It’s a tight race in Nebraska for the senate seat, Dan doesn’t state his position on gun rights, but I talked to his closest ally in the Omaha campaign office, and Dan will vote for an AWB. I’m fully convinced of it. I’m supposedly marked as an undecided voter too.

“He carried an AR-15 in his time in the military”

“We both know the AR-15 and the M-4 are the same weapons system”

“You don’t need that to shoot a deer”

That’s according to his Omaha HQ volunteer. Dan Osborn will vote for an AWB, I’m just sure of it.

Nebraskans, if you haven’t voted yet, do it now. He’s in the margin of error, and could possibly steal a senate seat from the ones who will pass a gun rights bill provided we meet the filibuster threshold.

Don’t let his supposed service with the Navy fool you, he wants to take your guns away.

Vote.

I remember a few years ago there was a guy online who was being raided by the police/ in a stand off with them. I think his instagram was whiskeyriver with some numbers after it. There was a general consensus going around that they were either red flagging him or trying to come in and get all his guns on bs charges. Does anyone remember this whole thing? I never got to follow up on him and can’t find it anywhere online now. There were guys all over the US coming out in support him while it happened, I know one of you remembers.

|Rank|City|Mayor Party|Population|Violent Crime per 100,000|% Black|% White|% Hispanic|% Other|CCW restricted?| --:|:--|:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|:--|:--| |1|St. Louis|Dem.|297,645|2,082|45%|44%|4%|7%|19| |2|Baltimore|Dem.|585,708|1,833|63%|30%|5%|2%|Yes| |3|Detroit|Dem.|639,111|2,046|77%|14%|5%|4%|21| |4|Memphis|Dem.|628,127|1,901|64%|28%|7%|1%|21| |5|Cleveland|Dem.|368,924|1,659|47%|35%|13%|5%|21| |6|Oakland|Dem.|440,646|1,299|24%|27%|28%|21%|Yes| |7|Milwaukee|Dem.|577,222|1,732|39%|33%|18%|10%|Yes| |8|Kansas City|Dem.|508,090|1,618|27%|52%|10%|11%|No| |9|Philadelphia|Dem.|1,567,872|1,556|43%|34%|15%|8%|Yes| |10|Atlanta|Dem.|498,715|1,678|51%|36%|7%|6%|21*| |11|Albuquerque|Dem.|568,301|1,352|3%|38%|50%|9%|Yes| |12|Stockton|Repub.|323,076|1,441|11%|20%|43%|26%|Yes| |13|Indianapolis|Dem.|880,621|1,233|29%|55%|10%|6%|No| |14|Columbus|Dem.|921,605|1,218|23%|60%|10%|7%|21| |15|Chicago|Dem.|2,746,388|1,481|30%|33%|29%|8%|Yes| |16|Birmingham|Dem.|197,575|1,911|73%|22%|3%|2%|19| |17|Baton Rouge|Dem.|220,236|1,632|54%|39%|5%|2%|No| |18|New Orleans|Dem.|383,997|1,592|59%|33%|6%|2%|No| |19|Minneapolis|Dem.|439,430|1,273|19%|64%|9%|8%|Yes| |20|Washington DC|Dem.|714,153|1,443|45%|37%|11%|7%|Yes| |21|Toledo|Dem.|268,609|1,532|28%|55%|11%|6%|21| |22|Phoenix|Dem.|1,608,139|1,301|7%|44%|42%|7%|21| |23|Little Rock|Dem.|204,405|1,622|42%|47%|7%|4%|No| |24|Nashville|Dem.|689,447|1,153|27%|61%|7%|5%|21| |25|Shreveport|Dem.|187,593|1,587|58%|36%|3%|3%|No|

Well guys,

This is it. The 2024 presidential election is right around the corner, and I'm sure we've decided by now who we're voting for if we haven't voted early already.

There are many issues this election that are on people's minds, though a big one many including myself are focused on is gun rights. I and countless others have been debating gun control on this site for years now, and an anti-gun argument I keep hearing over and over is "well what about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or this asian/european country over here?? They implemented super-strong gun laws and thus have so much less gun violence / mass shootings!"

After hearing, and having to repeatedly address, this same argument over and over, I figured it would be easier to just have an entire thread dedicated to destroying this specific argument by highlighting 6 major flaws with said argument.

