about .03-.05% of firearms in civilians hands typically get used for nefarious purposes. statistically these types of shooting situations based on population size and gun availability are EXCEPTIONALLY low. but because of how the news network and social media work you tend ot hear about every little thing making the situation seem like an epidemic despite gun violence in general going down nearly year after year and over 50% from where we were in the 90's.

^ great post!

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

What is the counter argument to this?

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Venezuela, Chile, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, etc. Take your pick.
---

America has alot of rural areas, if something happened the response time from the police would take a while. So literally dont defend myself, family and pets?

we can argue all day about why guns should or shouldn't be banned

but at the end of the day, attempting to enforce a ban on guns is asking for large-scale civil unrest

---