# Can/should anything be done about US shootings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263 "2015-12-02T23:16:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/282 "2015-12-09T21:09:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I would love if the left campaigned on registration. They’d lose, hard. Isn’t there some sort of form that needs to be filled out with your name and other information and the gun type and serial number usually when you purchase a gun? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/283 "2015-12-09T21:14:20Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Isn’t there some sort of form that needs to be filled out with your name and other information and the gun type and serial number usually when you purchase a gun? For me in CA - yes. Though there are exceptions for interfamilial transfers, C&R, and some limited other circumstances. There’s also gun trusts too. But in most other states, not for private party sales. That’s part of why UBC is resisted - because it makes banning and/or confiscating incrementally easier. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/284 "2015-12-09T21:15:26Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Thanks, man. That post goes some way in encouraging me that there might be some reasonable folk out there willing to work towards (what I consider) reasonable solutions. > > I used to be really anti-gun, but as I’ve said around her before, over the past 10-15 years I’ve shifted on that. And I support peoples’ desire to collect, entertain themselves, protect themselves, and otherwise exercise their rights in a manner that does not harm others. Heck, it was only during W’s presidency and the Patriot Act bullshit, that I began to have some sympathy for the fear of jack-booted government thugs bursting thru the door. My main concern is privacy - and all I’ve got is a penumbra! If I wish the rights I feel important to be respected, I have to respect folk who at least have an accepted interpretation of an amendment in their favor. > > But I really have trouble understanding folk who think they should have unlimited numbers of unregistered firearms, and the right to carry them in public. But how to get past the damn 2d amendment? > > I’m also a little confused, tho. You suggest folk shouldn’t want everything all at once, but you wouldn’t support slippery slopes. That’s a mighty fine line, ain’t it? how do you distinguish between reasonable steps and the beginning of a slippery slope? And where do you anticipate it ending up? > > The problem I have is even minor initial steps seem to be BS. Is a gun highpowered, or just mean-looking? 22s and hunting rifles can still kill people dead. > > Thanks for your posts, tho. You also seem more reasonable than most. However, what benefit do you think mass gun registration would do? All guns are now “registered” when sold. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/285 "2015-12-09T21:19:44Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Heck, it was only during W’s presidency and the Patriot Act bullshit, that I began to have some sympathy for the fear of jack-booted government thugs bursting thru the door. Yep. My epiphany came during the LA riots. The Patriot Act kinda scared me. > [@](#): > > My main concern is privacy - and all I’ve got is a penumbra! If I wish the rights I feel important to be respected, I have to respect folk who at least have an accepted interpretation of an amendment in their favor. I keep saying this to my friends who want to disregard Heller. I keep telling them that their privacy rights depend almost entirely on a very poorly written Roe V Wade opinion. > [@](#): > > But I really have trouble understanding folk who think they should have unlimited numbers of unregistered firearms, and the right to carry them in public. But how to get past the damn 2d amendment? If congress were to pass a law saying that people must get licensed and register their firearms, I am almost positive that the law would be constitutional. I don’t think congress could limit the NUMBER of guns. After all after the first one or two, how does the 8th 9th or 10th gun make that person any more dangerous? Congress can probably limit the type of gun that can be owned but it probably cannot be as restrictive as California has been. The right to carry hasn’t been established but I am confident that it will (subject to restrictions on private and government property) > [@](#): > > I’m also a little confused, tho. You suggest folk shouldn’t want everything all at once, but you wouldn’t support slippery slopes. That’s a mighty fine line, ain’t it? how do you distinguish between reasonable steps and the beginning of a slippery slope? And where do you anticipate it ending up? There is a credibility trust and frankly the burden is on the gun control side to close that gap and try to find common ground. Instead, they insult gun owners and argue from ignorance. If they were really interested in reducing deaths they would not be proposing the sort of shit they are proposing. They are proposing things with a view towards banning guns altogether so the gun owners don’t trust them. > [@](#): > > The problem I have is even minor initial steps seem to be BS. Is a gun highpowered, or just mean-looking? 22s and hunting rifles can still kill people dead. > > Thanks for your posts, tho. If the gun control folks were serious, they would focus almost exclusively on background checks, licensing, registration and maaaaybe magazine limits. They should also be ready to give a few things like a national carry permit and uniform gun laws across the nation (i.e. getting rid of all state and local gun laws in exchange for the licensing and registration). