The efficacy (or lack thereof) of Gun Control

[Emperor Tippy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
...

By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Since gun control is in the news so much these days, I figured it could be an interesting topic of discussion. To start things off, we can have the opinion of a (sane) anti-gun Democrat.

 

[Speaker4thesilent]

The inherent problem with gun control legislation, is that it is aimed at people who follow the law. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws that inconvenience them, thus they will never be effected by gun control legislation.

All such laws do is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. When you look at recent mass shooting incidents, and realize that these people were subject to, and passed background checks ...

For that matter, the Marjorie Stoneman-Douglass shooter was a known problem waiting for a chance to happen. He wasn’t arrested because school administration and the police were colluding so as not to send minorities to jail ‘disproportionately.’

Guns don’t kill people, insane liberal policies kill people.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

That's not an argument or a study, Speaker. It's a talking point masquerading as one.

I'm curious what the group here would make of this piece, tentatively concluding that an Australia-style gun buyback would have some positive effects, though perhaps not as many as gun control proponents hope?

 

[Speaker4thesilent]

That's not an argument or a study, Speaker. It's a talking point masquerading as one.

It is a logical argument that I note you have not refuted, merely labeled.

I'm curious what the group here would make of this piece, tentatively concluding that an Australia-style gun buyback would have some positive effects, though perhaps not as many as gun control proponents hope?

If people want to sell their guns to the government instead of to another private citizen, then that is their choice.

Mandating that the people of this country sell their guns to the government would be a disaster.

 

[CurtisLemay]

An interesting take by Reason magazine on why sweeping gun control just won't work.

After the Gun Ban

Looking back a few years after hypothetical new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons in private hands, we see a country grown more divided, but no less armed.

reason.com

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

It is a logical argument that I note you have not refuted, merely labeled.

You claimed that 'criminals will never be effected by gun control legislation'. I don't see much evidence of that, especially since gun control laws in other countries as far as I'm aware have successfully reduced general access to guns.

Your argument that criminals don't care about laws seems counter-intuitive to me, since firstly many criminals use firearms that they obtained legally, and secondly gun control seems like it would decrease demand for guns, that in turn seems like it would decrease supply, and therefore make it harder to obtain illegal ones. Per the ACIC, most illegal firearms in Australia were stolen from their legal owners. Any legislation that affects legal ownership of firearms therefore affects the pool from which illicit firearms are drawn.

My point is that "criminals don't care about the law" is a slogan. It's not an argument. Where is the evidence that moderate gun control policies would have no effect on the prevalence of firearms among criminals? I mean, isn't that absurd on the face of it? If we compare criminals in the UK to criminals in the US, we don't find that British criminals remain exactly as heavily-armed as their American counterparts. On the contrary: gun ownership is much lower in the UK and UK criminals are also significantly less likely to carry firearms. Illegal gun violence in the UK is orders of magnitude rarer than in the US. Clearly something has made a difference, and it seems at least plausible that maybe the much lower base rate of gun ownership has something to do with it.

Mandating that the people of this country sell their guns to the government would be a disaster.

Why?

 

[Speaker4thesilent]

You claimed that 'criminals will never be effected by gun control legislation'. I don't see much evidence of that, especially since gun control laws in other countries as far as I'm aware have successfully reduced general access to guns.

If you are talking about islands like England or even Australia, there's some truth to your words. Gun control laws in both places have reduced access to guns (Which is why the knife murder rate in England has skyrocketed, among other things.). But those are islands, and they still have new guns arriving.

The United States has a land-border with Mexico right at two thousand miles long. Do you seriously think that our porous southern border will be able to keep guns from Central-American Failed and Near-Failed States out? Because they sure as shit can't keep drugs from crossing that border. It's a sieve.

Your argument that criminals don't care about laws seems counter-intuitive to me, since firstly many criminals use firearms that they obtained legally,

This is true about mass shootings, certainly. Mass shootings are not even a tithe of gun crimes. Look at the murder rate in Chicago.

and secondly gun control seems like it would decrease demand for guns, that in turn seems like it would decrease supply, and therefore make it harder to obtain illegal ones.

