# Those for new gun control laws... **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 3, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847 "2017-10-03T05:06:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/41 "2017-10-03T19:01:17Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > There has been no country in the world that has had a problem with mass shootings and then solved that problem by gun control. Nothing like blank assertion. Still, since most countries no longer have mass shootings so much, how _ **did** _ they bring the rate down ? Don’t keep the secret to yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/42 "2017-10-03T19:02:55Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > There has been no country in the world that has had a problem with mass shootings and then solved that problem by gun control. Except for Australia. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/43 "2017-10-03T19:17:21Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Except for Australia. I didn’t mean to drop that line and run, but I’m at work and trying to do work stuff. You can read several articles on the huge decline in crime after the gun control laws and buy back in 96, but I suspect you’ll pick it apart so I’m not going to waste too much time on it. However, here’s an article and a wiki page to skim through. > **[What happened when Australia actually did something to stop gun violence](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/22/what-happened-when-australia-actually-did-something-to-stop-gun-violence/?utm_term=.c9393386d0e7)** > > New research has some answers about Australia's (in)famous gun ban. > **[Gun laws of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia)** > > Gun laws in Australia are predominantly within the jurisdiction of Australian states and territories, with the importation of guns regulated by the federal government. In the last two decades of the 20th century, following several high-profile killing sprees, the federal government coordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. > Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. In two federally funded gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders ... ---
**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:** [October 3, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/44 "2017-10-03T19:19:50Z")
> [@phreesh](#): > > To what do you owe the generally low gun crime stats in the developed world? > > I ascribe it to the general difficulty of getting guns. Genuinely interested in your thoughts. I ascribe it to the generally low levels of crime in the much of the developed world. The US is different than much of the rest of the developed world in that it. This has nothing to do with gun control. In 1920 before the UK had any meaningful gun control its murder rate was around 10% of what the US had. The US is a much bigger and more rural country than most other developed countries. This means that if someone is threatened it is going to take longer for the police to arrive. Thus more people have guns for self defense. Crime in this country skyrocketed from 1960-1990 and left being feeling unsafe. Thus more people felt the need for guns. If America had violent crime levels similar to other countries there would be fewer guns. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/45 "2017-10-03T19:37:51Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Nothing like blank assertion. > Still, since most countries no longer have mass shootings so much, how _ **did** _ they bring the rate down ? Don’t keep the secret to yourself. No longer have mass shootings? This would imply that there was a time when mass shootings were rampant across the globe and were stopped through government intervention. There was never a time in history where mass shooting were common. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/46 "2017-10-03T19:53:51Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I didn’t mean to drop that line and run, but I’m at work and trying to do work stuff. You can read several articles on the huge decline in crime after the gun control laws and buy back in 96, but I suspect you’ll pick it apart so I’m not going to waste too much time on it. However, here’s an article and a wiki page to skim through. > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/22/what-happened-when-australia-actually-did-something-to-stop-gun-violence/?utm\_term=.c9393386d0e7](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/22/what-happened-when-australia-actually-did-something-to-stop-gun-violence/?utm_term=.c9393386d0e7) > > [Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia) If you look at Australia there was a large sudden increase in mass shootings during the last 80s and early 90s that then petered off. New Zealand had a similar increase with no mass shooting for 40 years then 6 in 7 years. After that 2 in 20 years. Australia had a massive gun control campaign and New Zealand did not. There is no reason to believe that Australia was in for a sustained period of mass shootings. Likewise in Europe there were more mass shootings in the period 1987-1997 than in the previous 40 years combined, war times excepted, after 1997 the rate has gone down by almost two thirds. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/47 "2017-10-03T20:02:48Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > There has been no country in the world that has had a problem with mass shootings and then solved that problem by gun control. Australia. But even without the counterexample, there are very few countries in the world with the mass shooting problem in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/48 "2017-10-03T20:03:36Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Crime in this country skyrocketed from 1960-1990 and left being feeling unsafe. Ah yes let’s compare it to its virtual peak which was in 1991. Crime has plummeted since its peak in 1991. In fact if you compare 2016 to the peak 25 years earlier and to an equal 25 years before that you’ll see Crime per 1,000 1966=26.71 1991=58.98 2016=28.48. I guess everyone’s turning their guns back in now, right? