Man, when multiple mods are all calling you out on your clearly biased political views and honestly not-okay beliefs, maybe you should reconsider your stance.

Clearly biased political views? Honestly not-okay beliefs?

Explain...

Why are other nations relevant? See the reply to my initial post below.

My point regarding Japan is that even if you have extremely strict gun laws, people are going to find a way to get guns, or make guns, or use another weapon to kill people. Banning something to solve the problem won't solve it, it would only to some degree, possibly help, and will never end. Taking away guns from law abiding citizens who use them for non aggressive means against humans, that don't over hunt or poach animals, doesn't make any sense. Same reason why nobody wants to take away knives from law abiding citizens in the US, or from any US citizen for that matter, at least for now. Elsewhere in the world even knives have become a political battle, tied to gun bans. I guess the overall point would be how much has to get banned before everyone is safe enough?

My point regarding Japan is that even if you have extremely strict gun laws, people are going to find a way to get guns, or make guns, or use another weapon to kill people.

Others seem to think I was leading to nowhere, going in circles, and while I disagree, I'll go out of my way to be blatantly more direct here.

You seem to prefer Australia over the US. I think they both have their merits and am glad both exist as they do, for the most part.

Why are other nations relevant? See the reply to my initial post below.

My point regarding Japan is that even if you have extremely strict gun laws, people are going to find a way to get guns, or make guns, or use another weapon to kill people. Banning something to solve the problem won't solve it, it would only to some degree, possibly help, and will never end. Taking away guns from law abiding citizens who use them for non aggressive means against humans, that don't over hunt or poach animals, doesn't make any sense. Same reason why nobody wants to take away knives from law abiding citizens in the US, or from any US citizen for that matter, at least for now. Elsewhere in the world even knives have become a political battle, tied to gun bans. I guess the overall point would be how much has to get banned before everyone is safe enough?

My point regarding Saudi Arabia is that even if you have extremely strict abortion bans, people are going to find a way to get abortions, or make coat hanger home abortions, or use the staircase method to kill fetuses. Banning something to solve the problem won't solve it, it would only to some degree, possibly help, and will never end. Taking away abortions from law abiding citizens who use them for non aggressive means against humans, that don't over hunt or poach animals, doesn't make any sense. Same reason why nobody wants to take away condoms from law abiding citizens in the US, or from any US citizen for that matter, at least for now. Elsewhere in the world even coat hangers have become a political battle, tied to abortion bans. I guess the overall point would be how much has to get banned before everyone is safe enough?

So, if no intervention can end violence, why have any anti-violence interventions? Why have police and prisons? We have those now and we still have crime. Should we just get rid of them?

The answer is "no" because this all or nothing idea is a terrible argument that doesn't make a modicum of sense. The point should be considered based on it's impacts, not based on whether or not it will achieve some mythical utopian state singlehandedly...

1st post above - You make the point that the commonalities do matter.

2nd post above - You change your tune a bit to the commonalities matter somewhat.

3rd post above - You fully change your tune to the commonalities do NOT matter at all whatsoever.

Which is it?

There's a bunch of other tune changes like this throughout. Enough that it's hard to take the rest seriously at this point.

Gun control isn't the banning of all guns, permanently, everywhere. - You *can* still legally buy guns.
So yes. It does mean that people can "find a way" to get guns, but it's orders-of-magnitude more difficult, which means it's far less likely.

We had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before we brought in gun control. Not a single one since 1996. Almost 1 mass shooting a year. That is more than 4 people dead per incident.
Homicide rate declined by 50-60%, youth suicide with gun declined dramatically.

I think that absolutely speaks for itself.
You seem to keep circling back around that gun control is somehow ineffective despite significant debate, when the evidence/history blatantly says otherwise?

As for that last part... By your logic, unless we can get rid of 100% of ALL crime, it's not worth doing?

That would be like saying... If someone wanted to get access to crack-cocaine, they likely can... So by using your logic, we might as well legalize crack-cocaine? We might as well abolish all drug laws... That is the road you are going down.

You literally just circled to the very first part of why this discussion took place. "Gun control doesn't work".

You are running yourself round in circles.

It's not a preference of one country over another. It's about making the USA a better, safer, more prosperous nation.
Are you against that? Why are you against positive, constructive change?

You want to stop abortions because your argument is that it "saves a life". - But you hypocritically will not apply that same logic to guns?

Why are you still sealioning?

Clearly biased political views? Honestly not-okay beliefs?

Explain...