Reason #1: The United States Constitution

None of these countries have a constitution like the United States does, with the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms, which is why they're able to implement almost any gun laws they want, no matter how draconian and nonsensical said laws are. I reviewed the gun laws of these countries with noticeably stricter gun laws than America's federal gun laws. Literally all of them have gun laws that would violate one or more of America's constitutional amendments and would be struck down by the United States supreme court if America tried to incorporate such laws.

Canada's tyrannical prime minister, Justin Trudeau, enacted a blanket ban on handgun sales in 2022. This exact thing was tried right here in America over a decade ago, and struck down by our supreme court in 2008. The court made it clear in District of Columbia v. Heller that a blanket handgun ban was straight-up unconstitutional.

Australia and New Zealand haven't yet enacted any sort of blanket handgun ban like Canada did, but those two countries include a "proper cause" rule in their respective gun laws which requires citizens to provide an "acceptable" reason for wanting to own and carry a gun, all while simultaneously refusing to consider self-defense an acceptable reason. This exact garbage was also tried right here in the United States, and, just like the attempted blanket handgun ban, the supreme court made in clear in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen as well as Antonyuk v. James that "proper cause" restrictions are unconstitutional.

Let's look at more European and Asian countries with stricter gun laws than the United States' and see how they also have unconstitutional gun laws by American standards. To be clear, though, I'm referring mainly to "may-issue" and "no-issue" countries, instead of "shall-issue" countries like Austria, Estonia, Iraq, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Pakistan, Ukraine, Yemen, and the Czech Republic. Also, for this topic, when judging whether or not another country's gun laws are actually "stricter than those of the United States," I'm looking solely at three things:

1. Whether or not the country restricts handgun ownership specifically, and if so, how heavily that country restricts handgun ownership.
2. Whether or not the country accepts self-defense as a valid and legal reason for wanting to purchase and own a handgun, without requiring the civilian purchaser/owner in question to first "prove" that his/her life is in danger before allowing him/her to use self-defense as a valid and legal reason.
3. Whether or not the country restricts civilian concealed carry of handguns, and if so, how heavily that country restricts said concealed carry (U.S. District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. struck down a blanket concealed carry ban on October 10, 2024 — a ban New York state tried to impose — and this judge made it clear such a ban was unconstitutional).

This means this topic will be focused on handgun restrictions, and not those of rifles, shotguns, machine guns, submachine guns, or explosives. So even if a country has far stricter rifle/shotgun/SMG restrictions than the United States does, as long as its handgun restrictions aren't also stricter or are looser, I consider that country's gun laws to not be "stricter than those of the United States".

European:

• Belgium — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Croatia — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Cyprus — blanket handgun ban and blanket concealed carry ban
• Denmark — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Finland — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• France — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Germany — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"; possible blanket handgun ban as well, as wikipedia lists Germany's prohibited handguns as those "made after January 1, 1970, that fire ammunition with a caliber of less than 6.3 mm, except those for rimfire ammunition" but doesn't specify what a "less than 6.3 mm" gun or "rimfire ammunition" gun is supposed to mean for readers not familiar with those terms; so I assume the only handguns Germany allows would be BB guns and such, instead of actual self-defense guns
• Greece — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Hungary — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Iceland — "proper cause" rule
• Ireland — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Italy — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Luxembourg — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Malta — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Monaco — "proper cause" rule
• Netherlands — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• North Macedonia — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Norway — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Poland — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"; possible blanket concealed carry ban as well, as wikipedia says concealed carry is restricted in Poland but doesn't give a clear answer as to how heavy these restrictions are
• Romania — blanket handgun ban and "proper cause" rule
• Russia — blanket handgun ban, with only exception being "rubber bullet" handguns with nothing deadlier than that being allowed; blanket concealed carry ban as well, allowing concealed carry of unloaded firearms but not of loaded ones
• Serbia — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Slovakia — "proper cause" rule; possible blanket concealed carry ban as well, as wikipedia seems to suggest concealed carry is overly restricted by Slovakia but isn't entirely clear on this
• Slovenia — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"; possible blanket concealed carry ban as well, as wikipedia says Slovenia only allows concealed carry "in special circumstances" but doesn't go into further detail, so I'm assuming that's just code for concealed carry not being allowed at all
• Spain — "proper cause" rule; possible blanket handgun ban as well, as wikipedia says "1 to 10 handguns may be owned, depending on sports-shooting level" but doesn't seem to specify how this "sports-shooting level" is calculated, so I assume if someone deems your sports-shooting level (whatever that's supposed to mean) poor, or you just want to have a gun for self-defense and not to do any sort of sports, you get no handgun, which means everyone in Spain would theoretically be denied a handgun this way
• Switzerland — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• United Kingdom — blanket handgun ban, blanket concealed carry ban, and "proper cause" rule

