Information technology'S BECOME ROUTINE IN AMERICA, EVERY month or ii, to restart the debate about gun command. The debate is inevitably kicked off by the most recent mass shooting (the nearly contempo, equally of this writing, being the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon), and so winds down inside a week or ii when information technology becomes obvious that the Usa Congress isn't going to exercise anything.

Americans can be incredibly fatalistic when it comes to guns. When Jeb Bush, one of the leading Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election, was asked about the Oregon shooting and the possibility of pushing stricter gun control laws in the U.Southward., he said, "Look, stuff happens. At that place'south e'er a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to practise."

Even without the fatalism, America'southward gun fence tin get extremely heated very chop-chop: at that place are those who suggest that the solution to ending mass shootings is to make certain anybody everywhere is carrying a gun. Every bit Wayne LaPierre, the president of the National Rifle Clan (NRA) said afterwards the Newtown shooting, "The only matter that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a practiced guy with a gun." And then there are those who suggest that the solution is fewer guns, and stronger controls about who tin get their hands on a gun.

With each new shooting, the satirical paper The Onion has taken to simply republishing its brilliant headline, "'No Way To Forbid This,' Says Just Land Where This Regularly Happens," with an updated photograph and location to reflect the latest shooting. Which of course brings up the question: Why is it that in that location are so few mass shootings in other developed countries? Is there anything we can learn from the world's other countries when information technology comes to reducing gun violence?

Australia

Up until 1996, Australia had relatively lax gun laws. And so, in 1996, a man with severe psychological problems went on a rampage in Port Arthur, Australia, that ended with 36 people dead and 23 people wounded. In response, the Australian regime implemented strict gun control laws that outlawed automated weapons and shotguns and began a gun buyback scheme that saw hundreds of thousands of guns turned into the regime. Since the laws were implemented, at that place have been no massacres in Australia (there were thirteen mass shootings in the xviii years prior to the gun control reform), gun-related homicides have dropped 7.5 pct, and gun-related suicides have dropped as well.

There was political resistance to the gun laws in Australia, and the laws did politically harm the conservative government which enacted them, just unlike the United States, Commonwealth of australia doesn't have constitutionally protected gun rights, and also lacks a powerful gun antechamber like the NRA in the U.S.

Canada

A popular argument confronting gun control is that if criminals desire guns, criminals can go guns. In the U.South., this argument often points to the U.S.-Mexico edge, where drugs, money, and guns oft cross the border illegally. And so if you tin't totally protect yourself from what's coming in from outside the country, what's the point?

Information technology's worthwhile, then, to see how gun control has worked in Canada, since Canada shares a border with the gun-filled United States — a border which is less secure than the U.Southward.-Mexico border, and thus would be susceptible to gun trafficking from the United States.

Canada has had relatively strict gun control laws targeting handguns and automatic weapons since the 1930'due south, and targeting rifles and shotguns since 1989, after a mass shooting. Those seeking a gun-owner'due south license must take a safety form and laissez passer a background cheque that looks at mental health, drug, and criminal histories. Canada besides requires that the spouses of those applying for a gun license exist notified of the application, and anyone with a history of domestic violence is denied the license.

The results are interesting: Canadians really own a lot of guns: betwixt 23.8 and thirty for every 100 people (placing them as twelfth highest guns per capita in the world), depending on your source. Only the number of gun deaths is relatively depression, at 0.5 people for every 100,000. These numbers in the U.S., by comparison, are 88 firearms for every 100 people (the highest in the world hands down), and 3.five gun-related homicides per 100,000. Canada, if anything, is proof that gun command does non necessarily have to mean a total absence of guns in order to significantly reduce gun violence.

Switzerland

Switzerland is an interesting case, because Switzerland loves guns. It has the quaternary almost guns per capita in the world, behind the United States, Serbia, and Yemen, with approximately 45 guns per 100 residents (about half as much per capita every bit the U.s.a.). But it'southward overall gun deaths are only a seventh of what they are in the U.s.. Why is that?

In function, Switzerland's gun civilization is a result of their mandatory denizen'south militia, which conscripts men betwixt the ages of 20 and 30, and gives them a gun to be kept in their home. These armed forces-issued guns, all the same, do not come with military-issued ammunition. Instead, militia members are expected to go to an arsenal to retrieve their ammunition in the result of an emergency. Non including these government-issued guns, the actual number of guns per capita in Switzerland is around 25 per 100.

According to gun enthusiasts in Switzerland, the reason for the comparatively low crime rate is because gun culture in Switzerland is tied to its military roots: gun ownership is not attached to a sense of individualism, every bit it frequently is in the Us, just is rather tied to a sense of civic and social responsibility.

Japan

On the contrary stop of the spectrum is Nihon. Since World War Ii, Nihon's culture has been marked by a pacifism non seen in most other countries, and their constitution forbids them from participating in war against other sovereign nations. Until recently, the military has only existed for self-defence force.

Similarly, Nippon'due south gun control policies are abnormally strict. Civilians are non allowed to ain weapons. Not handguns, not automatic weapons, non military machine rifles, not fifty-fifty swords. Even air rifles are difficult to buy. Don't take a gun license? Bear upon a gun in Japan and you could spend x years in jail.

As a result, Japan has one of the everyman gun buying rates in the earth, with 0.six guns per every 100 people. The number of firearm-related deaths is also one of the lowest in the earth: 0.06 per 100,000.

Why is the U.S. then different?

Gun control, it should be said, doesn't eliminate the possibility of gun violence. Countries with relatively depression amounts of gun ownership can withal experience mass shootings. The United Kingdom, for example, is 82nd in the world when information technology comes to gun ownership per capita, but has experienced 2 mass shootings in the past xx years. Even Nippon, with it'due south comparatively callous gun laws, hasn't totally eliminated shooting deaths. So it's very possible that eliminating gun crime only isn't in the cards for whatever state.

Only it'south worth comparing the numbers. Between 2000 and 2014, Europe (including Russia) had a total of 23 mass shootings. The U.S. had 133 mass shootings in that aforementioned time. The U.S. does have a unique gun culture, and most other countries in the world don't take gun ownership enshrined in their constitution. And evidently there is more than simply gun buying that drives gun violence: the highest firearm-related homicide rates in the world are in unstable Central American countries like Republic of honduras and Republic of el salvador, despite those 2 countries being 87th and 89th in per capita gun buying, respectively. Gun control is worthless if you alive in a failed or securely impoverished state.

That said, in developed countries, gun control policies work. We know this because dozens of other countries have succeeded in lowering gun violence and reducing mass shooting incidents. And there are interpretations of the Second Subpoena that let for reasonable gun command (besides, as comedian Jim Jefferies points out, you can change an amendment: "It'south called an amendment."). The rest of the world has given us instance studies that testify united states our options: We tin can choose gun control policies that outright ban guns — which isn't likely to ever happen in the United States — or we tin can choose gun control policies that make gun violence just a little more difficult without totally sacrificing our gun rights or attempting to alter a securely revered Constitution.

The fatalism is unnecessary. Some gun deaths may indeed exist inevitable. But we can have steps to keep these deaths to a minimum. Other countries take, and lives accept been saved.