# The gun violence debate we're not having **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937 "2017-11-07T03:07:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/21 "2017-11-07T16:36:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t know how many, but bump stocks are pretty easy to get, which means there’s a decent amount of demand. You can still order one on Amazon. Amazon has an untold number of items that are easy to get, but that has nothing to do with how many people are buying any one item. How many gun owners do you know that have and use them? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/22 "2017-11-07T16:46:29Z")
As usual with these anti-gun control arguments, the problem is we have a “rest of the world” to compare the US to. Countries with anywhere near the wealth of the US have a small fraction of the homicide rate and frequency of mass killings. And that’s because in most of the developed world guns are either essentially banned or only owned by people who have gone through training, licensing and/or psychological evaluations. Simple as. Or is it? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > It is even more complicated than that. > > 1. No gun laws ever passed at a national level have removed possession from current owners. (In the US we have more guns than people, and every law seems to increase this ratio) I think the fact you’ve put “at a national level” in there tacitly concedes the point. At a state and local level there is evidence of gun control policy reducing the quantity of weapons in circulation _even though_ weapons can be trivially moved from state to state. At a national level, what attempts have there even been to reduce supply? > [@](#): > > 1. Prohibition of drugs like Methamphetamine, LSD or other items never results in their absence in society. Yes, sometimes bans are ineffective. However, sometimes bans are effective, at least in vastly reducing usage. Guns would appear to be an example of the latter, since illegal gun ownership and homicides are rare in developed countries, apart from the US. As a side note, I assume you’d support legalization of all drugs? > [@](#): > > 1. Firearms, even semi-automatic firearms predate the automobile, are trivial to manufacture or smuggle. (19th century devices are trivial to manufacture) And yet, again, they are rare in countries with gun control. > [@](#): > > 1. Passing effective legislation that will work around points 1, 2 and 3 may have a limited impact on individual murders but will most likely have little impact on mass murder even if they have an impact on reducing mass shootings. Mass murder is also much rarer in the rest of the developed world than the US. Because an easily-bought gun is a trivial way to commit mass murder. Extremely effective and doesn’t require much planning (so the perpetrator only needs to be in that state of mind for a short time). ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/23 "2017-11-07T16:53:31Z")
And still not having: [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/07/politics/trump-extreme-vetting-guns-korea/index.html](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/07/politics/trump-extreme-vetting-guns-korea/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/24 "2017-11-07T17:04:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If someone shoots a convenience store clerk and gets 5 years, that’s not dealing with gun violence. Okay, why not? Would it be less likley to happen if the penalty was 20 years, or 40 years? I doubt it. People don’t think they’ll get caught, so they really don’t factor in the penalty. (Also, five years in prison would really suck for most people. So it is a deterrent.) Do a lot of people who shoot a store clerk and get five years in prison re-offend? I don’t know, do you? ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/25 "2017-11-07T17:15:00Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Do a lot of people who shoot a store clerk and get five years in prison re-offend? I don’t know, do you? I don’t know about specifically those who shoot store clerks who get 5 years, but here is [some high level info](https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx): > [@](#): > > Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that: > Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. > Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. > Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year. > Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and **71.3 percent of violent offenders.** Lots of caveats of course. This is for all violent offenders. It’s for those rearrested, not necessarily re-convicted. It doesn’t isolate the specific infraction in question. It doesn’t consider the burden one faces after being released and the limited options available that may increase the likelihood of re-offending. And we don’t have enough prisons currently to accommodate for dramatically increased sentencing. I for one am not willing to trade minority or anyone’s 4th amendment rights or the obvious consequence of racial profiling and animus for the theater of “doing something” about gun crime. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/26 "2017-11-07T17:26:38Z")