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/286 "2015-12-09T21:27:01Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > There’s no need to confiscate guns already in responsible hands, just tighten background checks, and prosecute illegal gun sales. I’ve seen this “tighter background checks” idea brought up quite a bit lately, but I’m confused what its proponents are actually proposing. I’m not even sure they know. You know that a “background check” isn’t like an investigation, with interviews and people calling your neighbors and friends to see if you’re an alright guy, right? No one is taking letters of recommendations or references. A “background check” is simply: collect the person’s information and see if they’re in the NICS database(s). If they are, then deny the purchase. If they’re not, then it’s allowed to proceed. It’s not like they could look harder at the databases, or triple-checking the databases is going to do any good. It’s usualy a simple “either they’re in there, or they’re not”. There’s nothing really to “tighten” in that area, as far as I can see. What did you have in mind when you wrote this sentence? > [@septimus](#): > > The prevalance of public carrying of guns contributes to much gun violence. According to gun enthusiasts their primary needs are (a) sport and hobby, (b) home defense, (c) keeping the weapons on hand for the day when a “Manchurian candidate” is elected President, corrupts the army, and initiates a pogrom. _ **None of these needs require public carry of the weapon.** _ There are lots of gun owners that get a gun, and a carry permit, and carry that gun with them in public, for protection. Here’s a paragraph of analysis from [a very recent Gallup poll](http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx?g_source=guns&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles): > [@](#): > > News reports indicate that gun sales may have soared over the Thanksgiving Day weekend, based on data showing a big increase in FBI background checks. The apparent uptick in gun sales could be driven by Americans’ desire to have guns for protection. In fact, the October Gallup poll showed that **a majority of Americans think the nation would be safer if more Americans carried concealed weapons**. A different trend question asked in 2014 found that **Americans believe having a gun in the house makes it safer rather than more dangerous** – a marked shift in opinion from previous polling. A Pew Research poll similarly found that **a majority of Americans believe owning guns does more to protect people from being the victim of crime that put them at risk**. If you believe that lawfully carrying a gun for self-defense is dangerous, or causes an increase in our crime problem, you’re in the minority. Most of your countrymen feel differently. > [@septimus](#): > > But something like that did happen at Kent State University in 1970. My question for gun rights advocates is: _ **Should the Kent State students have been armed and fought the military?** _ It would seem to have been a very poor tactical decision, to say the least. Sort of like confronting Redcoats on the Lexington Green. Just curious though, what was it you think they’d be fighting for? What would their reason for trying to overthrow a supposedly corrupt government be? ---
**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 9, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/287 "2015-12-09T21:33:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure if your a, b, and c is meant to be in order, but the overwhelming reason for ownership is for personal protection. The need for personal protection doesn’t end when you step out of the house and can only be served by public carry. It seems you skipped over my parenthetical comment. Carry permits could be given to people with special needs, e.g. carrying large sums of cash or jewels as part of their employment. But do _most_ males “need” a gun for protection in public? If a mugger asks for your wallet, do you give it to him? Or do you shoot him? Is saving the $50 in your wallet the reason you “need” a gun? Or is the concern that you’ll run into a crazed Islamist terrorist? A far more likely need for protection might be your getting into an argument with a gun-toting drunk in a bar, but that scenario rather argues _in support_ of gun control. I have friends who have been in awkward violent situations. In no case would the outcome have been improved by a gun. Yes, there are scenarios where the gun might do you more good than harm. A giant lightning-rod or a pet tiger might save your life also – should there be an unrestricted right to travel with those in public? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/288 "2015-12-09T21:34:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’ve seen this “tighter background checks” idea brought up quite a bit lately, but I’m confused what its proponents are actually proposing. I’m not even sure they know. You know that a “background check” isn’t like an investigation, with interviews and people calling your neighbors and friends to see if you’re an alright guy, right? No one is taking letters of recommendations or references. A “background check” is simply: collect the person’s information and see if they’re in the NICS database(s). If they are, then deny the purchase. If they’re not, then it’s allowed to proceed. It’s not like they could look harder at the databases, or triple-checking the databases is going to do any good. It’s usualy a simple “either they’re in there, or they’re not”. There’s nothing really to “tighten” in that area, as far as I can see. What did you have in mind when you wrote this sentence? Because the next step would be to increase the number of things that qualify as prohibiting. Like, the no-fly list or the terrorist watch list. Or non-violent misdemeanors. Or traffic violations and unpaid parking tickets. Or people who engage in unapproved speech, or any manner of way to restrict. And/or, they can eliminate the need to actually conduct the background check at all and just say it will take longer. What will be 3 days will turn to 5, to 10, then to never. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/289 "2015-12-09T21:38:09Z")
There are too many new posts here for me to keep up, but just a few more things … > [@DrDeth](#): > > No International agency tracks “gun homicide rate”, they just track “homicide rate”. This is why “gun homicide rate” is a bogus, made up number, pulled out of someone ass with a bias. