“Guns don’t kill people... people kill people” Agree or disagree? Are you Anti-Gun? Why or why not?

[Ellie-V]

Updates

+1 y

Vermont is one of the safest states in America, and their gun laws aren’t really strict at all... food for thought

Updates

+1 y

My personal thoughts:

Strict gun laws will not improve anything.
It’s a lose-lose situation.

And yes, guns are used to kill people because they a convenient, but whether they are illegal or not, people will still find ways to kill each other.
Gun related crimes would probably decrease but overall violence? That’s going to stay the same.

One might believe “oh but guns cause death more than other weapons”

Maybe. But there are far worse weapons out there; crazy, fed up, desperate angry people.

[BlueCoyote]

Sigh. The broken record about guns and people once again.

The whole thing is about framing. That is, a gun-fundamentalist way of framing.
I'll concede the obvious and utterly irrelevant point first: people do kill people.
Guess what. So do nukes, machetes, grenades, knives and even fists. The fact that, like guns, all of those tools require some sort of human action isn't an argument against restrictions on their use (which is why we don't hand everyone a nuke). This is especially true for guns - which, unlike knives or fists - enable one person to slaughter others with a brutal efficiency that the US founding fathers couldn't even begin to imagine 220 years ago.

The "guns don't kill people" argument is flawed because it sidesteps the debate. The issue is not whether guns can spontaneously and magically kill people on their own. The issue involves how incredibly easy a modern weapon makes killing.

A little comparison:
In 2013, a deranged man in China walked into a school and started indiscriminately stabbing people in his vicinity. Before his rampage ended, 22 children had been hit.
Only a few hours later, a deranged man in Newtown, America, walked into Sandy Hook High School and began indiscriminately shooting people. When his rampage was over, he had hit over 30 children and 6 adults.
Now, in the case of Newtown, 22 children and 6 adults were killed during this incident. 28 people total. In China, not a single person was killed; all 22 children survived.
The distinguishing factor was gun control. Effective gun control prevented the Chinese man from obtaining a gun - with which he would have inflicted far more damage.

As for your argument about Vermont, that is so easy to dismiss I can't believe you think it's a gotcha. First of all, the US doesn't have any border control between its states. So, anyone can bring anything from anywhere to anywhere within the country. It's not like they go through your bags. That means you have no idea where the guns in big cities with high gun control actually come from. In the case of Vermont, that's a very rural state. Obviously, people get less into each other's way if the population density is very low. I wouldn't be surprised if homicide rates in general were also lower.

But hey, I've been over this a hundred times. I won't post the statistics anymore because people on here don't believe them anyway. So I mean, you guys do whatever you want over there. All I can say is: I'm glad I live in a sane country.

[newbie2015]

perfect response

[anametouse]

A fair point, although I'm pretty sure the homicide rate with guns is mostly suicide. You can correct me if I'm wrong

[Partywithtom]

Will all due respect that's a horrible fucking comparison. While yes he could do more damage with a gun. Fucker still did fucking PLENTY of damage. 22 kids with a knife. That's what you want to trade gun laws for? Knife wounds?

How about fixing the problem instead of taking away the tool from EVERYONE.

Next time maybe he'll make a home made bomb out of fireworks and gasoline and also cause millions in damage. Cause he couldn't get a gun or a knife. Well shit let's ban gasoline and anything with any sort of chemical property that can be used explosively.

OR we can figure out why the kids felt they needed to and why they do it in school. clearly something in the community and schools that these kids felt the need to do it. And everyone bitches about the totally wrong thing.

[Partywithtom]

And her Vermont argument isn't easily dismissed. You can take Vermont or it's reciprocal Chicago. They have strict guns laws and it's GTA up in that bitch. It blows my mind that people can't see why the country that allows the most guns has the most gun deaths. Gee wonder how that could be. That's near the equivalent of telling everyone why Netflix who uses 50% of the bandwidth, has a usage and outages is way higher than that of Guam. And everyone getting pissed at Netflix for having more internet outages than Guam. It's just a dumb argument.

[Partywithtom]

you stating that guns are easy to get so people kill with them. What about a car, truck, small plane, poison, gasoline, fireworks, small food items, nails, I mean if you want to cause damage you will. Remember the fucking underwear bomber? Or any person ever that's cause damage. Did a law come in place and they go "no gun zone guys. Turn around" no.