You note that there are caveats, Bone, but I suspect you aren’t appreciating how deeply flawed those numbers are. They wildly inflate re-offending. If you actually track individuals and you track whether they commit new violent crimes, the rate of re-offending is in the 20s. The way they reach numbers in the 70s is to define the new crimes broadly (including technical parole violations that are not crimes), and also to measure how much recidivism there is without tracking individuals. Consider the following scenario: Alonzo is a serial assaulter. He gets sent to prison for an 8-month stint for bar fights pretty much every year. In the first year, his cellmate is Burt. Burt gets released and goes the straight and level, but Alonzo gets sent back on his release. In the second year, his cellmate is Courtney. Same deal. In the third year, it’s Del. On those facts, the overall recidivism rate is 50%. Half of all releasees get re-arrested. But it is the same dude each time! That’s a real pattern that plays out in the statistics. A relatively small number of offenders keep going back and it inflates the recidivsm numbers. [Much more info and data here](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/10/17/american-prisons-are-not-a-revolving-door-most-released-offenders-never-return/) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/27 "2017-11-07T17:29:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You don’t really believe that, do you? You don’t think that all those people who bought them were just thinking, “I don’t know what I’ll ever do with this besides mass murder”, right? I’m willing to bet that most of them (the vast majority, even) wanted the machine-gun experience, with the intent of shooting at nothing more than lifeless targets. I offer them a veritable tidal wave of sympathy that long-standing Federal Law and now Massachusetts law has finally noticed that a device that makes a semiauto behave _like_ a machine gun may as well have turned it _into_ a machine gun. Darn that Vegas mass-murderer for ruining it for everybody! ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/28 "2017-11-07T17:31:56Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You note that there are caveats, Bone, but I suspect you aren’t appreciating how deeply flawed those numbers are. They wildly inflate re-offending. Yes, it’s kind of whack, like divorce statistics I presume. The specific example of the 5 years for shooting a clerk makes that type of data gathering difficult so I put up only the super high level recidivism stats. Lots of nuance glossed over. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/29 "2017-11-07T17:39:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes, it’s kind of whack, like divorce statistics I presume. The specific example of the 5 years for shooting a clerk makes that type of data gathering difficult so I put up only the super high level recidivism stats. Lots of nuance glossed over. Understood. I only recently learned just how deeply whack these stats are, so I was eager to share. I definitely held the misimpression that most people re-offend based on these numbers, even though they are almost exactly the inverse of that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/30 "2017-11-07T17:40:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You don’t really believe that, do you? You don’t think that all those people who bought them were just thinking, “I don’t know what I’ll ever do with this besides mass murder”, right? Note that just because the only **practical** use of a particular item may be mass murder doesn’t logically imply that that’s the only reason anybody ever **purchases** that item. People buy lots of items for no practical reason, or with no intention of ever using them as designed, just because they like to own them. ---
**Author:** ![Anny\_Middon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc79bd/32.png) [@Anny\_Middon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anny_Middon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/31 "2017-11-07T17:43:41Z")
It seems to me that gun debates sometimes get bogged down because people lump all gunshot killings together. Maybe it’s better to divide gunshot killings into different groups and determine which approaches might be effective in preventing some of the killings in that group. I propose the following categories: 1. Planned untargeted killings – that is killings where the identity of the victims is unimportant to the shooter. The Las Vegas killings fall into this category. 2. Planned targeted killings – those where the killer intends to shoot one or more specific persons. Drive-by shootings fall in this category since I’d include shootings where someone is killed accidentally (due say to poor aim). 3. Unplanned targeted killings. We almost had an instance of this in my town – I say “almost” because the victim didn’t die. But it was a road rage incident where the shooter was so angry at whatever the victim did that he pulled out his gun and shot him. 4. Unplanned untargeted killings. An example would be that case from a few years ago where the toddler pulled his mom’s gun out of her purse and shot her dead. It seems to me that unless we somehow magically get rid of all guns, no regulations will have a substantial impact on all categories of gun killings. Which ones can we reduce – and should we take the steps necessary to do so? For instance, it seems to me that in either category of unplanned killings, if a gun was not available the killing would not have occurred. Can we now make it illegal to carry unsecured guns around? Would making it illegal have that big an impact? Should we take away the ability to have concealed or open carry? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/32 "2017-11-07T17:59:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Note that just because the only **practical** use of a particular item may be mass murder doesn’t logically imply that that’s the only reason anybody ever **purchases** that item. People buy lots of items for no practical reason, or with no intention of ever using them as designed, just because they like to own them. Do you not consider “entertainment” a “practical” use? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/33 "2017-11-07T18:03:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **adaher** - one cynical way of framing the debate that you proposed is that minorities should just get over having their Fourth Amendment rights limited for the higher good of reducing gun violence; because most Americans simply won’t accept having their Second Amendment rights limited for the greater good of reducing gun violence. > > Agree or disagree? In an age with millions of Americans lawfully concealed-carrying, I’d be delighted to see the “Terry stop” precedent overturned. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/34 "2017-11-07T18:07:31Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > … At a national level, what attempts have there even been to reduce supply? … The NFA, the '86 machine gun ban, AWB, various import restrictions, etc. Obama’s green-tip ammo ban never really got off the ground, does that count as an attempt or not? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/35 "2017-11-07T18:29:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The NFA, the '86 machine gun ban, AWB, various import restrictions, etc. Obama’s green-tip ammo ban never really got off the ground, does that count as an attempt or not? We were talking about attempts to reduce the supply of guns. Of those, maybe the “various import restrictions” counts, but obviously the vast majority of guns in the US are made in the US so not too surprising if it had no effect. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/36 "2017-11-07T18:42:12Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > We were talking about attempts to reduce the supply of guns. Of those, maybe the “various import restrictions” counts, but obviously the vast majority of guns in the US are made in the US so not too surprising if it had no effect. I don’t understand. Are you saying that an AWB is not an attempt to “reduce the supply” of guns? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/37 "2017-11-08T03:36:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t understand. Are you saying that an AWB is not an attempt to “reduce the supply” of guns? Yes, in this context of this discussion. **rat avatar** pointed out that nothing, on a federal level, has ever succeeded in reducing the _number_ of guns in circulation. I retorted that essentially nothing _has been tried_ on the federal level to achieve that goal. Your response was then based on not following the context I think, and just pointing out examples of gun control at a federal level. The reason AWB doesn’t count is because just banning one type of gun, that wasn’t very popular in the first place, and having a grandfather clause on existing weapons, is not an attempt to reduce the number of guns in circulation or that are being bought and transferred. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/38 "2017-11-08T07:23:45Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For owning a piece of plastic whose only practical use is mass murder, yes. You are aware that one does not need a special stock to [bump fire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8SMttjjo), correct? Making those stocks unavailable to consumers does not extinguish anyones ability to bump fire a semi-auto rifle in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/39 "2017-11-08T08:01:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Most arguments around gun control tend to revolve around access to guns. But historically, that’s not the only way we’ve fought gun violence. During the 90s, there was a concerted effort by many cities and states to reduce crime through more aggressive policing, with an emphasis on harsher sentencing for crimes involving firearms. > > In recent years, some states are starting to pull back on these efforts. The main reason is that such measures tend to fall hardest on minority communities. > > But whether or not we pass more laws, those new laws have no value if not enforced, which is going to require… aggressive policing and harsh sentencing. So shouldn’t we be talking about what we actually do with people who violate our gun laws? One of the reasons those of us who support gun rights scoff at gun control advocates is that criminals don’t obey laws. Which in itself is not a valid argument against gun control, since all laws are violated by criminals. That’s why they are criminals, and yet we have laws. The reason why the argument has validity in this context though is that most gun control advocates aren’t fans of the very enforcement methods which make those laws work. > > So, when it comes to guns, are we in general agreement that people who commit crimes with guns or unlawfully carry guns shoud be dealt with harshly? And if not, what plausible path to real gun control that would actually make a difference is there? The debate that isn’t happening is the one where people come to the realization that going after the particular technology used to commit an act is not as effective (or fair for that matter) as going after the act and the it’s causes. Other countries have even higher percentages of gun ownership than the US, mass shootings have, IMHO more to do with the culture there than with what type or quantity of guns people can get their hands on. Discussions about gun rights appear to me more like an exercise on how to deal with a shadow on a wall than over what is causing that shadow in the first place, not to mention the endless political hay that can be made out of it. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/40 "2017-11-08T08:32:32Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Discussions about gun rights appear to me more like an exercise on how to deal with a shadow on a wall than over what is causing that shadow in the first place, not to mention the endless political hay that can be made out of it. 99% of the discussion seems to be “Let’s take the following options off the table”. If it’s not simply “For this kind of tragedy, uniquely, we must wait until some undefined future time and not politicize this”. These things keep happening in the US because of these stock answers. It will never end until the BS ends. > [@](#): > > Other countries have even higher percentages of gun ownership than the US, mass shootings have, IMHO more to do with the culture there than with what type or quantity of guns people can get their hands on. Where is there more guns and similarly little to no registration / licensing? Where can I buy an AR-15 as easily as the US? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937.md?page=3)