Why I don't think gun control in the USA is as big a deal as is made out, sadly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

:-About 30,000 Americans are shot to death every year, and that number is rising slowly.

:-That's about one person in 10,000.

:-One person in 10,000 being killed is a lot. That's a number worth getting excited about.

:-Except that that's the wrong number. The actual number we should be considering is the *difference* between the number of people being killed by guns at the moment, and the number who would be killed under putative tighter gun control regulations.

:-I live in the UK; we have some of the best gun control in the world, and consequently we only have about one gun death per 400,000 people per year.

:-The difference between 1 death per 10,000 people per year and 1 death per 400,000 people per year is still clearly worth getting excited about.

:-Obviously, it's not a safe assumption that UK-style gun control would be as effective in the USA as it is in the UK - in fact, I think it's a safe assumption that in the short term it wouldn't be. But I think that in the long term (as more guns were found and confiscated) it might get close, and in the short term it would still do an awful lot of good.

:-But UK-style gun control isn't on the table in the USA, sadly.

:-What *is* on the table are a) bans on certain types of guns and magazines, and b) restrictions on the purchase of firearms.

:-I think that neither of those will make a very big difference to the number of gun homicides a year.

:-Why don't I think an AWB ban will make much difference? Because relatively few of those deaths used an assault weapon, and most of the people who did would probably have been able to kill many of their victims with other guns if they had had to. High-profile spree killers like Adam Lanza kill at most dozens of people a year; handguns kill tens of thousands.

:-Why don't I think background checks will do much good? I think that gun control in the UK has worked by making it hard for people who don't respect the law to get hold of guns, by reducing the number of guns for them to get hold of. I suspect that while you still have large numbers of legally-owned guns, it will be very hard to make it hard to get hold of guns illegally.

:-You could put *upper bounds* on the amount of good they will do by counting the number of deaths to assault weapons and to guns owned by people who would fail background checks. But remember, an upper bound is not an estimate - to get from those numbers to estimates, you need to reinclude every death to someone who could have killed with a non-assault weapon or purchased a gun illegally. And I think there will be a lot in both categories.

:-Certainly, neither measure will do any *harm*; if they can be passed, great - it will save some lives, and not cost any. A small number of people not dying is clearly preferable to a small number of people not dying, especially to their loved ones. It looks plausible that they may even be vote-winners*, so there's no "is this worth spending electoral capital on?" question. But I think that the people who think that either an AWB or background checks are the solution to America's gun problem are probably grossly overoptimistic. Both measures should be seen as essentially deck-chair rearrangement - they may make it easier to get the lifeboats launched, and thus save some lives, but the ship is still sinking.

:-If you really want to make a serious dent in that 1 per 10,000 per year figure, it would be easy, apart from the politics - repeal the 2nd amendment, and start confiscating. But that's clearly not going to be politically viable in the forseeable future.



*Only "plausible", not "definite" - polls asking "do you support gun control measure X" get much more encouraging results than polls asking "do you support tighter gun control", and I suspect that the latter is a more accurate measure of electoral effects.

[AndyA]

1. I can assure you to the survivors of gun victims, it's a BIGGER deal than it's made out to be.

Also, consider that not only the victims are effected, but so are their friends and families. So for each victim, multiply it by ten or twenty. Those people's lives are changed FOREVER. They never forget. It can devastate relationships and families.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether the right to bear arms supersedes the right to live your life. Since without life rights aren't necessary, it seems like the right to life is more sacred than all others, and should be treated as such, instead of the other way around, as it is now and has been for far too long.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. No, to many (probably most) of them it's not personally relevant at all.

To the survivors of that subset of gun victims *who these measures would have saved*, yes, obviously it's important.

But many (almost certainly most, although not with total confidence) gun victims would still be dead even with these measures, and so to their loved ones, it would make no difference.

[AndyA]

16. Disagree completely.

As a survivor of a victim of gun violence, I know what I'm talking about.

Doing nothing and keeping the status quo is not a solution, it's a death sentence to more innocent people.

Where is the proof that these measures wouldn't have saved people? Those are NRA talking points and the NRA stands for nothing, except increasing gun sales for the people they represent: the gun manufacturers.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I think you may have skipped over parts of what I've been saying. Possibly most of it.

I didn't say that these measures wouldn't save some people - quite the reverse, I explicitly said that they would.

What I said was that there are a great many victims of gun violence they *wouldn't* save - all those killed with non-assault weapons that were legally purchased, and all those killed by people who got hold of guns legally but who *would* have got hold of guns illegally if they couldn't get them legally.

You look like you're reciting a speech from memory, rather than trying to answer what I said.

[AndyA]

20. I understand what you're saying

Your solution is to do nothing because *some* people wouldn't be saved? That's not a solution, that's negligence.

There will always be some who break the law, but not putting prudent restrictions in place to make it more difficult for them to do so isn't the answer. Responsible gun ownership means that you don't leave guns lying around where children can get to them, or do anything with them when others are around, in case they accidentally fire. How many kids are shot by parents while Dad is fooling with his guns while junior lurks nearby?

Having a gun legally should come with responsibility, and perhaps the level of responsibility should be raised to prevent senseless killings.

Sometimes I feel like I'm reciting a speech, because some just don't get it. Guns were designed to kill, that's it. They serve no other purpose. If a person needs a magazine that can fire 30 rounds or whatever to kill Bambi, they need shooting courses, not larger magazine capacities. And NO ONE *needs* a weapon that can discharge 30 rounds in a matter of seconds.

Doing background checks for everyone, limiting the types of weapons to those used to protect yourself, hunt, or target practice, and limiting the size of magazines isn't restricting anyone's rights.