So whatever your stats are they aren't needed cause there's no logic behind the way you use them.

[DJZest]

tl;dr - hence downvoted

[Ellie-V]

LOOK AT THE QUOTATION MARKS.
And the Vermont thing is just a fun fact, food for thought.
Not once did I make my own stance on the matter

[BlueCoyote]

@asker:
It's not "food for thought", it's on overused cliché that people bring up in literally every gun law debate ever. Usually something like "BuT NeW YoRk hAs sTrIcT gUn lawS and loTs oF cRimE". There are reasons for that. And most of them are quite simple. So I'm sorry but bringing up this "fun fact" like it was some existential insight can be a little annoying. It's like me asking "Do you guys believe the world is round?" and then underneath I write: "Fun fact: when you stand on the ground, it clearly looks flat and photos from space can easily be faked."

[goaded]

@anametouse "the homicide rate with guns is mostly suicide"

No, the homicide rate with guns is 100% homicide. Suicides make up 2/3 of firearm deaths, but the rest are "accidents" or shootings.

iirc, it's about 10,000 of 30,000 firearm related deaths in the US are homicides. And over 70% of murders in the US are committed using a firearm.

You can read around it here:
en.wikipedia.org/.../Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

"In 2016, the overall rate of death by firearms in the United States was 11.8[1] per 100,000 people — the same as for death by motor vehicles — with suicides accounting for roughly two out of every three gun deaths. "

[BlueCoyote]

@anametouse
Yes, America-wide, there are about 33,000 gun deaths per year, whereof two thirds are suicides and one third are homicides (plus about 200 accidents).
Still, 11,000 homicides is a huge number, even when you put into context with the entire US population size. Think of it this way: just a few days ago, we all commemorated 9/11. However, just within THIS year, more innocent Americans have been murdered than on that day 17 years ago.

And even in the case of suicides, there is a good case to be made that guns are particularly detrimental. Research has shown that almost all suicides are spur-of-the-moment type of things. For instance your girlfriend breaks up with you, your boss fires you, you lose your house... and you decide to kill yourself. It's very rare for suicides to be planned and well thought-out. Because of this, it can make a huge difference whether you've got a gun in your house or you first need to drive an hour to find a bridge to jump down from.

[goaded]

@Partywithtom "Remember the fucking underwear bomber?"
You know he wasn't just using easy to obtain underwear as an explosive, right? :)

This whole argument that bad people "will just use something else" ignores the obvious fact that nothing else is as efficient as a gun for killing people. If it were, armies would be using that instead.

Stabbing people? Half as deadly if you are stabbed as if you are shot, and you can defend yourself much more easily, if only by running away.

[BlueCoyote]

@Partywithtom
Firstly, you misunderstood my analogy. I don't want to "trade" one thing for the other. Knife attacks still happen in the US. It's not an either-or. They happen in addition to the gun problems.

As for the Vermont/Chicago argument, I've already addressed this.

Yes, other items are also easily accessible (fireworks are banned in many countries btw) but that's not the point. You are thinking of this too much in terms of terrorism. In other words: people who plan an attack strategically and over months. However, when you look at the data, almost all homicides (both the mass shootings and the other incidents) are caused by "regular" people. Many of the mass shootings are caused by deranged or paranoid people. Many of the other ones are spur-of-the-moment actions (for example a guy comes home, finds his girlfriend cheating, shoots her lover). In these cases, the question of whether or not a gun is available is absolutely crucial. Nobody would go buy gasoline first.

[BlueCoyote]

@Partywithtom
And to emphasis my point, consider this: while cars have been used as weapons lately by terrorists, the fatalities caused by these attacks are minute in comparison to those caused by gun violence in the US.
For example statistically, there are 2 mass shootings per week in the US. A mass shooting is defined as an incident where at least 4 fatalities occur, NOT including gang violence or violence within families.
Obviously, some of these mass shootings have FAR more fatalities but let's just calculate conservatively for the moment and use this 4-people number. In a year, that makes roughly 450 victims.
I don't have the number on fatalities caused by car attacks here in Europe but I can tell you for certain that it hasn't reached 450 yet, even if you add up the last 10 years.

