Support NeoGAF

[DietRob]

The answer I keep getting when I talk to people about it is:
"Lot's of things can be used to kill people should we also ban those things as well."

When talking to these people I'm not going the ban all guns route either. I don't believe that is possible so there is no use in even entertaining it. My favorite response is comparing guns to cars as they can both be 'killing machines' yet one of those two things we strictly regulate.

 

[Lombax]

Here are my thoughts on guns:

I do think there are practical reasons to own guns. For example I live in a rural area, we have various types of animals that come close to the house (bears, coyotes, wolves).
To me it makes sense to have a rifle, shotgun, and pistol just in case

I do not think taking guns away will change things. People who want a gun to do something nefarious will find a way to get a gun.

I do not think there is a practical reason for any citizen to own large capacity magazines, large caliber rifles, suppressors and assault rifles.

That being said, there is no reason to debate this as nothing will change. The NRA has a lot of money, and lets be completely honest here

IF 20 CHILDREN BEING MURDERED DID NOT CHANGE THINGS NOTHING WILL!

 

[Staccat0]

You can't compare the US to other country though. How a small country in Europe can govern isn't the same as a country 10 times the size can. Along with the fact we have far different culture and social issues.

You have to deal with them differently. If its gang/drug violence, gun regulations isn't going to fix it. Police seize tens of thousands of guns from gangs but that doesn't stop them.

Also, let's be real for second, if you are a good liberal you want to solve gang violence by helping poor people - which has been shown to actually work.

Here are my thoughts on guns:

I do think there are practical reasons to own guns. For example I live in a rural area, we have various types of animals that come close to the house (bears, coyotes, wolves).
To me it makes sense to have a rifle, shotgun, and pistol just in case.

I do not think taking guns away will change things. People who want a gun to do something nefarious will find a way to get a gun.

I do not think there is a practical reason over any citizen to own large capacity magazines, large caliber rifles, suppressors and assault rifles.

That being said, there is no reason to debate this as nothing will change. The NRA has a lot of money, and lets be completely honest here

IF 20 CHILDREN BEING MURDERED DID NOT CHANGE THINGS NOTHING WILL!

werd

 

[NimbusD]

You can't compare the US to other country though. How a small country in Europe can govern isn't the same as a country 10 times the size can. Along with the fact we have far different culture and social issues.

You have to deal with them differently. If its gang/drug violence, gun regulations isn't going to fix it.

But why isn't it going to fix it? Or at least seriously help curb it?

People keep just saying it won't. But don't exactly explain why. Because it's so easy to get illegally? Well, the fact that they're so easy to get legally helps make them available for the black market. You can go to a gun show, buy it right there, then go and sell it to someone else, there you go.

What's the problem in stopping that from happening? We're at a standstill where you can't even make the tiniest of moves to help curb gun violence, even though the VAST majority of americans support it.

My argument? I purchased these weapons legally and don't like the idea of the government taking my property from me without compensation. And believe me, they would not compensate gun owners at all.

It would be tantamount to steeling $4,000 dollars from me.

Plus i think they are fun.


I do argue for really strict laws though just not outright banning/gathering them up.

But... what? Like we're even anywhere CLOSE to the government just confiscating legally purchased guns? That would be an immense clusterfuck. We can't do ANYTHING regarding gun control issues and part of the problem is when people shift the argument immediately to the government stealing things, taking away rights, etc. All people are trying to do, at least what has SUPPORT of most people, is heavier gun control. GUN CONTROL. not GUN BANNING AND CONFISCATING.

And being fun has never been a reason to keep something unregulated or even legal. Driving a car real fast is also super fun, but it's not legal. Actually it is but only in very specific environments where it's less likely to hurt people. See how it's not outright banned, even though it merely existing leads to deaths? That's what people want for guns too, which has a singular purpose.

 

[HUELEN10]

My argument? I purchased these weapons legally and don't like the idea of the government taking my property from me without compensation. And believe me, they would not compensate gun owners at all.

It would be tantamount to steeling $4,000 dollars from me.

Plus i think they are fun.


I do argue for really strict laws though just not outright banning/gathering them up.

I don't see anything unreasonable by this post.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

That being said, there is no reason to debate this as nothing will change. The NRA has a lot of money, and lets be completely honest here

IF 20 CHILDREN BEING MURDERED DID NOT CHANGE THINGS NOTHING WILL!

