IT'Due south BECOME ROUTINE IN AMERICA, EVERY month or two, to restart the contend about gun control. The debate is inevitably kicked off past the most recent mass shooting (the nigh recent, as of this writing, being the shooting at Umpqua Customs Higher in Oregon), and then winds down within a week or two when it becomes obvious that the United States Congress isn't going to practise annihilation.

Americans can be incredibly fatalistic when it comes to guns. When Jeb Bush, 1 of the leading Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election, was asked near the Oregon shooting and the possibility of pushing stricter gun control laws in the U.S., he said, "Look, stuff happens. There'due south always a crisis and the impulse is always to exercise something and it's not e'er the right thing to do."

Even without the fatalism, America'southward gun debate can get extremely heated very quickly: there are those who suggest that the solution to ending mass shootings is to make sure anybody everywhere is carrying a gun. Equally Wayne LaPierre, the president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) said later the Newtown shooting, "The only matter that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." And and so there are those who propose that the solution is fewer guns, and stronger controls about who tin can get their hands on a gun.

With each new shooting, the satirical newspaper The Onion has taken to simply republishing its brilliant headline, "'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Country Where This Regularly Happens," with an updated photograph and location to reflect the latest shooting. Which of class brings up the question: Why is it that there are so few mass shootings in other developed countries? Is there anything nosotros can acquire from the world'south other countries when it comes to reducing gun violence?

Australia

Up until 1996, Australia had relatively lax gun laws. So, in 1996, a man with severe psychological issues went on a rampage in Port Arthur, Commonwealth of australia, that ended with 36 people dead and 23 people wounded. In response, the Australian government implemented strict gun command laws that outlawed automatic 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, there accept been no massacres in Australia (there were xiii mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the gun command reform), gun-related homicides accept dropped 7.5 percentage, and gun-related suicides have dropped every bit well.

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

Canada

A popular argument against gun control is that if criminals desire guns, criminals can get guns. In the U.S., this statement often points to the U.S.-United mexican states border, where drugs, money, and guns often cross the border illegally. Then if you lot can't totally protect yourself from what's coming in from outside the country, what's the betoken?

It's worthwhile, and so, to see how gun command has worked in Canada, since Canada shares a edge with the gun-filled Us — a border which is less secure than the U.S.-Mexico edge, and thus would be susceptible to gun trafficking from the Us.

Canada has had relatively strict gun control laws targeting handguns and automated weapons since the 1930'south, and targeting rifles and shotguns since 1989, later on a mass shooting. Those seeking a gun-possessor's license must take a safety form and pass a background cheque that looks at mental health, drug, and criminal histories. Canada too requires that the spouses of those applying for a gun license exist notified of the awarding, and anyone with a history of domestic violence is denied the license.

The results are interesting: Canadians actually ain a lot of guns: between 23.8 and 30 for every 100 people (placing them as twelfth highest guns per capita in the world), depending on your source. Just the number of gun deaths is relatively low, at 0.v people for every 100,000. These numbers in the U.S., past comparison, are 88 firearms for every 100 people (the highest in the globe hands down), and three.v gun-related homicides per 100,000. Canada, if annihilation, is proof that gun control does not necessarily have to mean a total absenteeism of guns in order to significantly reduce gun violence.

Switzerland

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

In part, Switzerland'south gun civilization is a outcome of their mandatory denizen'due south militia, which conscripts men between the ages of twenty and thirty, and gives them a gun to be kept in their dwelling house. These war machine-issued guns, however, do non come with military-issued armament. Instead, militia members are expected to go to an armory to think their armament in the result of an emergency. Not 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 fastened to a sense of individualism, as it frequently is in the Usa, just is rather tied to a sense of civic and social responsibleness.

Nihon

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Japan. Since Globe War 2, Japan'southward culture has been marked by a pacifism not seen in about other countries, and their constitution forbids them from participating in war against other sovereign nations. Until recently, the military has only existed for cocky-defence force.

Similarly, Japan'due south gun control policies are abnormally strict. Civilians are not immune to ain weapons. Not handguns, non automatic weapons, not military rifles, not even swords. Even air rifles are difficult to buy. Don't have a gun license? Touch a gun in Japan and you could spend 10 years in jail.

As a result, Nihon has i of the lowest gun ownership rates in the globe, with 0.6 guns per every 100 people. The number of firearm-related deaths is also ane of the everyman in the world: 0.06 per 100,000.

Why is the U.Southward. so different?

Gun control, information technology should be said, doesn't eliminate the possibility of gun violence. Countries with relatively depression amounts of gun buying can still experience mass shootings. The United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, for example, is 82nd in the world when it comes to gun ownership per capita, simply has experienced two mass shootings in the past twenty years. Even Japan, with it's comparatively draconian gun laws, hasn't totally eliminated shooting deaths. And so it's very possible that eliminating gun criminal offence just isn't in the cards for any country.

Only information technology's worth comparison the numbers. Betwixt 2000 and 2014, Europe (including Russia) had a full of 23 mass shootings. The U.S. had 133 mass shootings in that same fourth dimension. The U.South. does have a unique gun culture, and nigh other countries in the globe don't have gun buying enshrined in their constitution. And plainly at that place is more simply gun ownership that drives gun violence: the highest firearm-related homicide rates in the world are in unstable Primal American countries like Republic of honduras and El Salvador, despite those ii countries existence 87th and 89th in per capita gun ownership, respectively. Gun control is worthless if you lot alive in a failed or deeply impoverished state.

That said, in adult countries, gun control policies work. Nosotros know this because dozens of other countries have succeeded in lowering gun violence and reducing mass shooting incidents. And there are interpretations of the 2d Amendment that allow for reasonable gun control (also, as comedian Jim Jefferies points out, you lot can change an amendment: "Information technology's called an subpoena."). The rest of the world has given us case studies that show the states our options: Nosotros can choose gun control policies that outright ban guns — which isn't likely to ever happen in the United states of america — or we can choose gun command policies that make gun violence just a little more difficult without totally sacrificing our gun rights or attempting to alter a deeply revered Constitution.

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