[anametouse]

Actually considering the population of the US that's rather small.
And thank you for the correction @goaded

[anametouse]

"And even in the case of suicides, there is a good case to be made that guns are particularly detrimental". Well to that I would say look at Japan and the Suicide Forest

[goaded]

@anametouse Japan has a long tradition of suicide being a good thing (it's no "mortal sin", there), so that's probably not a fair comparison.

(You're welcome, and I appreciate the acknowledgement!)

[anametouse]

I'm just trying to show that guns are not solely responsible, just like a forest wouldn't be. The why is important, and you may be on to something with Japan's history

[goaded]

@anametouse You're right, of course, they're not solely responsible; these things don't happen as often in Canada, for example. It's probably more to do with the US's comparatively short tradition of shooting anything that moves.

[anametouse]

Hahaha. As someone who is from the south. You are probably right

[madhatters4]

i don't feel like agreeing or disagreeing with that statement really serves a pro-gun notion or anti-gun notion
i agree with the notion but still believe in stronger background checks, mental health evals and checks, proper gun and safety training, and other regulations to reduce the rate of people getting guns who shouldn't get them or don't know how to properly use and store them

[anametouse]

Agree 100%

[newbie2015]

i will ask, using your logic, are you pro opiod and drugs? it would seem to me if one argues guns dont kill, people kill, one must also assume the same for drugs. drugs dont kill, people kill. and opiods were very common and accessible to everyone in the 1700s, nor was it illegal. of course we all know the love puritans held for beer and your consuption was no different. so if we are following the reasoning behind upholding the 2nd amendment, why not uphold other beliefs held by our forefathers? i mean opium and cocaine were so popular their were used in over the counter medicines. there is a reason why they chose the name "coke", duh!

so i hear you, though i do not agree. but if i were to agree, i would find you hypocritical to just want one thing of your choosing to be totally unregulated. i would ask, why just this thing? why regulate abortion, medication, alcohol etc.

[Ellie-V]

You do see the quotation marks right?

[newbie2015]

if you are antigun then my question does not apply to bbhb you. it is a response to those who believe this quote makes gun ownership positive

[MlleCake]

It's wise for me that I not own guns. Some gun owners are responsible sportsmen like my uncles and grandfathers were. They kept their guns in safe, locked cabinets to keep them out of the hands of children, etc.

Some gun owners are fools who have loaded handguns stuck in the couch cushions and shit.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

I do think there are wise controls that can be placed on what is available for sale, how it is sold, background checks, etc. that still allow responsible people to have and collect guns if they want them.

[nightdrot]

A gun is an inanimate object that can be used for good or ill. In World War II, we are very glad the Allied soldiers had them. By the same token, we could have wished that the Axis Powers had not had them.

That said, I voted "Anti-gun" as the problem we have - speaking of the United States - is that we have a country, and a Constitution, that speaks to the rights of the people to bear arms. This right is asserted under the "natural rights" tradition and is assumed to be inherent in the rights of man.

This strikes me as implausible on two counts. On the more abstract level, the right to "keep and bear arms" is implied as a right of self-defense against both criminal elements and against an overbearing government. The problem is that there is nothing inherent in self-defense that necessarily implies guns. That right can just as easily be carried out with a baseball bat as with a gun.

Suggesting a right by reference to technology strikes me as ephemeral. Such a right must then be transitory - rooted in the technology available - and cannot be absolute. Yet the right of self-defense must be absolute.

On a more practical level, I come not from the "natural rights" tradition, but "natural law." That is that I believe that such rights as we have are those that are tested by time and experience and the inherent ability of the people to exercise those rights consistent with the common good and social order.

Based on what we see in violent crime statistics and the disproportionate damage done by gun violence, it is a reasonable inference that the society has demonstrated that it is not capable of handling guns in a way that is consistent with good order. Such a right cannot by definition exist - you cannot have a right to do that which is inconsistent with the broader good.

Therefore it is reasonable to argue that the Constitutional right is, in fact, a mistake. That the right to keep and bear arms is contingent rather than inherent. Throw in that Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights on the basis that if you articulate the rights of the people, you give the government standing to regulate those rights.

Based on all of that, I favor gun control. Albeit recognizing that it is apt to have less of an impact on societal well being than its advocates imagine. Society is what it is - and in this case we have a violent one and the Second Amendment, for good or ill, is an accomplished fact.

It must be addressed on that basis.