I wish people would stop with this self-defeating piece of dialogue. I'm not even part of the all out ban group but I hate hearing people admit defeat. If it's something important to you then there is every reason to debate it. Particularly when people are dying. Especially because 20 of those are elementary school students. In fact, if I were a nefarious gun-nut I would use that exact line in an attempt to dissuade people from discussion.

 

[Staccat0]

I don't see anything unreasonable by this post.

Other than the fact that it's being defensive about a thing that isn't gonna happen in the first place.

 

[Jisgsaw]

You can't compare the US to other country though. How a small country in Europe can govern isn't the same as a country 10 times the size can. Along with the fact we have far different culture and social issues.

You have to deal with them differently. If its gang/drug violence, gun regulations isn't going to fix it. Police seize tens of thousands of guns from gangs but that doesn't stop them.

Culture and social issues aren't really that different between US and western Europe. That argument is valid for Japan, but not really for Europe.

If hte size matters to you, let's compare the EU gun death rate with the US one.The result is the same: over ten times higher in the US.

 

[JordanN]

I do not think taking guns away will change things. People who want a gun to do something nefarious will find a way to get a gun.

I don't think anyone is saying criminals wont find ways to get a gun. It actually comes across as a red herring.

There's worlds of a difference between having to go underground to find a gun, versus just walking into your local k-mart and buying a pistol.

 

[Lombax]

I wish people would stop with this self-defeating piece of dialogue. I'm not even part of the all out ban group but I hate hearing people admit defeat. If it's something important to you then there is every reason to debate it. Particularly when people are dying. Especially because 20 of those are elementary school students. In fact, if I were a nefarious gun-nut I would use that exact line in an attempt to dissuade people from discussion.

All I am trying to say is that was the most horrific example we have had happen in this country, and what change came out of it? Nothing.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Its not self defeating its reality.

A reality that isn't set in stone unless enough people roll over and accept it.

Edit for an edited response:

All I am trying to say is that was the most horrific example we have had happen in this country, and what change came out of it? Nothing.

The problem is too many people expect too much change in too short of a time. So they gave up. They fail to realize that changing something so ingrained into our culture is not going to be altered by any singular event. America's gun problem is not going to be solved in a year or two. It won't even be solved in a single presidential term. This is something that may take the rest of some of our lifetimes before it's solved. But too many people lack the commitment required to hasten change. So instead we're encouraging it be delayed even further by being obsessed with the rhetoric that something so terrible changed nothing, so nothing will. It's like people don't want to work for a better future. They just want some messiah come and do it for them.

 

[jmdajr]

I think there's a disconnect here, and most people are arguing against a total ban on guns, not better gun control.

It's basically a bunch of crosstalk. People on one side are literally saing "we need a ban on guns", and people on the other side are incensed at the notion of banning guns. Meanwhile, sensible gun control talk is drowned out by all of the noise.

pretty much

 

[Lombax]

A reality that isn't set in stone unless enough people roll over and accept it.

I agree, and honestly I just too jaded at this point to believe anything other than people with the most money run this country, and the NRA has a lot of money.

 

[jmdajr]

If any Dem ran on a ban gun agenda, they wouldn't stand a chance in an election. Even Bernie Sanders isn't "let's ban all guns."

It's entrenched in the culture. Everyone here will be dead and gone before such a society could even remotely exist.

"It has to start somewhere." Ok I guess, but they'll be reading about you in history books 500 years from now.

 

[Cymbal Head]

My argument? I purchased these weapons legally and don't like the idea of the government taking my property from me without compensation. And believe me, they would not compensate gun owners at all.

It would be tantamount to steeling $4,000 dollars from me.

Here's something I don't get: every time a high-profile gun incident incites fear that the government will confiscate privately-owned firearms, gun sales spike.

If you think you're about to have your weapons confiscated, why would you go buy more? That would be like buying $200 worth of canned food a few days before it spoils.

Not really an argument for or against any policies, it's just that I can't make sense of what people are thinking.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't see anything unreasonable by this post.

I think the government fear mongering is ridiculous. The only realistic path of reducing supply will be through buybacks.