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/49 "2017-10-03T20:33:14Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If you look at Australia there was a large sudden increase in mass shootings during the last 80s and early 90s that then petered off. New Zealand had a similar increase with no mass shooting for 40 years then 6 in 7 years. After that 2 in 20 years. Australia had a massive gun control campaign and New Zealand did not. There is no reason to believe that Australia was in for a sustained period of mass shootings. > Likewise in Europe there were more mass shootings in the period 1987-1997 than in the previous 40 years combined, war times excepted, after 1997 the rate has gone down by almost two thirds. Wait, so all these countries that you mention that had an increase of shootings then the shootings ‘petered off’. What are you trying to say? Are you honestly saying that they just naturally tapered off and had nothing to do with the gun laws that were passed in the 90’s that you somehow forgot to mention? [New Zealand 1992](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Zealand#Aramoana_and_the_1992_Amendments) Australia, 1996, which we covered and I specifically said that you’d pick apart. Europe…I honestly don’t know which side you’re on. Gun violence went up, then it fell down after the 90’s and it just…happened? ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/50 "2017-10-03T20:54:29Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Can someone please fill in no. 2? I mean, if guns were a new thing, it would make complete sense to outlaw or restrict the sale of them, but there are 300 millions guns in the US and it’s not like they are consumable items. They exist and are in the hands of the citizens. It’s to the point now that it would be a violation of a fundamental right of self-preservation to restrict the transfer of firearms. Face it, it’s the country we live in, a shit ton of guns exist, and it’s going to take another route to curb gun violence, if it is possible at all. Logically in a vacuum that argument cuts either way. There are already a huge number of guns so preventing the sale of more will take a very long time to make much difference. To make much difference in violence rates\*. But also to make much difference in the ability of the population in general to defend itself. But the debate doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It occurs in a body politic where you can gin up poll questions to show ‘most Americans want more gun control’, but in fact the pro-gun control segment consists mainly of people for whom it’s a low priority. The anti-gun control segment consists of a lot more people for whom it’s a high priority. It’s just not politically feasible to have significantly stricter national restrictions on gun sales, let alone try to confiscate any significant portion of the existing guns. So yeah bottom line to the extent violent crime is really caused by guns, tough luck. That’s the reality. Also a lot of people who tout gun control just want to use it as one more example of how they are more sophisticated and in line with ‘every other developed country’ than the people on the other side. If they have to choose between more gun control and almost any other Democratic/left priority (bigger govt, higher taxes, abortion rights etc.) gun control almost always loses out. For all the gun sales Obama’s terms spurred, what did he do about it in the 2 yrs he had Congressional majorities? Basically nothing, as will the next (sooner or later there will be) Democratic president with Congressional majorities. Unless something _genuinely_ major changes in US politics. Or maybe decades from now. \*assuming the causality runs from guns\>violence rather than societal factors\>violence\>demand for guns, or both ways or around in a circle. ---
**Author:** ![phreesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@phreesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phreesh)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/51 "2017-10-03T21:32:10Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I ascribe it to the generally low levels of crime in the much of the developed world. The US is different than much of the rest of the developed world in that it. This has nothing to do with gun control. In 1920 before the UK had any meaningful gun control its murder rate was around 10% of what the US had. The US is a much bigger and more rural country than most other developed countries. This means that if someone is threatened it is going to take longer for the police to arrive. Thus more people have guns for self defense. Crime in this country skyrocketed from 1960-1990 and left being feeling unsafe. Thus more people felt the need for guns. If America had violent crime levels similar to other countries there would be fewer guns. Man, your editing cut out what was shaping up to be an interesting argument! That said, I bristle at comments suggesting any developed country is some kind of unique snowflake along any axis. You need a large, developed rural country as a counter-example? How about your friendly neighbours to the north? There’s no huge uproar that farmers and the like can’t have guns for protection. And, c’mon, are you saying that the folks who mostly have guns in the US are farmers? I’d argue that the people with the most guns are the ones with the fastest police response time, like inner cities. Also, it looks like we’re arguing from both sides of the correlation/causation spectrum. I think you have more crime because of guns. Get rid of the guns and you’ll have less crime. As I understand it, you think that you have more guns because there’s so much crime. Get rid of crime and the guns will go away. So, if crime rates fell, people would be okay with gun control? At what crime level would you be okay with getting rid of the second amendment? ---
**Author:** ![DorkVader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/73ab20/32.png) [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/52 "2017-10-03T22:10:47Z")
I’ve been somewhat following this, and as a gun owner, I am loathe to see any restrictions on gun ownership. Part of the problem somebody mentioned up-thread, is that there is a cultural component to this issue in the US. To change that will require at least a generation. Sigh, I hate this idea, I hate to think that it may be needed, but it seems like it would be legitimately worth a try, and again, this is an idea that will take at least a generation for much result to show. Don’t ban existing guns already out there, don’t buy them back, don’t do anything to them, except maybe require registration for grandfather-clause purposes. Ban the manufacture and sale of any new semi-automatic rifles, and rifles using removable magazines (ala ar-15 like) _and_ the manufacture and sale of parts for said rifles. Make it a campaign of attrition and give the cultural change time to flourish. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/53 "2017-10-03T22:33:48Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you are willing to compromise now on sensible regulations, then we can meet in the middle. If you continue to shove 2A in our face like it’s is a divine protection to your gun, it **will** be stripped away. Then where will you be? If you turn the public against your gun hobby enough to strip away the only thing protecting it, then you will have no gun rights other than those explicitly allowed by your legislature. > > The public sill not stand for this, so you have two options. Work with the anti-gun violence people to find ways of keeping weapons like this out of the hands of people who will use them for these activities, or fight compromise, until the only thing that is left is to simply take your toys away, as you have made it clear that you cannot use them responsibly. Bring it, then. This is the goal the anti-gun folks have been trying for years. Bring it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/54 "2017-10-03T23:24:30Z")
OK, I have a question for you. Is there _any_ middle ground between completely unrestricted gun ownership and a complete ban on the ownership of guns that Second Amendment supporters such as yourself would accept? Is there _anything_ you would suggest to prevent such events from recurring? ---
**Author:** ![romansperson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/romansperson/32/17100_2.png) [@romansperson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/romansperson)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/55 "2017-10-03T23:28:57Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > How about conducting research into the causes of gun violence (particularly into why these mass shootings occur)? What about research into mental illness and mass shootings? (The people responsible for several of these incidents were already known to be mentally ill.) It’s been done. No one’s listening. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > In another thread, someone mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing and the ammonium nitrate/diesel fuel bomb. A few years after that bombing, restrictions were put in place on the sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. After the Unabomber case, those blue streetside mailboxes have a notice that packages over thirteen ounces can’t be left in them but instead need to be taken to a post office for mailing. After one terrorist attempt, we can’t take fluids over a certain size on airline flights > > So in cases when the weapon wasn’t a gun, _something_ was done to make a similar incident more difficult. But after mass shooting after mass shooting, _nothing_ has been done to make a similar incident more difficult. It occurs to me that if I have to show ID to buy cold medicine that contains pseudoephedrine, and I can only buy so much per month, that something similar could be worked out for ammunition. Think about it. ---
**Author:** ![romansperson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/romansperson/32/17100_2.png) [@romansperson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/romansperson)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/56 "2017-10-03T23:46:49Z")
Another thought: a national tax (maybe a hefty one) on ammunition. With proceeds to go to the victims and their families of these kinds of crimes. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/57 "2017-10-04T00:18:35Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > (The people responsible for several of these incidents were already known to be mentally ill.) Ehh, sort of. Lanza was apparently crazy as a loon, but [many of them had no or minimal signs of mental illness](http://www.cracked.com/blog/a-desperate-attempt-to-understand-year-mass-killings/). Yeah, I know comedy site. It’s kind of a wash. While I don’t work in mental health I know lots of people who do, and generally few disorders are associated with this type of behavior. For example, the common perception is that schizophrenia is associated, but in fact it does not appear to be. Forms of psychopathy might be, but I think more with more “mundane” crime. Trying to predict these causes is a noble pursuit, but I think runs the danger of post hoc confirmation bias. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/58 "2017-10-04T00:32:40Z")
I was thinking of events like the Virginia Tech shooting, where the shooter was already known to be mentally ill. Or the Aurora, Colorado shooter or the Gabrielle Giffords shooter. Or the [guy who shot multiple people on an LIRR train in 1993](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Long_Island_Rail_Road_shooting). (One of the victims was someone I knew from college, and so I followed the trial closely. The shooter represented himself and his mental illness was blatantly obvious.) ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/59 "2017-10-04T04:42:21Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Interesting. I’ve got a similar riddle. > > 1. Place no new restrictions on the sale of firearms > 2. ??? > 3. Less gun violence > > Let me know when you figure out step two. We already have. The number of guns has **risen** quite significantly **AT THE VERY SAME TIME** that the crime rate has **dropped**. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/60 "2017-10-04T05:12:24Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Can someone please fill in no. 2? I mean, if guns were a new thing, it would make complete sense to outlaw or restrict the sale of them, but there are 300 millions guns in the US and it’s not like they are consumable items. They exist and are in the hands of the citizens. It’s to the point now that it would be a violation of a fundamental right of self-preservation to restrict the transfer of firearms. Face it, it’s the country we live in, a shit ton of guns exist, and it’s going to take another route \*\*to curb gun violence[/B[, if it is possible at all. (post shortened, underline and bold added) I think you’ve poisoned the well with your reference of “to curb gun violence”. Curbing gun violence doesn’t stop mass-murderers from committing mass murder (BOOM!). It doesn’t even stop violence. Mass-murderers/criminals will chose a different tool to commit their crimes. I suspect that the responses you’ll receive will be more of the same ol’ chatter that’s been debated/hashed out/derided/cursed/laughed at/ignored in the past. In short, it’ll be more SSDD. IMHO, of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847.md?page=4)