Asian:

• Afghanistan — blanket handgun ban, blanket concealed carry ban, and "proper cause" rule
• Bangladesh — "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• Brunei — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms
• Cambodia — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms
• China — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing handguns
• East Timor — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms
• India — "proper cause" rule
• Indonesia — all civilians, except for those "employed in a profession that involves using firearms, such as in the military and law enforcement, with an exception made for politicians and businessmen" (according to wikipedia), fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms
• Iran — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Israel — prior to 2023, Israel's gun laws included a "proper clause" rule along with extreme handgun and concealed carry restrictions, but due to escalating conflict with Hamas, Israel's government seems to have lifted or at least loosened most if not all their gun laws according to wikipedia, though it remains unclear which exact laws were lifted/loosened
• Japan — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms, except for sport-shooting and hunting
• Kuwait — blanket handgun ban and "proper cause" rule
• Malaysia — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• Mongolia — blanket handgun ban, except for sport-shooting
• Myanmar — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms, except for hunting
• Nepal — blanket handgun ban, blanket concealed carry ban, and "proper cause" rule
• North Korea — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms
• Philippines — "proper cause" rule
• Singapore — blanket handgun ban, blanket concealed carry ban, and "proper cause" rule requiring "proof of threat to life"
• South Korea — blanket handgun ban, blanket concealed carry ban, and "proper cause" rule
• Syria — "proper cause" rule
• Taiwan — blanket handgun ban and "proper cause" rule
• Thailand — "proper cause" rule; possible blanket concealed carry ban as well but I couldn't find clear information about that
• Turkey — blanket concealed carry ban and "proper cause" rule
• United Arab Emirates — "proper cause" rule
• Uzbekistan — blanket handgun ban, blanket concealed carry ban, and "proper cause" rule
• Vietnam — all civilians fully banned from owning or purchasing firearms, except for sport-shooting and hunting

I gathered most of this information about these countries straight from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation and used a tiny bit of ChatGPT to help fill in a few blanks, so I'm 90 to 95% certain this information is accurate and up-to-date.

Anyways, as we can see, the vast majority of European and Asian countries, including ones politicians and activists love to use as "proof" of strict gun control "working," wouldn't actually be able to have their weapon laws copied over to the United States without violating our constitution. This means we'd have to first do away with our constitution, which won't realistically happen since 1) doing so requires agreement from at least 2/3rds of the house of congress, at least 2/3rds of the senate of congress, and 3/4ths of the states, and 2) our constitution, especially our rights to free speech and to bear arms, is far too valuable to sacrifice for a small chance of safety.

It's why 1933 remains the one and only time in American history when an amendment was successfully repealed. Therefore, the only realistic way we can repeal or at least suspend the second amendment for these foreign laws would be to massively loosen the requirements to repealing a constitutional amendment, but the obvious problem with doing that is that we also make the other amendments in our constitution just as vulnerable to easy repealment. Putting our entire constitution at risk like this would astronomically endanger innocent Americans, and make America forever vulnerable to complete tyranny like what happened in North Korea.

Again, the only Asian/European countries I found that didn't appear to have handgun laws that would violate the United States constitution are Austria, Estonia, Iraq, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Pakistan, Ukraine, Yemen, and the Czech Republic. Unless I missed some other Asian or European country whose gun laws also wouldn't violate our constitution, these are the only Asian/European countries we can look to for ideas on how to better adjust America's federal gun laws.

Reason #2: Self-Defense

In addition to these countries having gun laws that are incompatible with the United States constitution, another crucial detail people overlook when arguing for banning handguns or so-called "assault weapons" is that, in this past decade for example, guns in America were used at least a million times a year for self-defense while mass shootings according to wikipedia occurred 29 times a year at most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Of course not all gun murders are mass shootings, as America did experience thousands of gun murders each year, this past decade, that aren't considered mass shootings due to a shooting only counting as a "mass" shooting if at least 4 people excluding the perpetrator were shot. The total number of these murders, however, is still a lot less than a million, if that number of self-defense cases isn't much higher. This means implementing these foreign countries' weapon bans would do more harm than good in America, as even if thousands of American lives would be saved due to guns being banned, at least a million more would be lost due to innocents no longer having these means to protect themselves and their loved ones. https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/

In order to argue that implementing foreign countries' gun bans would be a net benefit to America, not only must it first be disproven that guns in America are used more for protection than for murder, but another thing needs to be disproven, which brings me to reason #3.