With that said what is his response? The government declares things once legal or thought safe illegal all the time, if that did happen(which it won't) the implication is pretty scary. Just because something was once legal doesn't justify it always being legal simply because it was once legal. It's a broken circular argument.

 

[jmdajr]

Here's something I don't get: every time a high-profile gun incident incites fear that the government will confiscate privately-owned firearms, gun sales spike.

If you think you're about to have your weapons confiscated, why would you go buy more? That would be like buying $200 worth of canned food a few days before it spoils.

Not really an argument for or against any policies, it's just that I can't make sense of what people are thinking.

Because people think they'll stop selling them. So they stock pile.

 

[Lonely1]

Wasn't the main argument that England could invade again at any moment?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

How will the bad guys get the guns though? The black market? Ah ok, but with gun control the price of guns skyrockets. A basic handgun can cost over $15,000 in Australia. A shotgun over $30,000. A rifle anywhere from $35,000 - $90,000. So where exactly will these people be getting tens of thousands or even millions if it's a large group to buy their armaments?

I take it you think the dangers of 3d printed arms is overblown?

 

[Like the hat?]

The problem is people have been conditioned by the NRA and such to hear "gun control" as "taking guns away". There is honestly no way to correct this thought in people's heads at this point.

 

[philz]

Wasn't the main argument that England could invade again at any moment?

It was intended primarily as a check on government.

Edit: This is also exactly why the government will never be able to take guns away.

 

[Jonm1010]

There's a fundamental issue at play of whether or not you think a government should have enough power to prevent citizens from owning firearms. Where you land regarding that is going to determine if you ever are sincerely able to empathize with people who agree with the 2nd amendment.

As far "common sense" gun control laws go, I think the argument is that that sentiment is as trite and ineffectual as "#thoughtsandprayers" when it comes to criminals determined to commit violence. And unfortunately the facts seem back it up. More gun laws in addition to the ones that were already in place in California and Paris wouldn't have prevented these attacks. The desire to DO SOMETHING is commendable, but often there are no easy answers when it comes to certain violent acts.

The stats aren't where you think they are. Your entire logic is flawed and kinda exposes that you don't understand how statistical significance works. One or even a number of incidents of gun violence doesnt invalidate gun control. The argument never was and never will be that gun control will eliminate all violence, the argument is that it is a component of reducing gun violence with enough evidence backing it that it can be a positive force in curbing it that such measures are worth the costs because of the likely benefits.

 

[Jonm1010]

I take it you think the dangers of 3d printed arms is overblown?

3D printers are certainly going to be a challenge for a number of reasons. How does that lead to the notion that nothing should be done about a proven problem?

 

[Storm Raider]

We need stronger laws, I agree.

Anyone who doesn't agree is crazy, IMO.

Banning guns completely is dumb.
And keeping it easy is dumb.

You should be drug tested, IQ tested, or evaluated in some other way or something, IDK! Needs to be more strict.

 

[appaws]

OK I see that I have already been quoted here, so I guess I will wade in. I recognize that Gaf OT is largely a statist forum, and as I am a radical anti-statist, I guess that will put me at the bottom of the dogpile. Fair enough.

My primary argument is not about hunting, shooting sports, or self-defense. I see that others make those arguments and I agree with them. The only place I would go one step further is that I would maintain that (proportional and justified) self-defense in an inviolable right that cannot be taken away by the state.

But the main argument I would make is that the civilian ownership of firearms is the only truly meaningful check on state power. Why do we want a monopoly on force in the hands of the state? States drift towards tyranny over time, and even well-designed state machinery can be taken over by those who are corrupt or just evil.

Would the ANC have been better off disarmed? The people in the Warsaw ghetto? The Viet Minh/Cong? All the people of Africa who had to sacrifice their lives against colonial oppression?

People all around the world have the right of self-determination, and the right to protect themselves. Those rights are not gifts from the state, they are inherent and inviolable. Most states do not recognize these rights, I acknowledge that and I think it is a terrible thing. I guess this makes some sense, especially in the west where most people have taken the Soma and are content to be cossetted and cooed by Uncle Sam or John Bull, while the elites and our corporate overlords run roughshod over the people of the world. Fuck That!

 

[kazinova]

I love that a thread was opened to "hear the other side" and the first page is a litany of reductionist insults against the "other side".

Who wouldn't want to wade in after all that? Yee-haw, ration discussion: here we come!

