# What would it take for a support for Gun Control in the US **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 25, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309 "2012-07-25T01:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/122 "2012-07-26T07:01:53Z")
You may want to reread my last few posts. You’re making some sort of generic gun control point but ignoring everything I said. Spree shootings are negligible. I’m not comparing across countries, I’m saying as a cause of death they are almost nothing, even in the US. I’d be surprised if there are more than a dozen deaths a year, you could come up with a list of hundreds of unnatural ways people die that are more common, including murder with just about every other type of weapon. Making policy because of the emotional impact of an isolated spree shooting is stupid. Having this discussion because of the emotional impact of an isolated spree shooting is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/123 "2012-07-26T07:20:03Z")
Those figures tell me that something has gone badly awry in the USA, even when mass shootings are discounted. It’s bad today, it was bad the day before Aurora. The real stupidity, IMO, is the futility of gun debates. The usual suspects turn up saying the same things again and as long as the Second Amendment is around it’s all meaningless. I gave up a long time ago. But the question “what would it take to get the US to change its basic approach to firearms” is sort of interesting. To me, anyway. Don’t know why you opened the thread. ---
**Author:** ![GreedySmurf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a698b9/32.png) [@GreedySmurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreedySmurf)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/124 "2012-07-26T10:14:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But here in the USA, violent crime has been decreasing. > > And, I really dont give a rats-ass about a decrease in _incidence of use of guns in the commission of those violent crimes_- does it really matter if they shoot you or chop you up with a machete? Maybe it’s the ignorant foreigner, but to me it would make a massive difference. If I’m confronted with a guy with a machete, If things escalate I’ve got a chance of living. With a gun pointed at me, I’m fucked. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Not all their books, just those with bad ideas, heresy and seditious ideas. And, you will be compensated for the books we burn. I don’t have a dog in the fight, I was posing a question that was of interest to me. I think this particular argument though is pretty spurious. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/125 "2012-07-26T12:50:04Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > I ended up skipping page 2 because I’ve seen it before. > [@](#): > > You’re A-OK with hunting. Nope, we’re not banning guns at all. Hunters can keep their sensible firearms. Just probably not at home. If you didn’t read all the previous posts, you probably missed the posts that showed why, when gun control advocates say they don’t really want to ban guns, nobody believes them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/126 "2012-07-27T00:44:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you didn’t read all the previous posts, you probably missed the posts that showed why, when gun control advocates say they don’t really want to ban guns, nobody believes them. > > Regards, > Shodan How convenient. The fact remains, though, that countries that don’t grant the right to bear arms still allow hunting and sport shooting. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/127 "2012-07-27T00:49:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you didn’t read all the previous posts, you probably missed the posts that showed why, when gun control advocates say they don’t really want to ban guns, nobody believes them. Whereas, thanks to **Shodan** , you only have to read _one_ post to see the paranoia on the other side. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/128 "2012-07-27T20:14:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Whereas, thanks to **Shodan** , you only have to read _one_ post to see the paranoia on the other side. Is it still paranoia when he’s absolutely right? If you like, I can pull up some quotes from prominent politicians who have indicated a desire towards reducing or even eliminating private firearm ownership, be it a handgun, a rifle, or a scary “assault weapon” (a made up term, which means nothing). And as a side note: > [@](#): > > While others are nitpicking above: often they’re semi-auto, so not assault rifle. While a Swiss person is in the military, they are issued a fully automatic/select fire SIG SG 550. When they leave and enter the reserves, it gets converted to semi. Most of what the US Military uses is semi-auto. They are termed “Battle Rifles” by the military. Assault weapon is, as I mention above, a scary term that was created to push the AWB, and it worked like a charm. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/129 "2012-07-27T20:51:22Z")
> [@Tristan](#): > > Most of what the US Military uses is semi-auto. Thats not true. Since the M16A2 through the M4 that most are using now, the US military personal weapon is select fire. Semi-auto or three round burst. US assault rifles no longer have the capability to fire full auto. It wastes ammo. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/130 "2012-07-27T20:56:48Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Thats not true. Since the M16A2 through the M4 that most are using now, the US military personal weapon is select fire. Semi-auto or three round burst. US assault rifles no longer have the capability to fire full auto. It wastes ammo. Isn’t that what he said? ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/131 "2012-07-27T21:44:53Z")
Yes, many US military rifles fire semi or burst. I would not call burst semi auto as it fires 2-3 rounds per trigger pull. Battle rifle is a term for a rifle firing a “full size” round. In US/NATO, this usually means 7.62x51mm aka .308 (not identical but close enough). The majority of soldiers for the past few decades use 5.56x45mm aka .223. Yes, “assault weapon” is a loaded term. “Assault rifle” is a real term but people can nitpick what it means. ETA: Battle rifles are usually select fire as well. Things like M14, H&K G3, FN FAL. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/132 "2012-07-30T02:00:40Z")