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime sounds pretty “international” to me. That’s where numbers like [these](https://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/homicide-mechanisms.html) and most of [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) come from. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Calling every nation that has a higher rate a “third-world shit-hole” is pretty bogus, and uses the outdated idea that nations not aligned with the USSR or USA is somehow inferior. Note that most of the “2nd world nations” in Europe also have a higher murder rate than the USA. Note that South Africa is a “First World” nation by Cold War standards, but your definition seems to be “If it has a higher murder rate than the USA, it’s a third-world shit-holes.” Are you just trying for a perfect record of being wrong on absolutely everything, or are you really not familiar with the history of apartheid and the long history of South African racial violence? South Africa is a unique outlier in being an advanced nation with a very violent history. The USA is a unique outlier in being an advanced nation drowning in guns with no meaningful gun control. Both have high murder rates and high gun death rates. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why are so many gun control folks under the ridiculously ignorant impression that there is “no gun control at all” in this country Maybe one gets that impression from such inexplicable resistance to passing any effective gun laws that even Sandy Hook had no effect, thanks to the NRA suggesting that more guns was the answer, pulling the strings of all the Congressmen they control, and suppressing research on gun violence. It’s not surprising that virtually all the gun crimes horrific enough to make the front pages turn out to have been committed with guns “legally obtained”, usually one or more semi-automatic rifles and pistols that were bought by some deranged lunatic with the same ease as buying a candy bar – weapons that would either be strictly regulated in any civilized country or prohibited altogether. That’s why. And then there’s the marvelous category of ATF [Title II weaponry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons). Even machine guns are legal in the US, but they’re expensive and you have to register and pay a $200 ATF tax. But not just machine guns – the same bit of paperwork can also get you silencers, and guns disguised as canes, pens, and cell phones. Title II also covers grenades, mortars, and rocket launchers, in case you want some of those. Some lunatic Congressman introduced legislation just a couple of months ago to take silencers off the Title II list and make them easier to get in the interest of “hearing protection”. It’s just rampaging insanity. There’s no other word for it. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > wolfpup, > You seem to have missed, in spite of quoting it, that DrDeth posted about the “murder rate”, not the “gun homicide” rate (which I’ve never seen anyone but gun grabbers bring up). I wasn’t aware that Statistics Canada or the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime were “gun grabbers”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. That’s where most of the numbers and the chart I cited before come from. But since the NRA and its fans are working almost as hard to suppress facts and research and analysis on gun fatalities as they are to spread misinformation about it, it’s no surprise that they have fashioned invectives to hurl at anyone publishing facts that are detrimental to their cause. If the facts are so supportive of their position, [why are they so determined to suppress them](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf)? See also my response below about murder rate vs. gun homicide rate. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Could I get a cite for the highlighted portion? Or an explanation? Are you trying to say that 90% of Americans own guns? Or did you mean something else by “an ownership rate of 90%”? That statistically there are around 9 guns for every 10 Americans – some numbers make that to be as many as 11 – but you knew that. The highest by far of any first-world nation on the planet. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Really? So America has ~one gun per capita. Canada has ~.3 guns per capita. Are you saying that if we reduced from 300 million guns to only 100 million guns we would experience an 86% reduction in gun homicides? That doesn’t make sense to me. Of course not. The contribution of gun ownership rate to homicide is a complex interplay of number of guns in circulation, how well they are regulated, and the prevailing gun culture in society. The dramatic – almost incredible – difference in gun violence between the US and all other developed countries is accounted for by striking differences in all three of those factors, not just in gun numbers. But they’re all inter-related > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And why just gun homicides? What does it matter if gun homicides go down by 100 and other types of homicides goes up by an equal amount (I fully recognize that there would not be a perfect substitution effect but just for the sake of argument). Its not like Canada only has 14% of America’s homicide rate and the UK certainly has more than 1.4% of America’s homicide rate. The USA certainly has a much higher homicide rate at 3.8/100,000 versus 1.4 for Canada and 1.0 for the UK but the murder rate is not directly proportional to gun ownership. So those numbers you are talking about (14% and 1.4%) are really not as indicative of overall homicide rates as it is of method of homicide. I agree. But the fact is that academic studies strongly suggest that given all three factors I mentioned above, or even just the last two factors, overall homicide rates would go down because the “substitution effect” would be relatively low. Simply because hitting someone over the head with a chair – or whatever imagery you want to use – is not the same as shooting them in the head with a gun. Here are some of those studies: **1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide** Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide **2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.