[Lumirayz]

Did humans without guns kill other humans?
Yes.
Did humans with guns kill humas?
Yes.
What did guns change?
It made killing a lot easier.
Should we take away guns?
Depends. Although it doesn't change much, it makes the killing much more difficult.

I say yes. Take away guns. Only government should be able to use guns. That way we can tell if our government is abusing these deadly objects. In exchange however, it should be required by law that everyone knows some level of self defense. You shouldn't be able to get a job without being able to defend yourself. Kids should be educated on self defense from a young age and we should pay much more attention to those mentally unstable.

It's not the guns fucking up the world. It's the world fucking up itself. The people, the media, the internet, the education system, the government, and so on.
Something went terribly wrong long long ago and now we're paying the price for it. We need to reform this world and it's mentality. The majority of our race is being LEAD in the wrong direction by our governers. It's our fault for accepting this fake democracy which is just an illusion we decided to believe in in order to have a slight sense of freedom.

Unless we wake up to the cruel truth that we aren't in control of our own lives, that this planet is not truly ours but someone's way, way above us there's nothing we can do about the killing. Guns or not, it's the people who are screwed.

[Chaz269]

Not a history buff, huh?

[N192K001]

As a martial artist who has trained with empty hand, katana, and rifle, I would say that guns are like knives, hammers, cars, pointed pencils, stairs, etc. It's not their presence that results in crimes. It's their use by people with 殺氣 (Mandarin: "sha-qi"; Japanese; "sakki"; 「killing intent」; more literally「homicidal ki/chi/energy/aura」,「murderous mood」).

So lookout for easily-angered people prone to lashing-out at others (esp. physically/violently), esp. if they are/view themselves as seriously oppressed. Watching-out for just 1 of their specific means of lashing-out is not only insufficient, but also dangerous and inaccurate. It can mistakenly divert focus from detecting dangerous people (and addressing WHY they've become so dangerous in the 1st place) and will result in many false-negatives that can harm peaceful, well-trained people who do have guns for self-defense or sport. Look for THEM, the 殺氣 people. THEY are the problem and will kill with whatever weapons best fit their opportunity, be it by running people over with cars, poisoning food/drinks, pushing down the stairs, etc.

[N192K001]

Correction: "guns are like knives, hammers, cars, pointed pencils, stairs, anti-freeze, rat poison, etc."

[N192K001]

Correction 002: "…guns are like knives, hammers, cars, pointed pencils, stairs, anti-freeze, rat poison, etc."

[dontgofalling]

Totally agree, it applies to everything.
Words are used but can hurt, knives can cut food but also kill, fork are made to stab and hold food, but they can also b used to kill, a car is made to move from one place to another but can also be used to run over and blow things up, weights are made to lift but they can also be lifted to kill, a bag is used to hold things but can also strangle, the human voice is used to communicate but also can hurt, our hands can break things and hurt but also help and build, our eyes are being used to see but can also offense and emotionally hurt and our eyebrows are to express emotions but can also be used to scare and emotionally hurt, our shoes are meant to be used to walk and kick and well... kick, and our ass is meant for a lot of things and farting which can choke people's eyes and noses out!
I guess you got my point!
Would you make all of those ilegal?
Residents of California! Next Thursday is no legs day! No legs allowed within the parameter! Soliders! Cut them legs off!

[Anonymous]

I won't go in to beat a dead horse, but this cute little mantra is essentially useless and ethically irresponsible when guns are extremely easy to access, conveniently funneled into communities of color, find their way into the hands of children and adolescents, and maximize the damage possible in terms of bodies maimed and lives lost in split seconds. Not to mention that the arms industry is a cash cow that benefits from mass murder abroad and here at home.

There's something incredibly fucked up when the same group that wants to take away a womans right to not have a child won't also fight to make sure children aren't being murdered by people with easy access to guns, or the police for that matter. And that gets to the crux of the real issue - about half the country doesn't really care about life at all. This is about political ideology, sets of ideals and well rehearsed things we say without challenging the substance behind the paradigm we've accepted as truth. They dont care anymore about the desperate teenager who may kill herself with a coat hanger trying to have an abortion anymore than they do about little children of color on tv being blown away by guns.

So again - this isn't really about who kills whom or how they do it. It's about a toxic political ideology and those who will fight to the death to make sure they win, no matter the costs.

