[piercehawkeye45]

Gun control and its benefits and dangers are directly related to culture and type of government.

For culture, compare, by generalizing, how guns are treated in rural versus urban areas of the United States. Note how guns are treated with much more respect in rural areas while guns are not treated with respect but objects of power in urban areas. This helps explain why guns can lead to a safer society in rural areas but not urban ones.

Also, rejection of laws must be taken into account as well. The reason why gun control laws can work in Britain but not the US is because the gun culture is so much different. Guns are looked at much differently in Britain as opposed to the US so if the US tried a gun control law using Britain's as its template, it would expected that a backlash from responsible and right-defending gun owners along with a deadly and very large black market would follow.

For government, just fucking think about it. Britain has no intention to commit genocide on its population because it does not try to physically control them. North Korea could intend to commit genocide on its population because it does try to physically control them.

For this reason I believe that the extent of gun control and the resistance to its laws should be dependent on culture, government, and obviously what types of guns are available.

The US, for example, does not have a uniform gun culture so it should be obvious that no single gun control law will prove to be the most effective at curbing gun violence. Also, it must be taken into account that the US does not have any intention at physically controlling its population and any attempt to control guns will result in massive outcry (partially dependent on location) and a massive black market because of the large gun culture already in place.