 

[vainglorious]

The anti-gun control argument is rooted in the activities of the NRA. There's a really great article from Mother Jones about how the NRA influenced and changed the public's perception of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

"You write that throughout most of the 20th century, the courts stayed out of the gun laws debate. What changed that led them back in?"

What changed was the NRA. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to gun ownership was "a fraud" on the public. That was the consensus, that was the conventional wisdom.*
"Those who want more guns and fewer restrictions realized they could gain some higher ground if they claimed the Constitution."

The NRA has been around for a long time. It used to be an organization that focused on hunters and on training. In 1977, at the NRA's annual meeting, activists pushed out the leadership and installed new leaders who were very intense, very dogmatic, and very focused on the Second Amendment as their cause. It was called the "Revolt at Cincinnati." From there, the NRA and its allies waged a 30-year legal campaign to change the way the courts and the country saw the Second Amendment. And they started with scholarship. They supported a lot of scholars and law professors. They elected politicians. They changed the positions of agencies of government. They got the Justice Department to reverse its position on what the amendment meant. And then and only then did they go to court. So by the time the Supreme Court ruled, it sort of felt like a ripe apple from the tree.

They also moved public opinion. Now it's a pretty widely held view that it's an individual right. It's funny, I was just on a panel with Alan Gura, who argued the Heller case. And, you know, I gave him credit for being part of a really significant effort that changed the way we see the Constitution. What's funny is that he and other gun rights people deny it! They say, "No, this is what everyone thought all along, for 200-plus years."

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You should be drug tested, IQ tested, or evaluated in some other way or something, IDK! Needs to be more strict.

I think you meant psychologically tested rather than IQ tested. Which yes, I agree with.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Here's something I don't get: every time a high-profile gun incident incites fear that the government will confiscate privately-owned firearms, gun sales spike.

If you think you're about to have your weapons confiscated, why would you go buy more? That would be like buying $200 worth of canned food a few days before it spoils.

Not really an argument for or against any policies, it's just that I can't make sense of what people are thinking.

They don't fear they'll all get taken away, they fear they won't be able to buy any more.

 

[Storm Raider]

I think you meant psychologically tested rather than IQ tested. Which yes, I agree with.

Psychologically, yes.

I guess that would be more effective than an IQ test, just can't let uneducated/dumb people get firearms either!

 

[subrock]

I wish people would stop with this self-defeating piece of dialogue. I'm not even part of the all out ban group but I hate hearing people admit defeat. If it's something important to you then there is every reason to debate it. Particularly when people are dying. Especially because 20 of those are elementary school students. In fact, if I were a nefarious gun-nut I would use that exact line in an attempt to dissuade people from discussion.

Can't fix it with one change? Best to not try anything then.

 

[Jonm1010]

OK I see that I have already been quoted here, so I guess I will wade in. I recognize that Gaf OT is largely a statist forum, and as I am a radical anti-statist, I guess that will put me at the bottom of the dogpile. Fair enough.

My primary argument is not about hunting, shooting sports, or self-defense. I see that others make those arguments and I agree with them. The only place I would go one step further is that I would maintain that (proportional and justified) self-defense in an inviolable right that cannot be taken away by the state.

But the main argument I would make is that the civilian ownership of firearms is the only truly meaningful check on state power. Why do we want a monopoly on force in the hands of the state? States drift towards tyranny over time, and even well-designed state machinery can be taken over by those who are corrupt or just evil.

Would the ANC have been better off disarmed? The people in the Warsaw ghetto? The Viet Minh/Cong? All the people of Africa who had to sacrifice their lives against colonial oppression?

People all around the world have the right of self-determination, and the right to protect themselves. Those rights are not gifts from the state, they are inherent and inviolable. Most states do not recognize these rights, I acknowledge that and I think it is a terrible thing. I guess this makes some sense, especially in the west where most people have taken the Soma and are content to be cossetted and cooed by Uncle Sam or John Bull, while the elites and our corporate overlords run roughshod over the people of the world. Fuck That!

Self defense is a right, but should any type of manner or weapon in the name of self defense be a right? A right to owning any type of gun unimpeded does not need to be a component of that anymore then a right to lace your property with landmines, weaponized diseases or civilian WMD's should be a right. By your secondary logic access to the latter is a better check against state aggression then the former. Should we go that route?

