Why the US cannot be compared to any other jurisdiction in the world with respect to gun control. [View all]

[Toronto]

No other nation in the developed world has the following three combined dynamics:

• Constitutional right to own guns
• State/Province or similar Regional responsibility for gun control
• Cultural identity tied to gun ownership

Most nations hold the power to protect themselves, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. Such countries include Canada, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland and the UK. In other words, these countries do not delegate these responsibilities or any part of these responsibilities to regional governments. Some try to draw comparisons to Australia which, like the US, delegates the responsibility for the management of gun ownership to their respective states. The major difference in Australia however, is that that there is no cultural identity tied to gun ownership, nor is there a constitutional right to own guns. While Australia has a well developed Recreational/Sporting Gun following , it nevertheless represents a minority of the population. Thus when stringent gun control was advocated after a single mass shooting, there was 85% public support for the notion. It was therefore not difficult to obtain state support for the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms to severely restrict gun ownership throughout the country. In both Mexico and Switzerland there is a constitutional right to own guns, however as the administration of that right is vested in their respective sovereign governments and not delegated to any regional government, there is no impediment to the imposition of restrictions as required.

Thus the US is in a unique position among other nations. Even if a national agreement with the various states on gun control were possible, there would exist the possibility that an individual could challenge that agreement based on unconstitutionality.