Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped" video.

It's not a bad example but one can counter that we can sometimes see bans as not being very well working. A bit over a century ago some countries banned alcohol but that tended to cause various problems like organized crime and corruption.
1
@kevinwpan "the legal ownership of a gun can potentially save not only your life, but also the lives of people around you" I think that's probably a rarer case than misuse of guns. "It also dissuades a tyrannical govt from stripping you from your rights." I don't think that works in practise.
1
@kevinwpan "The Ulvade shooter [...] A gunman who shot up a church in Texas" This is two examples. Gun homicides in the US exceed 10k per year. Of course, I don't expect you to provide an exhaustive list of cases where a gun saved someone. However, it sounds unlikely that those could number in the thousands per year. "China, for example..." But China is not an example of it (i.e. guns being legal preventing government from taking away rights). I think even if legal gun ownership was easy and prevalent in China the same thing would still happen. The population can't realistically stand up to state power in any case. "This could never happen in America" I don't think it would happen in America even if guns were absent (assuming America was otherwise the same).
1
@kevinwpan "it is an example of what could happen in a nation where there is no gun ownership amongst its citizens" Well, my point was that I don't think gun ownership would prevent it so the example of China doesn't really have a bearing on that claim.
1
@kevinwpan There might not be a lot of direct evidence one way or another but I think I can point to at least one instance where having guns (though not strictly speaking owning them) did not allow the population to successfully stand up to an authoritarian government. I'm talking about the Gwangju Uprising in 1980 in South Korea. Koreans might not have owned guns but in this incident they raided local armories thus getting their hands on military-grade weapons (rather than mere hunting rifles etc.). They had assault rifles, machine guns, bazookas, and even a couple of armored cars. They also knew how to use them because Korea had (and has) a conscription. However, the government just sent paratroopers to besiege the city and later to seize it and the citizen militia wasn't able to stand up to them. If the population had used e.g. pistols or hunting rifles they could have hypothetically owned with laxer gun laws they would have had even less of a chance they had with assault rifles.
1