“But Australia banned scary black rifles and they don’t have mass shootings, so gun control works!” Australia also has public healthcare, better social safety nets than the US, better income relative to cost of living, significantly lower incarceration rate, etc. Not to mention they have about half the population and GDP of California alone…
In the US, over 80% of murders happen in urban areas where gun control is tightest. Roughly 50-80% are committed with guns, but nearly 95% of these are committed with handguns. Only 5% of gun murders are committed with rifles, let alone “scary black assault weapons.” The FBI releases this data every year, the most recent is 2019. See for yourself.
Even if “assault weapons” got banned and the government performed the literal, logistical miracle it would take to round these guns up and enforce the ban moving forward, domestic terrorists will just use “non assault weapons” when they decide to kill people and that’ll be the next thing that leftwing the media will tell you to that you want banned. Meanwhile, the impact banning “assault weapons” had was lost in the noise.
I believe most people who advocate for gun control have good intentions, but I wish nuanced discussion was easier to have. Practically every comment that isn’t overflowing with emotion, demanding more gun control, and missing a few insults like “ammosexuals” gets downvoted into the dirt.
I like asking what countries have strict gun control, lower violent crime rates in general, and social safety nets/better living conditions?
Turns out that every country with very strict gun control also has safety nets and better living conditions, but how much effect on violence do these variables have individually? It makes sense that a society of extremely happy and well-off people won’t randomly murder each other the moment you give them guns.