Society is a balancing act weighing safety, freedom, wants and needs and one key component to a highly functioning one is rooted in its structural components in how change is administered and decided upon. And frankly looking at Europe and other gun control heavy states, the fear of state aggression is a hollow one. And when state aggression has happened, like Nazi Germany, it would of done little to change outcomes. Because most of the time such state aggression is born out of either overwhelming force that crushes opposition or through popular support.

And when the evidence is clear that unimpeded access to weapons ultimately would do little to nothing to reduce both societal violence or curbing state aggression(not to mention deciding what sort of risk that even is from society to society), and on the former is actually increasing it, curbing gun rights and access seems like a very rational approach to take for the betterment of this particular society as a whole and with regards to freedom, safety, and quality of life.

 

[Piggus]

Here's something I don't get: every time a high-profile gun incident incites fear that the government will confiscate privately-owned firearms, gun sales spike.

If you think you're about to have your weapons confiscated, why would you go buy more? That would be like buying $200 worth of canned food a few days before it spoils.

Not really an argument for or against any policies, it's just that I can't make sense of what people are thinking.

I don't think most people fear the government taking guns, but it's reasonable to want to buy certain types of guns with > 10 round capacity before a potential ban, such as the assault weapons ban. Existing guns would not be confiscated, they would be grandfathered in (and perhaps have to be registered with the ATF). The reason prices of AR-15s and AKs went up so high following Sandy Hook was because the assault weapons ban was being proposed again, and many saw it as their last chance to get those types of guns. Also, the value of those guns and magazines skyrockets following such a ban, so it's not a bad investment. With that said, there are still people who are just stupid and think "Obummer gonna take away mah guns" and freak out every time the president makes a speech.

We've already had the assault weapons ban once, and it didn't really do anything. One of the Columbine shooters used a carbine that would have been legal under the ban, and it was just as deadly as any "assault" weapon. The only difference is he had to reload slightly more often. And in an active shooter situation where it sometimes takes 10 minutes for police to arrive, taking three or four seconds to reload is not going to save people.

 

[AndyD]

They don't fear they'll all get taken away, they fear they won't be able to buy any more.

To be fair there is also the group who thinks they will have to fight off the government to keep their guns/property.

 

[Heavy_D206]

People don't like having things taken away from them.

I was super pissed when McDonalds stopped doing the "Super Size" on their combo meals.

It's the mentality of if I can have it now then I should be able to have it forever.

 

[Jonm1010]

To be fair there is also the group who thinks they will have to fight off the government to keep their guns/property.

I bet they also call themselves law abiding citizens.

 

[lednerg]

Guns kill more people wrongfully than not. They suck as a security device, and without months of intense training and re-training, they're useless in hostile crises.

Vox - America's gun problem, explained

 

[philz]

The anti-gun control argument is rooted in the activities of the NRA. There's a really great article from Mother Jones about how the NRA influenced and changed the public's perception of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

How was the book?

 

[Rebel Leader]

What part of shall not be infringed, do you not understand?

 

[Adam Prime]

The people who you are restricting to get guns, would never legally attempt to obtain one any how. So if you think gun restriction is going to keep "guns away from bad guys"... that's true, if the bad guys are trying to obtain them legally.

The argument is the people committing the shootings aren't attempting to get their gun legally in the first place.

I think also people look at alcohol prohibition: it didn't work and made it worse. By banning something that people like, you create a black market.


... So the argument is restricting guns wouldn't actually solve the problem of "keeping guns away from bad guys", instead it will just keep guns away from "good guys". Or something like that.

 

[AndyD]

I bet they also call themselves law abiding citizens.

It's a matter of picking and choosing which laws you like to be applied to you.

But realistically, a gun take away system needs to exist. For those who become felons or mentally ill/disturbed, we must have a way to know what they have, and a process to take it away and provide fair compensation. This alongside a stronger sale restriction to make sure they don't get more until they are rehabilitated.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

It springs from the idea that an armed populace can fight back against an oppressive regime. American History 101.

 

[JordanN]

But the main argument I would make is that the civilian ownership of firearms is the only truly meaningful check on state power.

The U.S.A has the 2nd largest army on earth and the most advanced. If they can regularly bomb and invade other countries, there's no way civilians on their own territory can stop them.