This looks a lot like victim blaming to me. Because Lawful Gun Owner A had two guns stolen from him, and those guns were subsequently used in other crimes, he is now a part of the problem? This is, however, part of what I mean about criminals not caring about laws. They're quite happy to steal a gun, or buy one out of the back of someone's car.

Where is the evidence that moderate gun control policies would have no effect on the prevalence of firearms among criminals?

Look at Chicago and Washington DC. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. They're also its murder capitols. We already have moderate gun control in America. We do not need extreme gun control, which is what is now being pursued. None of the laws currently being advocated would have stopped any of the recent Mass Shootings.

Why?

Do you want a second civil war? Because requiring lawful gun owners to sell their guns to the government would start one.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, it would send the message to ~50% Americans that the government was becoming an oppressive European or Soviet-style authoritarian government (more than it already is, anyway).

From the perspective of a large part of the country, the only reason to confiscate lawfully held guns is because the government doesn't want the people to be able to be able to defend themselves against that same government should they continue down the path of Progressivism to its ultimate conclusion: the sort of Stalinistic purges that always seem to occur when a government goes full Left-Wing (Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mao in China, Stalin in the USSR, etc).

Charlton Heston spoke for a large minority of Americans all those years ago when he said, "From my cold, dead hands."

Think I've addressed all your points, but I may have gotten things out of order. Apologies for the spaghetti.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

If you are talking about islands like England or even Australia, there's some truth to your words. Gun control laws in both places have reduced access to guns (Which is why the knife murder rate in England has skyrocketed, among other things.). But those are islands, and they still have new guns arriving.

What about continental European countries? Or Asian countries? Sure, it's easy to smuggle goods into countries with land borders - but it's not infinitely easier. Border enforcement with Mexico serves to reduce at least some illicit trade, no? Why would firearms be any different to any other product?

This is true about mass shootings, certainly. Mass shootings are not even a tithe of gun crimes. Look at the murder rate in Chicago.

That's not a response to my point. What do murders in Chicago have to do with many gun crimes involving firearms that were acquired legally?

This looks a lot like victim blaming to me. Because Lawful Gun Owner A had two guns stolen from him, and those guns were subsequently used in other crimes, he is now a part of the problem?

I don't give a damn about blame. I care about how to balance the public's legitimate desire to own firearms, for sport, recreation, hunting, etc., with the public's equally legitimate and compelling desire for public safety. I honestly do not care who, if anyone, you would blame for anything. Blame and victimhood don't come into it for me.

Look at Chicago and Washington DC. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. They're also its murder capitols. We already have moderate gun control in America. We do not need extreme gun control, which is what is now being pursued. None of the laws currently being advocated would have stopped any of the recent Mass Shootings.

I think fighting over 'moderate' or 'extreme' language is unlikely to helpful. It seems to me that gun control legislation similar to that of Australia's would, following the SSC post I linked, probably save thousands of American lives from murder every year, and many more thousands of deaths from suicide. I also think that Australia-style gun laws would mean that it would remain perfectly legal and manageable for people to obtain firearms for reasonable private use.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, it would send the message to ~50% Americans that the government was becoming an oppressive European or Soviet-style authoritarian government (more than it already is, anyway).

Do you think that Australia has a Soviet-style authoritarian government? It seems to me that your language here is overblown and extremely emotive. I'm going to to try to be a Vulcan here - ignore all hyperbole and emotion. Shouting "Mao!", "Stalin!", or "Progressivism!" is a waste of everyone's time and brain cells, in my opinion.

 

[FriedCFour]

I'm curious what the group here would make of this piece, tentatively concluding that an Australia-style gun buyback would have some positive effects, though perhaps not as many as gun control proponents hope?

I dont believe that it is ever correct for the government to mass confiscate property under pain of imprisonment because of the actions of a few individuals. Pointing a gun at someones head and forcing them to disarm when they have done nothing wrong but keeping all the protection for yourself is a bad thing. After all, we dont get private guards or tax payer funded Capitol Police and Secret Service to protect us at all times, they do. Instead average citizens protection is the insurance that, after we are murdered, assaulted, robbed or raped, someone might show up and might catch the guy who did it.