** We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. > **[Homicide](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)** > > 1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review) Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor f… And here are homicide rates from all causes – knock yourself out. Notice that the US per-capita homicide rate is more than 2.7 times the total of Canada, 3.8 times the total of France, the UK, and Australia. So again, these are not marginal percentage point differences, they are whole multiples, far beyond what can possibly be accounted for by socioeconomic differences, though those certainly do exist. > **[List of countries by intentional homicide rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)** > > The list of countries by homicide rate is derived from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) data, and is expressed in number of deaths per 100,000 population per year. For example, a homicide rate of 30 out of 100,000 is presented in the table as "30", and corresponds to 0.03% of the population dying by homicide. The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary. Only UNODC-vetted data is used in the main table to maintain consistency. In some cases, Homicide rates ma... ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/290 "2015-12-09T21:38:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The prevalance of public carrying of guns contributes to much gun violence. According to gun enthusiasts their primary needs are (a) sport and hobby, (b) home defense, (c) keeping the weapons on hand for the day when a “Manchurian candidate” is elected President, corrupts the army, and initiates a pogrom. _ **None of these needs require public carry of the weapon.** _ (I think most sensible gun enthusiasts would agree it’s better to hand over a $100 wallet to a mugger than to inititiate a gun battle.) It doesnt seem to, oddly. Mainly due to the fact that criminals dont carry openly. They cant own guns legally. You’d think that hotheads openly carrying would lead to gunfights, but not as a significant issue. Altho you are correct in that it’s far better to hand over that wallet\*, how can you be sure he’ll stop at the wallet? \* ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/291 "2015-12-09T21:40:59Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > It seems you skipped over my parenthetical comment. Carry permits could be given to people with special needs, e.g. carrying large sums of cash or jewels as part of their employment. But do _most_ males “need” a gun for protection in public? First, your parenthetical was about a mugger, not special needs. Second, and this is key - you don’t get to determine what anyone else needs. People, not males, have an interest in protection at all times. > [@](#): > > If a mugger asks for your wallet, do you give it to him? Or do you shoot him? Is saving the $50 in your wallet the reason you “need” a gun? Or is the concern that you’ll run into a crazed Islamist terrorist? A far more likely need for protection might be your getting into an argument with a gun-toting drunk in a bar, but that scenario rather argues _in support_ of gun control. Every incident is specific and dependent on the fact pattern at the time. If I felt threatened by great bodily harm and had a viable opportunity, I would not hesitate to shoot someone to defend myself. I think my potential for being impacted by temporary localized civil unrest is more likely than my potential to be impacted by a terrorist. > [@](#): > > A giant lightning-rod or a pet tiger might save your life also – should there be an unrestricted right to travel with those in public? If you think a giant lighting rod or pet tiger is analogous to a firearm, I’d say that’s part of the reason there is a disconnect here. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/292 "2015-12-09T21:41:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > It seems you skipped over my parenthetical comment. Carry permits could be given to people with special needs, e.g. carrying large sums of cash or jewels as part of their employment. But do _most_ males “need” a gun for protection in public? > > If a mugger asks for your wallet, do you give it to him? Or do you shoot him? Is saving the $50 in your wallet the reason you “need” a gun? Or is the concern that you’ll run into a crazed Islamist terrorist? A far more likely need for protection might be your getting into an argument with a gun-toting drunk in a bar, but that scenario rather argues _in support_ of gun control. > > I have friends who have been in awkward violent situations. In no case would the outcome have been improved by a gun. Yes, there are scenarios where the gun might do you more good than harm. A giant lightning-rod or a pet tiger might save your life also – should there be an unrestricted right to travel with those in public? I don’t know about lightning rods or pet tigers, but when it comes to guns, the American people have spoken. Take a look at [this animated gif](http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php) to see the progress that has been made in the last 30 or so years: ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/293 "2015-12-09T21:46:40Z")
… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/294 "2015-12-09T21:54:08Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There are too many new posts here for me to keep up, but just a few more things … > > The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime sounds pretty “international” to me. That’s where numbers like [these](https://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/homicide-mechanisms.html) and most of [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) come from. > > Are you just trying for a perfect record of being wrong on absolutely everything, or are you really not familiar with the history of apartheid and the long history of South African racial violence? South Africa is a unique outlier in being an advanced nation with a very violent history. The USA is a unique outlier in being an advanced nation drowning in guns with no meaningful gun control. Both have high murder rates and high gun death rates. > > Maybe one gets that impression from such inexplicable resistance to passing any effective gun laws that even Sandy Hook had no effect, thanks to the NRA suggesting that more guns was the answer, pulling the strings of all the Congressmen they control, and suppressing research on gun violence. It’s not surprising that virtually all the gun crimes horrific enough to make the front pages turn out to have been committed with guns “legally obtained”, usually one or more semi-automatic rifles and pistols that were bought by some deranged lunatic with the same ease as buying a candy bar – weapons that would either be strictly regulated in any civilized country or prohibited altogether. That’s why. > > And then there’s the marvelous category of ATF [Title II weaponry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons). Even machine guns are legal in the US, but they’re expensive and you have to register and pay a $200 ATF tax. But not just machine guns – the same bit of paperwork can also get you silencers, and guns disguised as canes, pens, and cell phones. Title II also covers grenades, mortars, and rocket launchers, in case you want some of those. Some lunatic Congressman introduced legislation just a couple of months ago to take silencers off the Title II list and make them easier to get in the interest of “hearing protection”. It’s just rampaging insanity. There’s no other word for it. > That statistically there are around 9 guns for every 10 Americans – some numbers make that to be as many as 11 – but you knew that. The highest by far of any first-world nation on the planet. > > Here are some of those studies: > **1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide** > Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide > > **2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.** > We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. > [Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/) > And here are homicide rates from all causes – knock yourself out. Notice that the US per-capita homicide rate is more than 2.7 times the total of Canada, 3.8 times the total of France, the UK, and Australia. So again, these are not marginal percentage point differences, they are whole multiples, far beyond what can possibly be accounted for by socioeconomic differences, though those certainly do exist. > [List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) The UNDOC relies upon voluntary nation reporting. **Wrong** again. Sure, but Apartheid ended more than 10 years ago. Anyway, SA is still a First World nation, under the totally outdated Cold War idea of “1st, 2nd & 3rd world nations”. Note that Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria etc are also “Third world” nations based upon the Cold war scoreboard. So, you’re **wrong** about First World nations. However, if you’re going by how developed a nation is, rather than what side it was on during the\* fucking Cold war\*- Mexico, Venezuela, etc all qualify as Highly developed nations, not “3rd world shitholes”. Chile and Argentina qualify as very High, right up there with the USA, France, etc. So you’re\*\* wrong\*\* about “3rd world shitholes”. See, in order to make the date dance, they had to limit to a undefined “high-income countries” whatever the fuck that means. Like I posted before, the USA does have a murder rate which is too high, and Canada, etc is quite a bit lower. But you claimed the US rate was a “order of magnitude” higher. \*\*Wrong. \*\* Still Canada is in the top ten for private Gun ownership, and manages a very low murder rate. France is up there too. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/295 "2015-12-09T22:48:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Once again, you need to carve out gun murders to make the claim that more guns =more gun murders. What about overall murders and gun ownership rates. I suspect there might still be some sort of correlation but not nearly as clear as the graph in that article. I already cited two studies that give you the information you claim to be interested in, and here you are acting like they don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/296 "2015-12-09T22:53:51Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Naw, it simply reflects your standard disingenuous tendencies in any discussion, Hentor. Oh, and an attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you with an ‘anti-science’ paint brush…going to call me a climate denier next? Perhaps go for bear and say I’m a CTer? Maybe call me a racist, just to cover all your bases? 😛 You can easily undermine my position by citing any peer reviewed science that contradicts it. Or you can go with smiley face emoticons. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/297 "2015-12-09T23:04:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Second, and this is key - you don’t get to determine what anyone else needs. People, not males, have an interest in protection at all times. This is really at the heart of this whole debate. And my answer to it is that you don’t get to determine that libertarianism is the only permissible philosophy of governance. Society has a legitimate right to balance personal liberties with societal safety in reasonable ways, so that there is always some point – _ **always** _ – where society gets to say “you may say you need that, but in the interest of public safety, you can’t have it”. Or at least, you can’t have it unless you demonstrate a unique and compelling need, which is again exercising balance. And in some cases you as a private citizen can’t ever have it, because the thing is so dangerous that a balancing compelling need can never be justified. Because otherwise public safety is compromised, and when it is, it just leads to a hardening of attitudes toward personal weapon rights and an escalating weapons war. This is exactly what’s happened in the US, where, incredibly, practically every kind weaponry imaginable can be legally owned by any ordinary citizen with no justification whatsoever. And then, once again, a bunch of innocent people get shot by some lunatic and everyone wonders why this keeps happening, as if it’s some kind of mystery. American society doesn’t seem to have that particular problem with regulating dangerous drugs. Hell, they don’t even have that problem regulating – in fact banning outright – lawn darts. But the gun thing resonates through a powerful convergence of American mythologies – distrust of government, personal independence, and the primacy of individual liberties at any cost. This is why discussions like this are always futile. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/298 "2015-12-09T23:06:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Just following your lead buddy. > > I think you need to dig a bit deeper. > > Lethality suicide attempts using > > poison/overdose 6.5% > firearms 96.5% > suffocation 90.4% > cutting 6.7% > crashing/jumping 74% > exposure 56% > other 1.8% > > [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732374/pdf/v057p00120.pdf](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732374/pdf/v057p00120.pdf) Here’s the table from your own cite! OR† (95% CI) Firearms (exposure)\* – Suffocation 2.6 (2.1 to 3.1) Crash/jump 8.0 (6.4 to 10.2) Exposure 18.0 (12.8 to 25.3) Cuts 325.5 (256.8 to 412.7) Poisons 270.4 It shows that my previous cite was underestimating the relative lethality of guns relative to jumping or poisoning! Do you not understand what you’re reading? The odds ratios there are for firearms relative to each other method. The odds of successfully killing yourself are 2.6 times greater if you use a gun compared to suffocation, 8.0 times greater compared to jumping and 270 times greater compared to poisoning. What exactly makes you think I need to dig deeper? ---
**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 9, 2015, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/299 "2015-12-09T23:10:27Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > You can easily undermine my position by citing any peer reviewed science that contradicts it. > > Or you can go with smiley face emoticons. Peer reviewed science on what, exactly? I don’t think any scientists care enough about your continued efforts to poison the well or paint your opponents as anti-science enough to care. Nor do they do studies on how members of this board, or in the wider community members of either the pro-gun or anti-gun side uses stats to spin their narrative. What, exactly, am I supposed to find a peer reviewed study on…or did you just pull that out of your ass, once again, to muddy the waters? What, exactly, do you THINK my position is on any of this, and what do you THINK I’m supposed to be defending here? Do you even know? I’ve asked you in the past, and you’ve pretty much failed to define what you think my position is, let alone what it actually is, so I really don’t know what you are wanting me to defend here except your out of the ass assertion I’m anti-science…or something. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/300 "2015-12-09T23:33:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Because otherwise public safety is compromised, and when it is, it just leads to a hardening of attitudes toward personal weapon rights and an escalating weapons war. This is exactly what’s happened in the US, where, incredibly, **practically every kind weaponry imaginable can be legally owned by any ordinary citizen with no justification whatsoever.** And then, once again, a bunch of innocent people get shot by some lunatic and everyone wonders why this keeps happening, as if it’s some kind of mystery. I don’t know why you make statements like this. Such obvious exaggeration weakens your position. In this thread alone you note that silencers (suppressors) are limited as Title II weapons. I am prohibited from buying a basic handgun based on its color. To say that practically every kind of weaponry imaginable can be owned is not based in reality. As to the safety argument, or “balance” as you call it: > [@](#): > > We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Please, encourage your ideological compatriots to campaign on the idea of repealing the 2nd amendment. Call for a constitutional convention as the party platform. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/301 "2015-12-10T00:09:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Peer reviewed science on what, exactly? I don’t think any scientists care enough about your continued efforts to poison the well or paint your opponents as anti-science enough to care. Nor do they do studies on how members of this board, or in the wider community members of either the pro-gun or anti-gun side uses stats to spin their narrative. What, exactly, am I supposed to find a peer reviewed study on…or did you just pull that out of your ass, once again, to muddy the waters? What, exactly, do you THINK my position is on any of this, and what do you THINK I’m supposed to be defending here? Do you even know? I’ve asked you in the past, and you’ve pretty much failed to define what you think my position is, let alone what it actually is, so I really don’t know what you are wanting me to defend here except your out of the ass assertion I’m anti-science…or something. On the topic that people are bringing up stats - the association between gun prevalence and homicide. I know scientists care about that. Or you could just keep having a fit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263.md?page=16)