[mermaidrocketship]

It is true that people kill people. Gun ownership isn’t immoral, and maybe one day you will need it to protect yourself. But I don’t like how religion gets pulled into it. Being pro-life and pro-God has nothing to do with guns. And if American Christians were honest with ourselves, we’d probably find that our priorities are out of order. We might find that God requires self denial, which means a literal laying down of arms and protecting children from gun violence. I’m not saying I’m anti gun, but stricter gun laws prevent the mentally unstable from getting weapons, as well as limiting the kind of weapons we can get our hands on. Maybe being pro life means protecting everyone’s life.

[avalonbob]

Everybody should have a gun. If you don't, you are not properly protecting yourself or your family. In my state, you don't need a permit to have a pistol in your house, business, or the glove compartment of your car, only to carry it concealed. I don't think you should need a permit at all, because those who can't qualify for a permit get their hands on them anyhow. The places with the strictest gun laws have the highest gun crimes. Here, every old lady is packing, so the murders are mainly drunken brawls with unregistered weapons.

[De_Doctor]

Ever heard of Pepper spray, pepper guns, a knife, concealed baton, taser, tactical assault microwave, etc?

[avalonbob]

@De_Doctor Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

[De_Doctor]

You do if you are better than the other person

[avalonbob]

@De_Doctor Bless Your Heart

[De_Doctor]

You are 75 so I would feel confident bringing a knife

[De_Doctor]

If I ahd the choice I would bring a pepper gun

[Ceramic_bloke]

People kill people yes.

However, if you've got a gun then that's a lot easier.
You don't even need to get close. So long as you can shoot straight you can kill your target from hundreds of metres away.
If all you've got is a knife - well you're still at an advantage but now they have a chance of fighting back.
If you get stabbed you know immediately whose doing it - they're right there holding the knife obviously.
And one stab isn't going to kill you instantly - so you can now do everything in your power to get away. And that's entirely possible.

People kill people yes, but guns make it so easy you can get emotional teens murdering large groups like it's nothing.

[Miristheiss]

Agree.

First guns have been around for 100's of years and there are millions of guns all over the world. Getting rid of guns isn't an option.

Second, these mass shootings that get this stance going (people are usually silent to the 1,000's of gun deaths that occur in inner city gang activities and usually will kill one or two per incident... but they occur almost daily) are a relatively new phenomenon. Only in the last 30 years or so. So if guns have been around for a few hundred years but these mass shootings have just now started that would indicate people have gotten sicker not that "guns" have suddenly become an issue.

[Partywithtom]

Will all due respect that's a horrible fucking comparison. While yes he could do more damage with a gun. Fucker still did fucking PLENTY of damage. 22 kids with a knife. That's what you want to trade gun laws for? Knife wounds?

How about fixing the problem instead of taking away the tool from EVERYONE.

Next time maybe he'll make a home made bomb out of fireworks and gasoline and also cause millions in damage. Cause he couldn't get a gun or a knife. Well shit let's ban gasoline and anything with any sort of chemical property that can be used explosively.

OR we can figure out why the kids felt they needed to and why they do it in school. clearly something in the community and schools that these kids felt the need to do it. And everyone bitches about the totally wrong thing.

[Mexicoman101]

Yeah sure, this fear of weapons ideology is a sign of immaturity to me. The great evils of what people will do with those weapons is a many-fold issue with a solution that is just not as simple as disarming them. People should be allowed to arm themselves, the idea that someone could ever be put in trouble with the cops just because there was an AK under their bed that was found just laying there sounds very needless and very offensive to the idea of freedom. Victimless crime laws in general are bullshit, I think we should legalize these things gangs are making money off of like hookers, drugs, and gambling.

[passinby]

I have lived and had guns since I was 8. I live in the sticks and it is a way of survival. Women carry as much as the men. We live so far out that LE considers us on our own. Besides I think you are working the wrong problem if you really, truly care about the preservation of life per attached. lmao hypocrites!

[OdieTheWise716]

I am pro gun, it's our way to hunt, protect our homes and families from invader and tyrannical government. The police force across the country have their hands full, they are spread too thin with everything our country is going through between crime, violent crimes, and harassment toward the police. So what happens when you, your family, your friends, and neighbors give up their guns and the gangs, the murderers, rapists, and hate mongers decide to break in your home, decide to force their way into your neighborhood, or the government decides to move in and strip you of your rights? What would you do? I can tell you, nothing at all... you would be helpless. Hypothetical: your walking down the street, someone sees you and pulls a gun to rob you. Do you think they would do that if they knew you had a gun too?

