# Among advanced countries, more guns means more gun deaths. Controversial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346 "2015-12-03T19:59:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/21 "2015-12-03T23:46:15Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Luxembourg has some of the strongest gun control in the world, much stronger than its neighbors. What I expect that you’re seeing is a statistical blip when even one incident occurs in a country where the entire population is smaller than the smallest US state (20k fewer people than Wyoming). > > In other words, the Vatican typically has 6 popes per square mile (maybe double if Benedict is still in town). Lux appears to be in the middle in terms of guns per 100 people (at about 18-20) – maybe they have very strong gun control, but they also appear to have as many guns as many of their neighbors. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/22 "2015-12-04T00:06:51Z")
Where is Russia? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/23 "2015-12-04T00:24:24Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > Where is Russia? I don’t think Russia’s HDI is high enough to compare. The link says that for the chart in question he only looked at the countries with the highest HDI (human development index). Basically, Russia is too shitty. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/24 "2015-12-04T01:37:27Z")
> [@XT](#): > > This is kind of like saying that among ‘advanced countries’ more cars equals more car deaths. Yup…that’s certainly true . . . I don’t know about certainty, but there could be a moderate correlation in the direction you suggest. Do you have evidence? Here’s some raw data you can analyze for us: > **[List of countries by traffic-related death rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)** > > This list of countries by traffic-related death rate shows the annual number of road fatalities per capita per year, per number of motor vehicles, and per vehicle-km in some countries in the year the data was collected. > According to the World Health Organization (WHO), road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.35 million deaths worldwide in 2016. That is, one person is killed every 26 seconds on average. > Only 28 countries, representing 449 million people (seven percent of the world's popul... > **[List of countries and territories by motor vehicles per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita)** > > Countries and territories listed by the number of road motor vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants are as follows. Motor vehicles include cars, vans, buses, freight, and other trucks, but not two-wheelers.\[citation needed\] My hypothesis: Countries that regulate vehicle safety the most carefully, and have high standards for driver licensing, have a much better vehicle - vehicular death ratio. By contrast, countries with a lower vehicle ownership rate have about the the same death ratio, or, maybe, one that is just a little better. Norway, Denmark and Sweden are among the six national with the lowest vehicle death rates. The three countries with the worst vehicle fatality rates are Eritrea, Libya, and the Dominican Republic. Like I said, you still could be right about the direction of the relationship but it’s not immediately evident. Swedish or Norwegian driver licensing could be a good model for American gun ownership (and driver licensing as well): > **[Driving licence in Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Sweden)** > > Swedish driving licences (Swedish: Körkort) adhere to a standard set in the European Economic Area. 18 years is the minimum age to obtain a licence for cars (lower for some vehicles). > The amount of practical training required varies depending on how well the student can already operate the vehicle. There's no lower limit, or requirement to document what road conditions the student trained in. In fact there's no documentation required on how much he or she has trained at all, privately or at a... > **[Driving licence in Norway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Norway)** > > Norwegian driving licences (Bokmål: Førerkort, Nynorsk: Førarkort) adhere to a standard set in the European Economic Area. > Before April 1979, Norwegian driving licenses were a small book. Between 1979 and 1997 it was a plastic laminated, pink paper. These models are still valid in Norway, but are usually not valid abroad. From 1998, there is a model that follows EEA rules. From 2013, they are valid for 15 years, while cards produced before 2013 have no indicated time limit. Still, licenses is... P.S. I didn’t get into the thing about “advanced countries.” I’d leave nations where wars are in progress out of the analysis, and then look at all countries with reasonable data. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/25 "2015-12-04T01:40:21Z")