Again, doing nothing because it won't prevent all gun deaths is foolish.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. I can assure you that those who have needed guns to defend themselves it's a big deal too

As one who taught firearms to mostly GLBTs and women for defensive use, I saw a lot of the victims of violence. Those targeted by bashing or with a violent spouse that ignores restraining orders have a much higher need than most of us for effective self defense. Some posters here would remove those options while not providing those at risk with effective alternative options.

What would you propose to keep those people safe?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I'm afraid I would sacrifice their safety, or at least their perception thereof.

Guns don't do nearly as good a job of making people safer as they do of making people feel safer, but they do unquestionably save lives *on occasion*.

However, I think that getting the very small number of people whose lives were saved by civilian gun ownership *and who would not have been saved if their attacker had also not had a gun, or if they'd had pepper spray, or a klaxon, or one of the large number of other devices one can carry if one is worried about being attacked but that aren't such good murder weapons as guns are* killed is a price worth paying to save the much larger number of people killed as a direct result of gun ownership.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. So you are willing to lose a few to the betterment of all...

Could that not also be said of those who what constitutional carry? Yes there will be some improper shootings and accidents, but overall we are better off?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. "Am unable to prevent", not "am willing to".

And yes, the only difference between my claiming that gun control will save more lives than it costs and other people claiming it won't is that I'm right and they're wrong.

[AndyA]

17. How many of those wouldn't have needed guns if background checks were in place?

There are many, many guns sold with no background checks whatsoever. How many of those wind up in violent acts? If fewer were available in this manner, fewer would be available to be used illegally.

The number of deaths, whether murder, suicide, or accidental, still outnumber the incidents where guns kept people safe. Those statistics are up for debate, I realize, as it's very difficult to prove that something would have happened had it not been for someone having a gun to defend themselves with.

Ultimately, it remains a question of what's most important: life or bearing arms.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Thank you for your intelligent perspective from across the pond.

[HooptieWagon]

4. Actially, the number of deaths is on a slow decline.

And taken into account the growth in population, and in numbers of guns sold, it's a pretty substantial reduction.
Of the 30,000 deaths, about 18,000 are suicides. I fail to see where GC would affect this number...its logical to assume they will kill themselves by other methods.
Of the remaining 12,000 , most are a result of street crime. Most of the perps have records, and therefore already aren't permitted to own guns. Certainly, better background checks would put a dent in their ability to acquire guns, and is worth pursuing. About 90% of population agrees, even a majority of gun owners.
"Assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines are involved in a very statistically small number of gun deaths. More people are killed by lightning, although that doesn't make for lurid headlines. I don't see a political battle there having a positive impact, in light of the cost.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I have read otherwise elsewhere, although I can't vouch for my source.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html claims a rise, although I've only skimmed it and I can't vouch for the reliability/methodology.

Also, I think reducing availability of guns would reduce suicide numbers, possibly by a lot. Easy availability of a quick, reliable and less traumatic form of suicide in the house probably makes the threshold between contemplating and acting a lot lower, I suspect.

[HooptieWagon]

8. DOJ and Public health statistics show a decline over the past 30 years.

And of the 6 suicides I have known, 3 were by OD, 2 were by jumping, and one hung himself. Each case appears to have been fairly impulsive, although several of them did have long term issues with depression or bi-polar. They killed themselves by whatever means were immediately available when they made the decision. So, while restricting access to guns could reduce the number of suicides by guns, it might not have any impact on suicide deaths in total.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. There was a big fall about 20 years ago, I think.

The graph I linked to (with caveats) shows that there was a big fall between about 1993 and 2000. Currently, though, they seem to be rising again.

[DanTex]

7. You're wrong about suicide.

There are many studies showing that access to a gun significantly increases suicide risk. More generally, reducing access to easy and lethal means of suicide (and a gun is the easiest and by far the most lethal) does reduce suicide rates. Most suicide attempts are impulsive, as opposed to a well-thought out and long-standing desire to end one's life.

You're also wrong about the number of deaths being in slow decline. It has actually been increasing. It's true that the number of gun homicides is slowly declining, but that is primarily due to improvements in emergency medicine, along with things like cell phones that make it more likely for people to quickly get help. The number of gunshot wounds due to assaults is actually increasing, but the survival rate is increasing also.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Lack of a gun didn't prevent the 6 suicides I know.

3 by OD, 2 by jumping, and one by hanging.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I'm afraid that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.

I feel rather brutal when we're talking about the deaths of people you knew, but that doesn't change the fact that anecdotal evidence is not useful when trying to understand large-scale problems.

In this case, the majority (and I think more than two thirds) of suicides in America are by gun, so your experience is atypical.

[DanTex]

12. Obviously, it doesn't prevent all of them.

[HooptieWagon]

14. Yes. And also its obvious that banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines wouldn't reduce t

[DanTex]

10. Every incremental step is a good thing, IMO.

Obviously, background checks alone aren't going to get us to UK levels of gun violence, but say we can reduce gun deaths by 10%. That would save 3,000 lives a year, about the number that died in 9-11. Over the course of a decade, that would be 30,000 lives saved, which is about half the number of Americans who died total during the Vietnam war. The scope of the problem is so big that even small improvements yield large benefits.

One minor quibble: background checks can affect even people that are legally allowed to buy guns. This is because it makes the process of buying a gun slightly more involved and less anonymous. One example of this is Columbine. The guns used there were purchased at a gun show, with no background check. Both of the buyers were legally allowed to buy guns (the shooters couldn't buy them themselves because they were under 18), but they chose the gun show simply because they didn't want any record of the transaction. In fact, one of the buyers explicitly said that she wouldn't have bought the guns if she had to go through a background check.