 

[Speaker4thesilent]

It seems to me that gun control legislation similar to that of Australia's would, following the SSC post I linked, probably save thousands of American lives from murder every year, and many more thousands of deaths from suicide. I also think that Australia-style gun laws would mean that it would remain perfectly legal and manageable for people to obtain firearms for reasonable private use.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect on both counts. For all that mass shootings get widespread media coverage, there are frequently attempted ones that are stopped short by lawfully armed citizens. You aren't going to stop someone who wants to commit a mass shooting by restricting guns. Somebody that unhinged will use explosives or firebombs instead. What are you going to do? Outlaw gasoline because it can be used to make molotovs?

Second of all, such a measure would be unconstitutional. The second amendment protects Americans rights to keep and bear arms. The founders knew what they were doing with that amendment, and why. They had just fought a rebellion against England and won it, largely because the citizenry was armed. If they had tyrannical ambitions, the first thing to go would have been the self-same arms that had already helped one rebellion against an authoritarian regime to succeed.

Instead, they very deliberately left those weapons in place, because they recognized that an armed citizenry is impossible for a government to oppress. You seem to be of the opinion that Government is part of the solution.

I would submit that government is, as always, part of the problem. Again, I point you at the areas of this country with the highest incidences of murder. You will find that the vast majority of them are in areas with the strictest gun control laws.

Do you think that Australia has a Soviet-style authoritarian government? It seems to me that your language here is overblown and extremely emotive. I'm going to to try to be a Vulcan here - ignore all hyperbole and emotion. Shouting "Mao!", "Stalin!", or "Progressivism!" is a waste of everyone's time and brain cells, in my opinion.

Sir or Ma'am, you are entitled to your opinion, but what recourse would Australia's citizens have if their government decided to head down that path? And citations about the decrease in Australia's murder rate are suspect. Not only was data collection aparently spotty before the early 90s, there has been a general decrease in the murder rate across the Western world since the 90s. Even in America, and we haven't confiscated everyone's guns. In fact, there is good reason to believe that gun ownership has increased in America during the time in question.

Spoiler: Proof

I believe that you have good intentions, but good intentions are not a panacea.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I think America’s culture is extremely different from that of non-American countries and that we would never better the Latin American gun violence rate because our culture, based on the American ecoregions and with indigenous influence, is far more focused on personal freedom than any Eurasian dominant culture, and that our similarities with the rest of the Anglosphere are highly deceptive.

 

[Speaker4thesilent]

I think America’s culture is extremely different from that of non-American countries and that we would never better the Latin American gun violence rate because our culture, based on the American ecoregions and with indigenous influence, is far more focused on personal freedom than any Eurasian dominant culture, and that our similarities with the rest of the Anglosphere are highly deceptive.

The only point at which I disagree with you is that there is a serious cultural dilution of the historical ‘American Culture’ due to the left’s endemic dislike of it and the continual influx of illegal and unassimilated immigrants. We need to close down most immigration for another forty years to let all the people that are here now assimilate.

Well, and kick the illegals and fake asylum seekers out.

 

[Deleted member 1]

The only point at which I disagree with you is that there is a serious cultural dilution of the historical ‘American Culture’ due to the left’s endemic dislike of it and the continual influx of illegal and unassimilated immigrants. We need to close down most immigration for another forty years to let all the people that are here now assimilate.

Well, and kick the illegals and fake asylum seekers out.