[scooogy]

Thanks a lot. Finally I have a PERFECT example of how a paranoid thinks like.

[OdieTheWise716]

It's not paranoid, black lives matter brought out a lot of violence and people do get shot and murdered... police have done questionable and horrendous things (not all police) civil wars have happened... maybe you will think differently when you are held at gun point like I was twice. Guns never shot someone sitting on a shelf, safe or in a holster. People with bad intent with guns shoot people. The second time I was held at gun point, an armed bystander drew his gun and saved my ass... If there were dedicated, disciplined armed guards in schools shooters wouldn't get very far. How do you defend yourself and family against people with guns? Do you really think murderers would turn in their guns, you think gangbaners are going to as well?

[OdieTheWise716]

Oh and our fore fathers put in the constitution under the 2nd amendment, "to defend against all threats, foreign and domestic". What would you do if the federal government tried to take your freedom of speech like in North korea?

[Anonymous]

Americans are too stupid to handle the responsibility and power of owning guns. I blame the NRA more than anything. They've effectively brainwashed a significant portion of the American population. It's why we have so much trouble getting restrictions on guns when other developed educated nations have no issue with properly restricting guns. Fear mongering propaganda of a tyrannical government (funny it's now the current government that is pushing this fear mongering campaign) and a lack of education is hurting the U. S.

[ShinigamiAsashin]

(I didn't sign up for this, but alright) Because there is no getting around the fact that guns can be restricted, yet still be available unlawfully, it would be best to own a firearm. Limit the amount that you may own to two and from a pistol and a hunting rifle. Oh and people with guns kills people

[SjE78]

Guns aren't killers they are a tool, would we blame a knife for stabbing someone when wielded by a psycho or a hammer for caving someones skull in...

the amount of gun deaths and injuries committed anywhere in the world how many of those were cos the gun went off on its' own?

a gun like any tool cannot act of its' own volition meaning it cannot choose to go off or be discriminate against who is shot, therefore the handler is the one responsible for each action taken

[SjE78]

I think that better regulation laws where firearms are concerned can reduce gun related crimes but people will still find a way of acquiring them... and I agree they will still find a way of killing

but those who claim no regulation is a good thing mistake the very reason why they are there... a good regulatory method can define the difference between a crazy person getting a firearm and having a higher chance to use it in a crime than a sane person getting one and using it in self defence...
laws do need to instead of discriminate against owners and instead make those who are responsible and less likely to commit murder or such crimes to be the only ones who are able to own.. however no matter what... the regulations and requirements can only safeguard against certain methods of acquiring said firearms
and nothing prevents people from taking a kitchen knife out of their home, concealing it and stabbing someone

[MikeAndMolly]

I believe in stronger gun regulation. I'll still defend the second amendment if it were under threat, but this isn't the same thing. We're talking about background checks, additional safety training, mental health screenings, and even educational programs in schools.

I wish we could count the NRA as an ally in this fight; this is about the proper maintenance and care of the 2nd amendment in a time of crisis, not about threatening it.

[MrKinktastic]

People kill people, guns are just leverage to kill a hell of a lot more than you could otherwise.

That being said i'm actually pretty pro gun and like the rules we have up here in Canada as they work fairly well, though could use some minor tweaks I'm sure.

[Soteris]

I feel its a very misleading statement. If we take just for the sake of argument 2000 people and divide them into two rooms, one with unlimited guns and the other without. If the side with the guns end with a bunch of people dead and the other does not then I feel there is a very good case to be made that guns do in fact kill people even though they dont have any agency of their own.

[Zefram]

Yes I agree.
Because my country doesn't have problems with fucking guns like the Americans do. The Americans just don't know how to do basic gun safety.
We're separated by literally 5 lakes but yet we're worlds apart. I think I like my nation. We Stand On Guard.

[Zefram]

Response to the update: Oh but stricter gun laws will help something.
Canada has yet to have the problems that the States have and why? Because we have actual gun laws.
Yes, it has everything to do with the strictness of the gun laws.