I love when people ignore hard statistics on how places with LESS GUNS have LESS GUN VIOLENCE (oh my god!!! who would have though???).

thought *

Also, do people not realize how much harder it is to commit MASS murder without a gun? And, other countries have similar if not worse social problems than the US and don't suffer from as much mass shootings. Just because *YOU* might be responsible at this very time does not mean your neighbor can not develop mental issues and utilize the same weapon that might have "saved" him.

I also love it when people ignore hard statistics on how places with a LOT OF GUNS have CLOSE TO ZERO GUN VIOLENCE (I'm looking at you Switzerland).

@DemonOverlord, you do realize that outlawing guns doesn't make the 300+ million guns already in the US disappear, right? Or that many mass shootings have been carried out by individuals who could not and/or did not legally purchase firearms already (for example the under18 perpetrators of the Columbine shooting or the mental case who did the Sandy Hook shooting with a stolen gun). Criminals are going to steal guns or obtain them through the black market. Breaking the law is what they do.

Why should law abiding citizens suffer for what criminals do?

By that argument, you should be allowed to own nuclear weapons so long as you follow necessary precautions, because if you aren't planning on nuking someone with it, it's all ok?

I would like to ask a question about gun laws and gun crimes in Chicago:
Do we know whether one of them causes the other? I think that someone tried to imply here that tighter gun laws only increase the casualties sustained, but perhaps the gun laws got tightened up because there were more casualties sustained, and it's better now than before?

I have no clue, just asking.

Australia used to have gun laws similar to that in the US, then a mass shooting in the 90's prompted the government to recall all guns. The government announced that they would buy up all privately-owned guns, while making it illegal to own a gun without permit. It worked, and now very few people have guns in Australia.

So the moral of the story is, if you throw enough money at a problem, it will disappear. It can certainly be done in the US, if the political will is there.

There has been a steady decline since the 1990s but get this:

The Chicago gun laws were actually *stricter* before then. In the 1980s, Chicago banned the possession of handguns. around this time, the murder rate was around 9 per 100,000, it shot up in the early 90s to almost 12, then steadily dropped to around 6 by 2004, where it has stayed for nearly a decade until just recently 2014 it hit 5.3 per 100,000. Mind you, the laws in Chicago have been steadily becoming more relaxed on obtaining a gun.

The Australian program, however, didn't really accomplish anything of substance.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html

@Gobbledydook
I think the problem here is a difference of culture. It's illegal to possess a gun in 95% of the country without a permit, it's just that more people are willing to go out and get a permit.

Also, have you looked at the murder rates graphs for australia? the rate hasn't drop much more (if at all) than the drop in murder rates in Chicago in recent years.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

@ Chaqa: "I have several justifications, Jamiet. I choose not to provide them because it isn't relevant to the discussion."

Asking you why you choose to be a gun owner is not relevant to a discussion about gun ownership?

Ok. Right. Sure. Anything you say.

I am reminded of the joke about how many psychologists it takes to change a light bulb. The answer is any number, but the light bulb has to want to change.

Stricter gun controls in the US are impossible until the majority of the population demand them. I have no idea what the tipping point will be. In the meantime, hundreds of innocent people will be killed every year by sick people with easy access to guns. From the outside looking in the situation is crazy and the gun-loons will continue to equate guns with other lethal weapons such as cars and irons and high-heeled shoes.

The majority of US citizens, gun-owners and not, believe gun control needs to increase. Unfortunately a lot of them have representatives in congress in the pocket of the NRA/gun lobby and they don't have the desire or ability to fight the hard battle needed to change that.

Sanders/Trump 2016

also invoking switzerland as a reason that americans should be able to broadly have guns and have that not lead to violence is very misinformed. mandatory military conscription leads to most men owning guns in switzerland, but there are serious restrictions on the possession of ammo, and everyone owning these guns is put through explicit training for using said guns. very different than in America where a high school drop-out with no criminal record but with all the crazy intentions in the world can go get a loaded gun at walmart with little hassle.

Back in the day, the NRA supported gun control, aka "responsible gun ownership." After gun manufacturers figured out that the second amendment is the only amendment which protects the right to buy (and own) weapons, they marketed the shit out of that and now we are swimming in firearms.

Switzerland is a very different case study. Their population does not suffer from the same issues as the US, the massive differences in class and race that appear in most countries do not hold much ground there. Them being an anomily does not negate the countless evidence that states fewer guns = less violence. Especially mass murders.

Canada....

(Note: Even then, y2k's reference holds true, as the laws in Canada promote SAFE ownership of guns, and they are much less loose than the US has ever been.)

What about Canada?

I don't know anyone in Canada who has a gun, maybe a few have one for hunting... I'm Canadian btw.

Canada has a decent amount of guns and low levels of gun violence.

I know, and so was mapleleaf, who would always be an ass to American users after every single mass shooting. Canada has the 12th highest number of guns per 100 thousand residents.

Maybe rifles for hunting. People do not feel the need to keep a gun to "protect" themselves here.

Ok then, I have a question for our American chums:

Those of you who are arguing that gun control is not the answer, and who are pointing out that other countries have high-ish levels of gun ownership and much lower rates of gun-related death.... WHY is this the case?

Why is it, Americans, that American gun owners are far more likely to be homicidal than the gun owners of other countries?

If gun ownership is not the cause of gun violence, then what *is* the cause? What drives American gun owners to kill, where their cousins in other nations manage to exercise restraint?

This is a serious question.

Eh against strict gun control. Don't think it will work. Criminals and madmen will find a way to kill people. Let responsible citizens have a way to protect themselves.

I have quite a few Canadian relatives, and around half have guns. They use them for hunting moose mostly.

I live in the UK. Ignoring the local firearms shop, I am aware of over a couple of dozen guns in private ownership within a short walk. Most of the people I know have used guns, mostly .22 sports rifles and shotguns, but also hunting rifles and assault rifles. There is no shortage of guns in Britain.

I am an American and I have guns which I regularly hunt with. I also do target practice.