I actually think in some respects that we share more in common with Latin America than Europe. The indigenous roots of American government are well understood and participatory government was well-established in indigenous American societies. America is the “Continent of Republicanism”, and Columbia her natural leader. I have some real sympathies to early 20th century Pan-Americanism and I think the core essence of America could survive Latinization in a way it couldn’t survive Islamization, for instance. That doesn’t mean we should have open borders, of course, because loyalty is a trait we should cultivate in our citizens, especially to our laws. But I think people we believe they can just disarm America like some European country are joking themselves. Culturally Americans have a strong instinct to just ignore orders and go somewhere else and that predates European influence, even among Native Americans it was the case. It’s in the blood of our land.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

I think America’s culture is extremely different from that of non-American countries and that we would never better the Latin American gun violence rate because our culture, based on the American ecoregions and with indigenous influence, is far more focused on personal freedom than any Eurasian dominant culture, and that our similarities with the rest of the Anglosphere are highly deceptive.

This is correct, but for this discussion, we have two distinct cultures in the US. We have the inner city "ghetto" neighborhoods, and the rest of the country, which includes the cities that actually contain the inner city neighborhoods, other cities and our vast suburban and rural areas. The former are extremely violent. The rest are bucolic, with violent crime rates lower than most of Europe and Canada. I believe it was Lott, who studied demographically similar US and Canadian communities along the border. Ours had less violent crime.

If you get rid of about two dozen neighborhoods, our violence rate plunges. The problem is, we haven't a clue how to "get rid of them." We obviously can't send them to the Moon. There are two general philosophies for how to deal with them, Democrat and Republican. All the trouble neighborhoods are in Democrat hands, and have been since time immemorial, and aren't likely to change, anytime soon. So we appear to be in an impasse. Nothing will change. I argue that the Democrats don't want them to change, so they can use them as an excuse to disarm America, rendering us helpless, and establish a permanent socialist dictatorship.

 

[prinCZess]

I'm curious what the group here would make of this piece, tentatively concluding that an Australia-style gun buyback would have some positive effects, though perhaps not as many as gun control proponents hope?

This was actually very interesting to read, and I appreciate the effort at actual statistical modeling of the problem that's at least attempting to be less partisan. That said, besides a few other more in-the-weeds issues, there's probably a matter that's not being considered of pure scale and...enforceability? Some 300 million firearms in the US (and potentially many more, our counts on the topic are not anything close to good), with some notable-percentage of that being the kind of semi-automatic, magazine-fed firearms an Aussie-buyback would be looking for, and (I make this based just on anecdotal observation compared to observed Aussie attitudes, not any kind of hard basis) a stronger current of 'from my cold dead hands' in US owners' outlook to the topic.

Whether such a buyback would actually have a statistically comparable impact seems a pretty major stretch. From the former standpoint because absolute numbers of firearms probably factors in heavily (and I'd be curious what 'origin-point' of criminal guns would be hit (page 7, table 5)? Presumably those obtained from another individual? But that makes up ~14% of criminal firearms, ignoring straw purchases which, presumably, would still go through even with this new gun-control measure). From the latter standpoint, because American attitudes would probably present a lower degree of compliance with an Aussie-style buyback proposal (something seen in a related way by the noncompliance presumed to be occurring with the NY SAFE Act and others...Unless the presumption is those arms are removed from circulation in the criminal market as 'criminals' whose only crime is the possession of them hoard them? That...actually makes a degree of sense?).

In any case--that's my .02 cents on the bit.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

If you get rid of about two dozen neighborhoods, our violence rate plunges.

I would caution on this general topic that those neighborhoods are universally, to my knowledge, heavily urbanized. And, again to my knowledge (so may be wrong. It happens occaisonally ), urbanization itself has a positive correlation with crime in general simply because there's so much more opportunity for such (alongside other possible/probable factors like isolation, alienation, anonymity, increased gang activity, etc.). So there's other causal factors at work that contribute, not all of which might be easily impacted by government policy (can't remove the impact--which I think there is--of population density on a city's crime rate with even the best of policing or such, for example).

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

I would caution on this general topic that those neighborhoods are universally, to my knowledge, heavily urbanized. And, again to my knowledge (so may be wrong. It happens occaisonally ), urbanization itself has a positive correlation with crime in general simply because there's so much more opportunity for such (alongside other possible/probable factors like isolation, alienation, anonymity, increased gang activity, etc.). So there's other causal factors at work that contribute, not all of which might be easily impacted by government policy (can't remove the impact--which I think there is--of population density on a city's crime rate with even the best of policing or such, for example).