Reason #3: Gun-Free Zones

When comparing our mass shooting numbers to those of other countries, the United States does seem to experience a whole lot of them. https://rockinst.org/blog/public-mass-shootings-around-the-world-prevalence-context-and-prevention/

This rockinst article, and other similar sources like it, say that America experienced over a hundred mass shootings from 2000 to 2022, while many other countries including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom experienced only single-digit mass shootings throughout that timeframe. Anti-gun politicians and activists love to use this kind of data to support their case, but here's the important thing they don't take into account: the prevalence of gun-free zones all throughout America.

At least 97% of America's mass shootings since 1950 occurred specifically in gun-free zones — where guns are already prohibited — and it's obvious why that is: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/5273

Findings from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that 97.8 percent of mass shootings over a 68-year period occurred in “GUN-FREE ZONES.” According to CPRC, 97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones.

Gun laws should not punish individuals whose only crime was failing to properly navigate a nightmarish complex and expensive web of bureaucracy prior to defending their life, liberty, and property with a handgun. Senate Bill 554 is indeed a felony trap for responsible gun owners.
Gun free zones are magnets for crime because such zones present less of a threat to those hell bent on doing evil. People in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. 1 (see footnote) Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so. The Supreme Court, have ruled consistently that the police are responsible only to the public at large and not to individual citizens. Per a June 2005 ruling from the SCOTUS, police are NOT responsible for the citizens' safety. You can literally die waiting on the police to arrive in time to save your life; those who choose to assume responsibility for their own safety understand this harsh reality.

So assuming America did in fact experience 109 mass shootings from 2000 to 2022 and that the mass shooting numbers of those other countries are correct, if 97% of ours took place in a gun-free zone then that means 3% didn't. When we multiply 109 by 3% we get 3.27 which becomes 3 when rounded down. In other words, based on this data by rockinst, when counting America's mass shootings from these past 2 decades without counting the ones that took place in a gun-free zone, we end up with LESS mass shootings than Canada and just BARELY more mass shootings than Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

That is, of course, unless someone can disprove that most of America's mass shootings are taking place in gun-free zones.

"But aren't Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom gun-free zones too?? Since they are, gun-free zones can't possibly be part the problem! Otherwise how do you explain mass shootings being so low in those countries??"

I often see this counter-argument by anti-gun activists, and I think I have the perfect response to it. This is where reason #4 comes in.

Reason #4: Cherry-picking

If we're seriously gonna examine Europe and Asia for ideas on how to adjust American gun law, we need to examine as many European and Asian countries as we can in order to give ourselves as much information to work with as possible. We can't cherry-pick Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom while leaving out the dozens of other European and Asian countries just because those five countries conveniently fit the anti-gun narrative of the anti-gun politicians and activists. Remember the data on rockinst? Well according to them, while mass shootings are indeed super rare in those five countries, mass shootings are also just as rare, if not rarer, in Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic — countries whose federal gun laws are almost as lax as America's.

After more research, I also see that Yemen has the second highest civilian gun ownership in the world — right behind the United States — yet they too almost never experience mass shootings. Yemen's last mass shooting was in 2016. Their last one prior to that was in 2011, and no gun laws in the world would've prevented that one since that one was carried out by the then-corrupt government itself. Their last one prior to that was a school shooting way back in 1997. No more known mass shootings were experienced by Yemen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Yemen

I also had to separately investigate the mass shooting histories of Pakistan, Lebanon, and Ukraine, since those countries aren't mentioned in that rockinst article.

Lebanon only experienced 5 known mass shootings these past four decades — one in 2023, one in 2021, one in 2020, one in 2019, and one in 2007 — and in most of these cases it's not even clear what firearms were used. Without even knowing the firearms used, we have no way of knowing what kind of weapon restrictions might have prevented said shootings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Lebanon

Ukraine only recently (in 2022) gave its citizens a right to keep and bear arms. Prior to that, they had a blanket concealed carry ban, a proper cause rule, and a possible blanket handgun ban. This leaves me with very limited information about the effectiveness of that country's gun laws to work with, as their previous gun laws have become outdated and thus can't be used.