But I find this whole notion weird given the USA is a democracy. You vote your people in so how do you suddenly transform into a dictatorship? Even if Obama wanted to become supreme emperor tomorrow, he still has to deal with the other republican congress and it's obvious they don't like him or want to give him unlimited power.

 

[jmdajr]

Guns kill more people wrongfully than not. They suck as a security device, and without months of intense training and re-training, they're useless in hostile crises.

Vox - America's gun problem, explained

I don't know about that Mass Shootings not increasing in the fact list.

 

[lednerg]

The gun control legislation that's been on the table since Sandy Hook is not about banning guns. Acting like it's all some evil plot to get yer gunz is frankly retarded.

 

[bounchfx]

if people really think that owning guns is going to 'protect us from the government', then they are probably living in a different world.

and if you really think the government needs to 'take yer gunzz' first before oppressing you, then you really are in another world.

 

[vainglorious]

How was the book?

Looks good?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1476747458/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Violet_0]

Mix:

- Racist, paranoid white people who think a black person or muslim will kick in their door at any time.
- Racist, paranoid white people who think the government is one small step away from turning into Soviet Russia.

That's not all of the people against gun control, but I dare say it's the overwhelming majority.

do minorities overwhelmingly support gun control?

 

[JordanN]

if people really think that owning guns is going to 'protect us from the government', then they are probably living in a different world.

and if you really think the government needs to 'take yer gunzz' first before oppressing you, then you really are in another world.

This.

They don't even have to take guns. They could just turn off the entire power grid or raise taxes by 1000%.

 

[Jisgsaw]

My primary argument is not about hunting, shooting sports, or self-defense. I see that others make those arguments and I agree with them. The only place I would go one step further is that I would maintain that (proportional and justified) self-defense in an inviolable right that cannot be taken away by the state.

But the main argument I would make is that the civilian ownership of firearms is the only truly meaningful check on state power. Why do we want a monopoly on force in the hands of the state? States drift towards tyranny over time, and even well-designed state machinery can be taken over by those who are corrupt or just evil.

Would the ANC have been better off disarmed? The people in the Warsaw ghetto? The Viet Minh/Cong? All the people of Africa who had to sacrifice their lives against colonial oppression?

People all around the world have the right of self-determination, and the right to protect themselves. Those rights are not gifts from the state, they are inherent and inviolable. Most states do not recognize these rights, I acknowledge that and I think it is a terrible thing. I guess this makes some sense, especially in the west where most people have taken the Soma and are content to be cossetted and cooed by Uncle Sam or John Bull, while the elites and our corporate overlords run roughshod over the people of the world. Fuck That!

Self defence is a right; a gun isn't a necessity to defend yourself.

The rest of your arguments boils down to saying the government can't be trusted and can't fulfil its duties (defending the citizen), so... yeah, change country I guess?

The check against government oppression of its own population is that it is a) elected, and b) the army is coming from its own population (for oppression by force; then there's all the legal system for other forms of oppression). For an effective oppression, you'll need overwhelming popular support to work, and even that won't last long (see Nazi germany).

The check against foreign oppression is supposed to be the army, which for the US is pretty sufficient.

These are the absolute basis of western political systems: the state, elected by the population, guarantees the safety of its citizen, through a force that is taken among said citizens.
Advocating to keep a personal safe check against government in the form of personal firearms is basically saying the current democraties don't work out.

The people who you are restricting to get guns, would never legally attempt to obtain one any how. So if you think gun restriction is going to keep "guns away from bad guys"... that's true, if the bad guys are trying to obtain them legally.

The argument is the people committing the shootings aren't attempting to get their gun legally in the first place.

I think also people look at alcohol prohibition: it didn't work and made it worse. By banning something that people like, you create a black market.


... So the argument is restricting guns wouldn't actually solve the problem of "keeping guns away from bad guys", instead it will just keep guns away from "good guys". Or something like that.

A gun (or anyobject really) in a prohibiting country is much harder to come by than the same gun or object in a country that freely allows them. This would (imo) be enough to discourage a lot of mass shooter to even come close to a gun, as shown by statistics in countries with stronger regulations.

But yes, bad people would still manage to find guns; but that isn't really a good argument if 90% of the other potential shooter don't get access to them.