But the rest of those cities are relatively quiescent. There are neighborhoods in Chicago that I don't like to drive through. Others, I would willingly walk the streets, day or night. Now the typical nice neighborhood in Chicago, say Wriglyville, may be less safe than say, Hinsdale, but they are vastly better than parts of the South Side.

 

[Deleted member 1]

This is correct, but for this discussion, we have two distinct cultures in the US. We have the inner city "ghetto" neighborhoods, and the rest of the country, which includes the cities that actually contain the inner city neighborhoods, other cities and our vast suburban and rural areas. The former are extremely violent. The rest are bucolic, with violent crime rates lower than most of Europe and Canada. I believe it was Lott, who studied demographically similar US and Canadian communities along the border. Ours had less violent crime.

If you get rid of about two dozen neighborhoods, our violence rate plunges. The problem is, we haven't a clue how to "get rid of them." We obviously can't send them to the Moon. There are two general philosophies for how to deal with them, Democrat and Republican. All the trouble neighborhoods are in Democrat hands, and have been since time immemorial, and aren't likely to change, anytime soon. So we appear to be in an impasse. Nothing will change. I argue that the Democrats don't want them to change, so they can use them as an excuse to disarm America, rendering us helpless, and establish a permanent socialist dictatorship.

The sons of the fathers, who were carried to this land... We did create that problem, and we cannot as yet solve it. I don’t think you can solve it at all without abandoning the notion of a single system working. I had some lovely discussions with a Black Nationalist on another board some time ago about the need to accept the unthinkable and negotiate with the African-American population on a nation-to-nation basis. Marcus Garvey was right. He taught self-reliance and hard work and capitalism, fundamental conservative values, for an independent and proud people.

 

[Marianne Williamson]

That's not an argument or a study, Speaker. It's a talking point masquerading as one.

I'm curious what the group here would make of this piece, tentatively concluding that an Australia-style gun buyback would have some positive effects, though perhaps not as many as gun control proponents hope?

Suprised to see you here, I was under the impression you weren’t exactly on good terms with this milieu.

I think the issue I’ve seen with a lot of these arguments from both sides is that they lack both of the following things:

a) A coherent way of measuring the types of guns banned in combination with how dangerous they are. Some form of weighted average system and higher values going to more dangerous guns.

b) Looking at the differential between those guns being added onto those micro situations, with a solid theory on the effects of each. This will be possible by measuring before and after effects of different laws + a).

c) Adjusting to open borders and flat out scrapping any form of autarkic modal of gun laws.

d) Some way of measuring the quality of law enforcement. Number of police offers per capita would be a good start, however that’s still far from complete.

e) Adjusting to the error term, so anything else changing the function.

...

Because the alternative I’ve seen on SB seems to be using simple correlation of number of guns and deaths. That kind of thing would get you laughed out of any basic econometrics or data science course.

As a starting point, countries don’t have measure gun ownership and homocides all in the same way. Comparing them and trying to find links is an intellectually bankrupt approach and the gun lobby need something more solid to argue with.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

It's worth noting that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership (The 2017 report from Small Arms Survey has estimated that the number of civilian-held firearms in Switzerland is of 2.332 million, which given a population of 8.4 million corresponds to a gun ownership of around 27.6 guns per 100 residents.[ Other estimates place the number of privately-held firearms upwards to 3.400 million, giving the nation an estimate of 41.2 guns per 100 people) around and one of the lowest murder rates (There were 50 murders in Switzerland last year, which is in line with the average over recent years. Half of those homicides were domestic. Three of the murders committed last year remain unsolved).

 

[ReeeFallin]

You claimed that 'criminals will never be effected by gun control legislation'. I don't see much evidence of that, especially since gun control laws in other countries as far as I'm aware have successfully reduced general access to guns.

Other countries aren't this one. This one has never seen an improvement from gun control laws. Yes, American exceptionalism; we have an exceptional amount of guns in circulation.