[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/) > [@](#): > > Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month. > > Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.” > > “We’ll see,” he said. > > … > > Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.” Well, I didn’t see that coming. I expect he is trying to bait the Democrats into pushing for some gun control laws. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/133 "2012-07-30T02:58:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But we can also point to nations like Mexico with strong gun control and extreme daily gun violence. And who have a nation next door to then that pours a flood of guns into their country. It’s quite the dysfunctional relationship; we get cheap labor, they get guns and criminal gangs with vast amounts of money from selling drugs to Americans. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Spree shootings are almost a non-factor. Quite frankly, I’m shocked that there are so few of them. In a country of 300m people, we don’t have more crazy people just going out that way. I’d expect dozens a year at least. The number of spree shooters is actually shockingly low in the grand scheme of things. Negligible. > > If your goal is to save lives, there are a thousand better trees to bark up than spree shooters - including just the regular background noise of gun violence, which is far more significant. There’s no justification at all on focusing on dramatic crimes over mundane ones, it’s purely an irrational emotional reaction. I agree. Both that it’s a bad basis for the law, and that’s it’s really rather odd that there are so few. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/134 "2012-07-31T05:30:38Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > Rate of homicides by firearm > > United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000) > Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000) > Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000) > France – 255 (0.389/100,000) > Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000) > United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000) > Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000) > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_politics\_in\_the\_United\_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States) Nice figures. :rolleyes:Totally worthless and cherry picked. It’s not even real stats it is “_The movie Bowling for Columbine reported the number of people killed by firearms per year. Director Michael Moore showed statistics on gun-related deaths per year for a few major countries (ordered here by deaths per 100,000):_” in other words, it is what Moore said in a movie. But “gun deaths”?:rolleyes: Cherry picked. Includes suicides and excludes bombings, knifing and other murders. Let us talk about homicide rates. [http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide\_statistics2012.xls](http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls) USA comes in @ 4.4 homicides per 100000. But yes, of North American it’s highest, other than Bermuda. Because they only put Canada, USA & Bermuda in NA. Most of South America has a higher rate, despite Gun Control= Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. The USA has a lower rate than pretty much all of Africa & the Caribbean, and much much lower than all of Central America. Well over 110 nations have a higher murder rate. 50 or so (of those with reliable data) have a lower rate, mostly in Asia (5 higher)) & Europe (but still 8 are higher). But what is really interesting is you compare date by the three mega continents. Eurasia is lowest, true. Africa is highest (no surprise). But then of the Americas, the USA comes in at the lowest end of the scale with only Canada & Chile (of the larger nations) having signifcantly lower rates (Argentine reports bogus dat, it excludes areas they consider under civil unrest, which have a very high rate).. So, basically, it’s not guns. It is who you are. Yes, Eurasia (guns or no) doesnt turn to murder much- Africa (even without guns) is deadly and the Americas are fairly dangerous in spots- of which the USA isn’t- guns or no. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/135 "2012-07-31T07:06:49Z")
Congratulations, USA, for having relatively few homicides compared to countries like Bolivia. Yeah. The list is homicides by firearm, not gun deaths. It said as much at the link and, oddly, at the top of the bit you quoted. How’d you miss that? Seeing how you don’t like Moore’s list, let’s go with the lower numbers reported by the UN [here](http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls), and, judging by your cite, you’re comfortable with as a source. I’ll average out the figures as not every country has entries for every year. (“%” is Percentage of homicides by firearm, “#” is Homicides by Firearm, “100K” is Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population, “Years averaged” should be self explanatory.) ```auto % # 100K Years averaged USA 59.30% 9741 3.3 2003-2009 Canada 32.90% 183 0.6 2003-2009 Germany 28.20% 199 0.2 2004-2010 France 9.60% 35 0.1 2007 Austr 12.30% 33 0.2 2003-2009 Japan 3.90% 29 0 2002 & 2008 ``` Long story short, it looks similar to Moore’s list. I suppose I should’ve added some third world countries in the interests of-- wait, no, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. We’re talking about firearm homicides in a first world country, not comparing countries with disparate per capita GDPs in order to sweep a serious problem under the rug-- although I see the latter is a popular sport. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/136 "2012-07-31T07:23:58Z")