The problem is that American’s don’t want a system where it’s very difficult to purchase a firearm. For that matter, they don’t even seem to want a system where it’s very difficult to carry a firearm with them in public, as the trend has been towards more relaxed carry laws across almost all states over the last 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/26 "2015-12-04T02:23:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The problem is that American’s don’t want a system where it’s very difficult to purchase a firearm. For that matter, they don’t even seem to want a system where it’s very difficult to carry a firearm with them in public, as the trend has been towards more relaxed carry laws across almost all states over the last 20 years. Yep. That means that the mass shootings are probably here to stay, if not spread and become more common. It’s awfully easy to kill lots of people when guns are so easy to acquire. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/27 "2015-12-04T02:36:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yep. That means that the mass shootings are probably here to stay, if not spread and become more common. It’s awfully easy to kill lots of people when guns are so easy to acquire. Guns were easier to acquire 100 years ago (well, at least there were certainly less laws encumbering the right of the people to keep and bear arms), and I don’t believe there was nearly as big of an epidemic of mass shootings. What makes you think they (mass shootings) are here to stay? What makes you think they’re connected to the laws covering gun acquisition at all? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/28 "2015-12-04T02:37:03Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I don’t know about certainty, but there could be a moderate correlation in the direction you suggest. Do you have evidence? > > Here’s some raw data you can analyze for us: > > [List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) > > [List of countries and territories by motor vehicles per capita - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita) > > My hypothesis: > > Countries that regulate vehicle safety the most carefully, and have high standards for driver licensing, have a much better vehicle - vehicular death ratio. By contrast, countries with a lower vehicle ownership rate have about the the same death ratio, or, maybe, one that is just a little better. > > Norway, Denmark and Sweden are among the six national with the lowest vehicle death rates. The three countries with the worst vehicle fatality rates are Eritrea, Libya, and the Dominican Republic. Like I said, you still could be right about the direction of the relationship but it’s not immediately evident. > > Swedish or Norwegian driver licensing could be a good model for American gun ownership (and driver licensing as well): > > [Driving licence in Sweden - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Sweden) > > [Driving licence in Norway - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Norway) > > P.S. I didn’t get into the thing about “advanced countries.” I’d leave nations where wars are in progress out of the analysis, and then look at all countries with reasonable data. I honestly haven’t looked into it that closely. My basic premise is, as I said, take it to the extremes…if you have no cars you have no car deaths. Pretty much Q.E.D. Adding cars adds a non-zero probability of fatalities via cars. As I also said, it’s not a 1 for 1 correlation…i.e., one country could have X number of cars and Y number of fatalities, while another country might have X number of cars yet get Z number of fatalities. We see that in the gun graph the OP linked too…the US, with nearly 8 guns to 10 people has a bit more than the middle of the road fatalities due to guns, while other countries with less guns have more fatalities. Look at some of the countries with fairly high gun numbers per population while having low levels of gun deaths. Certainly regulation has an effect, such as your example of regulations for automobiles, but there are other factors as well…as is a nations tolerance for fatalities verse perceived desire for a right or for a behavior. Japan, for instance, due to cultural reasons, has a high tolerance for suicide, and thus has a much higher suicide rate than most other countries. China has a greater tolerance for civil engineering failures and for environmental pollution, so they have very high rates of death due to those things. Several European nations have much higher toleration for alcohol consumption or mis-use and thus have high levels of deaths due to those things verse other nations. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/29 "2015-12-04T04:02:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Guns were easier to acquire 100 years ago (well, at least there were certainly less laws encumbering the right of the people to keep and bear arms), and I don’t believe there was nearly as big of an epidemic of mass shootings. What makes you think they (mass shootings) are here to stay? What makes you think they’re connected to the laws covering gun acquisition at all? In 100 years things certainly might change. Though 100 years ago there weren’t nearly as many guns, and they weren’t as deadly (in terms of magazine size, accuracy, ease of use, reliability, etc.). But this thread isn’t about laws, it’s about _how many guns_. And in America, we have tons and tons of guns – so many that it’s trivially easy to get one if you want one, legally or illegally. I doubt that gun restrictions would have much of an effect at all in the short term, since there’s no law that can instantly melt down hundreds of millions of guns and bullets. As long as there are so many guns, it will be very easy to get one and kill people. And there will always be a very few who want to kill lots of people. The only possible change can be in the long term, it seems to me – some massive, long term effort to get rid of most of the guns and ammunition in this country, and that’s not politically feasible (and may not be constitutional without an amendment), which means it’s probably not going to happen. But Obama is right about one thing – this is a choice that our society makes – tons and tons of guns are tolerable to American society, and that doesn’t look to change in the near term. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/30 "2015-12-04T10:03:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > [Here’s](http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/) the link. Most instructive is the chart with advanced countries, comparing gun deaths vs guns present per capita. There are a few small outliers – Argentina, Qatar, and Cyprus, for example – but in general, more guns correlates to more gun deaths. The first graph indicates that the dangerous percentage is around 10-20%. The US has a far higher percentage of gun ownership and fewer deaths. But that doesn’t fit with the narrative that the author wants to tell, so there’s a bit of mangling and lo and behold the author gets what he wants. Until, of course, you look more closely and spot that all the figures are within the same order of magnitude. I wonder what the graph would look like if you were to compare car deaths? So it’s an example of cherry-picking your data and consequently worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/31 "2015-12-04T11:16:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In 100 years things certainly might change. Though 100 years ago there weren’t nearly as many guns, and they weren’t as deadly (in terms of magazine size, accuracy, ease of use, reliability, etc.). 100 years ago was 1915. Although I suspect you imagine guns back then were like the cartoonish muskets in a children’s Thanksgiving pageant, the fact is that virtually anything you might purchase in a gun store today already existed. Manufacturing techniques have changed and some new materials are used now, but the types of guns and what they do have not. You should have done better research and I’m not going to do it for you. I’ll give you this little hint, though: Look up the C96 “Broomhandle” Mauser for an example of a 19th century handgun that would give anti-gun people a bad case of the fantods were it introduced today. How guns work and their general history are not difficult or obscure fields of knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/32 "2015-12-04T12:50:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Anyone surprised by this? I’m not. Not really. it’s the entire reason most countries pass strict laws. Democratic countries don’t tend to do that unless it makes a whole lot of sense ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/33 "2015-12-04T12:59:01Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > 100 years ago was 1915. Although I suspect you imagine guns back then were like the cartoonish muskets in a children’s Thanksgiving pageant, the fact is that virtually anything you might purchase in a gun store today already existed. Manufacturing techniques have changed and some new materials are used now, but the types of guns and what they do have not. You should have done better research and I’m not going to do it for you. I’ll give you this little hint, though: Look up the C96 “Broomhandle” Mauser for an example of a 19th century handgun that would give anti-gun people a bad case of the fantods were it introduced today. > > How guns work and their general history are not difficult or obscure fields of knowledge. I’m well aware of the guns in 1915 – I was in the military, I’m a gun owner, and I’ve shot targets and for fun many times. What I said was accurate for the vast majority of firearms. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/34 "2015-12-04T13:01:02Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The first graph indicates that the dangerous percentage is around 10-20%. The US has a far higher percentage of gun ownership and fewer deaths. > > But that doesn’t fit with the narrative that the author wants to tell, so there’s a bit of mangling and lo and behold the author gets what he wants. Until, of course, you look more closely and spot that all the figures are within the same order of magnitude. I wonder what the graph would look like if you were to compare car deaths? > > So it’s an example of cherry-picking your data and consequently worthless. So you don’t think it’s reasonable to compare advanced countries to advanced countries? Countries like Honduras, with incredible crime problems, should be compared to Japan? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/35 "2015-12-04T13:29:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The problem is that American’s don’t want a system where it’s very difficult to purchase a firearm… :smack: Has it come to that? “A whopping 80% of Americans want tougher gun laws.” Mr. **Ditka** , Did you mean “Americans who think like me?” The partisanship in this country has become absurd. I sometimes write “rational-thinking Americans” when I mean “Americans who think like me” but at least my phrasing acknowledges that the irrational Americans are still Americans. Mr. **Ditka** , are the 80% of Americans who want tougher gun laws not “real” Americans? Or are some people trapped in the FoxNews/NRA bubble and just unaware of the 80% ? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/36 "2015-12-04T13:49:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m well aware of the guns in 1915 – I was in the military, I’m a gun owner, and I’ve shot targets and for fun many times. What I said was accurate for the vast majority of firearms. What you said was factually ignorant bullshit. Revolvers and autoloading handguns existed and were in common use. Some with detachable shoulder stocks which can’t be had today without extra forms, background checks, and fees. In long arms, bolt actions, lever actions, and autoloaders were all easily available. [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_8) had been around for nearly a decade at that point and does everything a civilian-legal AK, SKS, or AR does. Hell, anybody with the cash could have ordered himself [one of these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_gun) and had it shipped straight to his home. Nothing of the sort is available easily or new to a civilian purchaser today. Guns have been a mature technology for a _long_ time. Parts being made from plastic instead of wood or metal doesn’t change how they work or what they do. The ever-so-scawy Glock pistol works on the same principles as pistols John M Browning designed over a century ago…as well it should since it is derived from his designs. You are just plain wrong on this, despite your military service, gun ownership, and target shooting. None of those things give a person any background knowledge in any case. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/37 "2015-12-04T14:46:09Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > What you said was factually ignorant bullshit. Revolvers and autoloading handguns existed and were in common use. Some with detachable shoulder stocks which can’t be had today without extra forms, background checks, and fees. In long arms, bolt actions, lever actions, and autoloaders were all easily available. [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_8) had been around for nearly a decade at that point and does everything a civilian-legal AK, SKS, or AR does. Hell, anybody with the cash could have ordered himself [one of these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_gun) and had it shipped straight to his home. Nothing of the sort is available easily or new to a civilian purchaser today. > Guns have been a mature technology for a _long_ time. Parts being made from plastic instead of wood or metal doesn’t change how they work or what they do. The ever-so-scawy Glock pistol works on the same principles as pistols John M Browning designed over a century ago…as well it should since it is derived from his designs. You are just plain wrong on this, despite your military service, gun ownership, and target shooting. None of those things give a person any background knowledge in any case. Guns are a mature technology… and there are lots more today, large magazines are more widespread, guns are far more reliable today, they’re more accurate, they’re easier to acquire just about anywhere… I said they weren’t as deadly back then, and that’s correct when all these factors (including ease of acquisition, reliability, etc.) are taken into account. You want to argue about silliness, feel free. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/38 "2015-12-04T15:19:48Z")
Holy smoke: US vs. UK [http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-further-refinement-and-response-to-reader-comments/](http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-further-refinement-and-response-to-reader-comments/) ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/39 "2015-12-04T16:14:30Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Holy smoke: US vs. UK > > [tewksburylab.org](http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-further-refinement-and-response-to-reader-comments/) The US has a much higher rate of gun violence than the UK. The UK has much stricter gun control laws. Are the two facts related? Probably not. The UK passed a strict gun control law in 1968. In 1967 the US had a homicide rate that was 750% greater than in England and Wales. Since then there have been two other gun control laws in the UK. In 2012 the US had a homicide rate that 370% greater than England and Wales. In other words in the last fifty years the UK has had three major rounds of gun control laws and their murder rate has gone up 36%, but in the US the murder rate has gone down during the same time by 21%. Your link admits that if you remove gun suicides and take away the extreme outlier, the US, there is no longer a link between gun violence and gun prevalence. This shows the hazards of data mining. If you run enough regression you can always find the result you want. It makes no sense to me to keep the data that compares the US to Quatar and reject the data that compares the US to Mexico. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346/40 "2015-12-04T20:01:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > :smack: Has it come to that? > > “A whopping 80% of Americans want tougher gun laws.” > > Mr. **Ditka** , Did you mean “Americans who think like me?” The partisanship in this country has become absurd. I sometimes write “rational-thinking Americans” when I mean “Americans who think like me” but at least my phrasing acknowledges that the irrational Americans are still Americans. > > Mr. **Ditka** , are the 80% of Americans who want tougher gun laws not “real” Americans? Or are some people trapped in the FoxNews/NRA bubble and just unaware of the 80% ? You didn’t give a cite, so I don’t know where you’re getting “80%” from, but let me try to explain. Bloomberg, or the Brady Campaign, or Gabby Gifford’s group, or some other anti-gun group, publish polls from time to time that say things like “94% of NRA members support universal background checks”. It’s bullshit. They know it’s bullshit. I know it’s bullshit. You probably even know it’s bullshit. And most importantly, the politicians in Washington know it’s bullshit. Do you honestly believe that if Senators thought those polls were accurate, half of them would have just voted against Machin’s UBC bill ([cite](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/))? The reality is that most Americans don’t care enough about guns one way or the other for it to swing their vote, and for those that do, those “single-issue voters”, they’re overwhelmingly pro-gun. Politicians understand this. That’s why the NRA has such pull in Washington. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/among-advanced-countries-more-guns-means-more-gun-deaths-controversial/739346.md?page=3)