As for Pakistan... it has a noticeably higher amount of mass shootings, than those other Asian/European countries with lax gun laws... but Pakistan doesn't have a gun problem. It has a terrorist problem. The vast majority of its known mass shootings came from terrorist organizations:

• Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan
• Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
• United Baloch Army
• Balochistan Liberation Front
• Sipah-e-Sahaba
• Jundallah
• Jamaat-ul-Ahrar
• Al-Qaeda
• ISIS

Yet despite being targeted by violent terrorists year after year, even Pakistan's mass shootings have remained far lower than America's, and if we only count Pakistan's mass shootings that were committed by ordinary civilians without including ones at the hands of terrorists groups, Pakistan too experiences mass shootings extremely rarely alongside other countries where they're so rare.

Anti-gun politicians and activists think they're proving their case for stricter draconian gun laws when all they're doing is cherry-picking the tiny handful of countries that conveniently fit that narrative (that banning handguns or "assault weapons" is necessary to reduce/prevent mass shootings) while deliberately leaving out Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Pakistan, Switzerland, Yemen, and the Czech Republic — all of which contradict that narrative despite having far laxer gun laws; and this isn't even including Central/South American and African countries which also have lax gun laws while very rarely experiencing mass shootings such as Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ghana, Nicaragua, Panama, Somaliland, and South Sudan.

To be fair, Costa Rica, while rarely experiencing mass shootings, does still experience large amounts of gun violence in general, but from what I understand, at least 90% of that gun violence comes from illegal or illegally-obtained weapons, not legal ones. If this is true, stricter gun laws wouldn't really make a dent in their gun violence.

El Salvador also had an extensive history of gun violence, but that too can't be blamed on lax gun laws. In fact, at least 70% of El Salvador's gun violence turned out to be gang violence, and in 2022 the country began seriously cracking down on violent gangs. Gun violence plummeted as a result, proving that going after the violent gangs is what's important, not going after the guns people need for self-defense.

I couldn't find any record, from this past decade, of Panama experiencing a mass shooting, but Panama also experiences a large amount of general gun violence. This, however, is once again not the fault of lax gun laws. Instead, in this case, it would be mainly due to Panama's border(s) being far less secure than even the U.S.-Mexico border, as most of Panama's gun violence comes from drug trafficking and illegal smuggling via their borders. Panama's own police have confirmed this, saying, and I quote, that in Panama "over 70 percent of homicides…are linked to national and transnational organized crime." https://insightcrime.org/news/panamas-gang-wars-growing-worryingly-vicious/

All the cherry-picking by anti-gun politicians and activists causes us to miss out on crucial details like this, like how Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, and Japan aren't infested with terrorist organizations like Pakistan is, aren't infested with violent gangs like El Salvador was, aren't infested with Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, and other violent gangs the way the United States is, don't have additional violent gangs like MS-13 and Venezuelan gangs pouring in like the United States does, and don't have wide open borders for illegal drugs and guns and whatnot to flow freely like Panama and the United States do. This gives Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, and Japan an automatic gigantic safety advantage and further shows why it's important for politicians and activists to NOT cherry-pick when discussing gun laws and gun violence throughout the world.

Plus, not only are there now at least 16 countries that rarely experience mass shootings compared to the United States despite also having lax gun laws, but we also can't forget the countries that contradict the anti-gun narrative but in the opposite way — where gun violence remains rampant despite their gun laws being about as strict as Australia/Japan/UK/Zealand/Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates#Table._Latest_available_year

This chart shows "homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants" in various countries with each country's rate having been collected from the latest year possible. In this chart we can see that, out of the countries that are in the top 20 for highest "homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants," we have several countries with gun laws roughly as strict as those of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom:

• Bahamas (blanket handgun ban and proper cause rule)
• Brazil (blanket concealed carry ban and proper cause rule requiring proof of threat to life)
• Colombia (blanket concealed carry ban and proper cause rule)
• Dominican Republic (blanket concealed carry ban and proper cause rule)
• Jamaica (blanket concealed carry ban and proper cause rule)
• Honduras (blanket concealed carry ban)
• Mexico (blanket concealed carry ban, and only allows legal firearm purchases from a single gun shop in the entire country which is owned by the Mexican army)

So I think we can add these 7 countries to the list of countries that contradict the "banning handguns/assault weapons works" narrative.