**Dave** , shouldn’t you have a column there that adjusts the homicide rate per 100K by the preference for firearms vs. other methods? Seems to me, by those numbers, the relevant stat for the US is a little less than double Canada’s, not five and a half times as it might seem. (That is, I’m far more concerned with the likelihood of being killed at all than with the choice of weapon.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/137 "2012-07-31T13:04:10Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > Congratulations, USA, for having relatively few homicides compared to countries like Bolivia. > > The list is homicides by firearm, not gun deaths. It said as much at the link and, oddly, at the top of the bit you quoted. How’d you miss that? Bolivia yes- and _just about every other nation in the Americas._ Again, I dont give a rats ass about _homicides by firearm_- I am sure elsewhere they may be higher in “homicides by bolo knife”. Picking out firearms is cherry pick #1. Picking out the list of nations you do is another cherry pick as we have around 150 nations in the world. You picked 6. I picked all 150. ---
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/138 "2012-07-31T13:36:20Z")
Let me throw a couple of ideas out there: First, I think that as women get more involved in government, there will be more a voice of reason towards guns. Sure you have people like Palin and right wing women who have to represent their people but as time goes on and they are able to actually influence, I can see less gun support. Also I think time will show that the generations after the baby boomers have less and less interest in archaic ideas like the right to bear arms and are more interested in critical thinking and analysis. ---
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/139 "2012-07-31T13:45:00Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You’re lead by the nose by emotional reactions to narratives rather than a dispassionate view of the overall picture. > > I remember people after 9/11 saying that they’d never fly again. I remember how 2001 prior to that was the “summer of the shark” even though it was average to below average in shark attacks because the media decided to make it a story. I remember how a few times over the years one cute kid gets kidnapped, it somehow resonates with the public and becomes a huge news story, and suddenly parents are massively overprotective of their kids - because of one crime they’ve decided is far bigger and more important than others because of the way the narrative was presented to them. > > The idea that you react to isolated incidents, or a string of isolated incidents, as a way of determining a societal policy is a ridiculous emotional overreaction. We have a big mass shooting every few years. In the grand scheme of things, big fucking deal. Several times more people have drowned in their own swimming pools. > > So we have what, a dozen deaths per year on average from these spree shootings? Would you shape the policy of a country with over 300 million people based on 12 deaths a year? That seems absurd to me. > > Spree shootings are almost a non-factor. Quite frankly, I’m shocked that there are so few of them. In a country of 300m people, we don’t have more crazy people just going out that way. I’d expect dozens a year at least. The number of spree shooters is actually shockingly low in the grand scheme of things. Negligible. > > If your goal is to save lives, there are a thousand better trees to bark up than spree shooters - including just the regular background noise of gun violence, which is far more significant. There’s no justification at all on focusing on dramatic crimes over mundane ones, it’s purely an irrational emotional reaction. > > The idea of banning guns because of one spree shooter is as absurd to me as discussing curbing air travel because of one plane crash. Graph out spree shooters as a cause of death compared to other unnatural causes of death and let’s see the magnitude of this problem. See Mr. Beef, I propose that you are the emotional one. The reasons to keep a firearm are purely emotional ones. Either you are scared of something or it is fun to shoot them. Basically, anti-gun people see the absurdity in the fact that this killer could amass weapontry like he did. There are literally no good reasons for Americans to have guns. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/140 "2012-07-31T13:50:47Z")
> [@tomcar](#): > > Also I think time will show that the generations after the baby boomers have less and less interest in archaic ideas like the right to bear arms and are more interested in critical thinking and analysis. It’s cute that you would think that. While I’m not one that shakes his fist at the young kids “these days”, the reality is that the young today are being raised in an anti-science, anti-critical thinking environment that staggers my mind. When I was a kid we had Carl Sagan on TV every weekend, and Mr. Wizard, and later Bill Nye. While we have Neil Degrasse Tyson, he’s not on a regularly occuring show. And yes, there are Mythbusters, but even then that show is not focused on science so much these days as it is on making a big explosion and being exceedingly cool. And I’m not even going to touch on your loaded statement of gun rights being archaic", other than to say that I know of far more folks my age interested in competitive shooting than I do folks my fathers age. ---
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309/141 "2012-07-31T14:06:08Z")
> [@Tristan](#): > > It’s cute that you would think that. While I’m not one that shakes his fist at the young kids “these days”, the reality is that the young today are being raised in an anti-science, anti-critical thinking environment that staggers my mind. When I was a kid we had Carl Sagan on TV every weekend, and Mr. Wizard, and later Bill Nye. > > While we have Neil Degrasse Tyson, he’s not on a regularly occuring show. And yes, there are Mythbusters, but even then that show is not focused on science so much these days as it is on making a big explosion and being exceedingly cool. > > And I’m not even going to touch on your loaded statement of gun rights being archaic", other than to say that I know of far more folks my age interested in competitive shooting than I do folks my fathers age. What in the world are you talking about? How is being anti-guns, anti-science? How is it anti-critical thinking? If anything it is the opposite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-a-support-for-gun-control-in-the-us/629309.md?page=8)