Finally, we should also add Brunei, China, Eritrea, North Korea, and Venezuela to that list, since gun control only paved the way for these countries to become horrendous dictatorships.

I didn't think this post would go on this long. Time to wrap things up.

Reason #5: 3D Printing

Thanks to 3D printing, it's now next to impossible for most countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United Kingdom — the countries anti-gun politicians and activists love to use for their case — to truly keep "firearms" out of the hands of terrorists and violent criminals. Google "3d printed guns found in Canada" to find recent stories of that country's police discovering and seizing dozens if not hundreds of these things. Google the same thing, but for those other four countries.

Unless one of these countries anti-gun politicians and activists love to cite somehow found a way to stop 3D printed "ghost" guns from circulating, I can't see how or why it can serve as evidence that its gun laws, especially handgun restrictions, would work in the United States, especially since our supreme court already ruled in Bernstein v. United States Department of State that computer code — something required in 3D printing — is protected under the first amendment.

Reason #6: Mass Shootings Were Already Declining/Rare in Some Cases

Admittedly, this is probably the weakest of the six rebuttals to the case for using foreign countries as evidence for stricter draconian gun laws in America, but I figured I'd share it anyway.

Anti-gun politicians and activists love to praise foreign countries for implementing far stricter gun laws and outright bans in response to notable mass shootings, but a consistent problem is how these mass shootings were already rare, or at least already on the decline, prior to the notable weapon bans and confiscations of the country in question. New Zealand, for example, had a mass shooting in 2019 and immensely tightened their gun laws as a result, but their last mass shooting prior to that was way back in 1997, and that one was committed with a single-barreled shotgun. They hadn't experienced a mass shooting in over two decades straight despite not yet tightening their gun laws.

Australia tightened their gun laws in response to the 1996 Port Arthur incident, which would appear at first as though what they did worked; but according to the data, gun murders in that country were already plummeting beforehand. Plus, that particular mass shooting, from what I heard, took place in a gun-free zone, meaning guns were already prohibited at the time, yet Australia chose to blame the lack of stricter gun laws when the gun restrictions already in place at the time weren't being enforced. I'm certain the place was a gun-free zone at the time, because I don't see how else the perpetrator would be able to shoot over 50 people and flee without anyone even attempting to return fire.

Norway experienced a mass shooting in 2011, but apparently waited all the way until 2018 to pass gun restrictions in response to that. Yet despite this wait, Norway didn't experience a single known mass shooting during that 7-year gap. Also, prior to 2011, their last known mass shooting was way back in 1988 — over two decades prior — and committed with merely a shotgun.

One of the most common arguments from anti-gun people I've heard was "a lot of guns that are used in crime was stolen from its lawful owners, which again proves that having more guns for civilians isn't a solution to the crime nor it's an answer for armed criminals, because they have an easy way to get armed, even if they're legally prohibited from buying a gun. That's why we must ban guns, to prevent the easy way for criminals to obtain the gun from its owners".

What do you think about it? Some people, even among gun owners, thinks that it's a good point that's hard to argue against.

...and it is the law of the land that inoperable 80% pistol blanks are now magically "firearms," how does that change the serialization requirement?

As it stands now, when I finish an 80 if I were to serialize it I would need to add manufacturer, location and serial number (Joshua Calvert, City, State, 000001) in addition to the Polymer80 Dayton NV mark on the frame.

If the ATF rule stands, any 80% frame was already a firearm by definition, thus the legal "manufacturer" reverts to Polymer80 and just a serial number may be added as the manufacturer and location are already molded into the frame?

Again, if the rule stands, "finishing" seems to be downgraded to the equivalent of modding, like checkering your stock, swapping parts on an AR or anodizing or refinishing an existing serialized receiver.

I'm interested in hearing thoughts on this.

"Every boy needs a gun." - William O. Douglas, the most liberal Supreme Court Justice of the modern era, 8/1951

This and hundreds of other newfound quotes are sourced at cprba.org, along with detailed information about the nonsensical ban on possession by marijuana users which mostly harms minorities...could this break through in a meaningful way and be the beginning of the end for the extremist gun control agenda? Please check out the site and discuss in the comments!

View Poll