3 ms·

I'm not from America so this might come off as naive (do pardon my ignorance)– but why don't people analyze what % of these horrible deaths come from guns sold

by roury 9y ago

I'm not from America so this might come off as naive (do pardon my ignorance)– but why don't people analyze what % of these horrible deaths come from guns sold legally? i.e. what % of these killers are getting their guns legitimately vs. off a black market?

CabSauce 9y ago
http://www.newsweek.com/government-wont-fund-gun-research-stop-violence-because-nra-lobbying-675794 http://www.newsweek.com/government-wont-fund-gun-research-st...
nostrademons 9y ago
Usually whenever a mass shooting occurs the media eventually reports on whether the firearms used were acquired legally or not. In the vast majority of cases I can recall, they were. It's uncertain whether this tells us anything useful, though, because the important question is would the killer still have acquired the weapons even if guns were illegal, i.e. given this particular killer, would he have been willing & able to break the law and acquire black market guns even if they were not legal. This is a counterfactual that's different to answer, because the fact is that guns are legal in the U.S. There's evidence on both sides - on one hand, murder is illegal everywhere and so there's ample evidence that the killer is willing to break laws, on the other, countries that have outlawed guns have reported significantly fewer incidents of mass shootings. (Not necessarily fewer instances of terrorism, though; domestic terrorists there end up using Semtex, nerve gas, or homemade claymore mines instead.)
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  When things get real, like with proliferation of nuclear weapons, no one argues in favor of proliferation. It's only when poor people's lives are at stake, there is a lot of PR to essentially let them get killed with guns and make money in the process, rich can afford to protect themselves.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    No, when things get real, only the people who already have nuclear weapons or have no chance of acquiring them argue in favor of non-proliferation. Many states on the cusp of achieving them - Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea - argued very vociferously that they should be allowed to have them, and then went ahead and developed them over the strenuous objections of the existing nuclear powers. And once a state has them, it's very rare that they will argue to ban them. We've been talking about a comprehensive ban on nuke possession since the end of the Cold War, but it's 25 years later and there are still thousands of nukes in active service. Who's the biggest objector to banning them entirely? The U.S. So it is with guns. People who already own guns argue very strongly that they should be allowed to keep them, but are fine with new restrictions on who can buy them. People who might want to own a gun (or own more guns) in the future argue against any form of gun control. People who would never consider owning a gun argue that they should be banned entirely. It's pretty predictable self-interest, and where you stand on the issue depends a lot on where you stand on possession.
- yongjik 9y ago
  Banning guns works really well in many countries. If all guns are banned, even obtaining a gun illegally becomes much harder. So dumb criminals can't get guns. Smart criminals know that using a gun will make them the target of nationwide attention, so they stay away from guns. (Anybody who tries using a gun against another person are quickly listed among the nation's top wanted, and their criminal careers are usually cut short pretty quickly.) As a bonus, police officers will never shoot you even if you're jogging at 2 am in a back alley holding a baseball bat, because what justification would they have? They thought you might shoot them? Yeah as if that kind thing happens here.
- nbanks 9y ago
  Breivik managed to obtain his guns legally in Norway despite fairly tough gun control. It took him a while to do it. He said his semi-automatic .223 would be used for deer hunting. It would make sense to ban semi-automatic rifles since bolt action rifles should be good enough for hunting. Paddock had ten times as many guns, many of which were modified with bump stocks to make them practically fully automatic. It would be much more difficult to achieve this starting with a bolt action rifle.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    And Breivik only legally got guns after trying, and failing, to illegally get guns in Prague.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Murders are committed with illegal guns, suicides are committed by people with legal guns and mental health problems. I'm painting with a roller here. The pro-gun crowd doesn't like the mental health side because it's a possible end run around the 2a. The anti-gun crowd doesn't like to acknowledge that a lot of violent gun crime is committed with guns that are illegal under existing law.
megaman22 9y ago
In a number of states, it's almost impossible to determine the chain of custody of any particular firearm. It's no more difficult or encumbered by regulation to buy, sell, or swap them than it is lawn mowers or picture frames, between private individuals. The state I grew up in, Uncle Henry's was always full of people with ads selling rifles and shotguns, or offering to trade them for a boat.

by roury 9y ago

CabSauce 9y ago

http://www.newsweek.com/government-wont-fund-gun-research-stop-violence-because-nra-lobbying-675794 http://www.newsweek.com/government-wont-fund-gun-research-st...

nostrademons 9y ago

Usually whenever a mass shooting occurs the media eventually reports on whether the firearms used were acquired legally or not. In the vast majority of cases I can recall, they were. It's uncertain whether this tells us anything useful, though, because the important question is would the killer still have acquired the weapons even if guns were illegal, i.e. given this particular killer, would he have been willing & able to break the law and acquire black market guns even if they were not legal. This is a counterfactual that's different to answer, because the fact is that guns are legal in the U.S. There's evidence on both sides - on one hand, murder is illegal everywhere and so there's ample evidence that the killer is willing to break laws, on the other, countries that have outlawed guns have reported significantly fewer incidents of mass shootings. (Not necessarily fewer instances of terrorism, though; domestic terrorists there end up using Semtex, nerve gas, or homemade claymore mines instead.)

zzzcpan 9y ago
When things get real, like with proliferation of nuclear weapons, no one argues in favor of proliferation. It's only when poor people's lives are at stake, there is a lot of PR to essentially let them get killed with guns and make money in the process, rich can afford to protect themselves.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  No, when things get real, only the people who already have nuclear weapons or have no chance of acquiring them argue in favor of non-proliferation. Many states on the cusp of achieving them - Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea - argued very vociferously that they should be allowed to have them, and then went ahead and developed them over the strenuous objections of the existing nuclear powers. And once a state has them, it's very rare that they will argue to ban them. We've been talking about a comprehensive ban on nuke possession since the end of the Cold War, but it's 25 years later and there are still thousands of nukes in active service. Who's the biggest objector to banning them entirely? The U.S. So it is with guns. People who already own guns argue very strongly that they should be allowed to keep them, but are fine with new restrictions on who can buy them. People who might want to own a gun (or own more guns) in the future argue against any form of gun control. People who would never consider owning a gun argue that they should be banned entirely. It's pretty predictable self-interest, and where you stand on the issue depends a lot on where you stand on possession.
yongjik 9y ago
Banning guns works really well in many countries. If all guns are banned, even obtaining a gun illegally becomes much harder. So dumb criminals can't get guns. Smart criminals know that using a gun will make them the target of nationwide attention, so they stay away from guns. (Anybody who tries using a gun against another person are quickly listed among the nation's top wanted, and their criminal careers are usually cut short pretty quickly.) As a bonus, police officers will never shoot you even if you're jogging at 2 am in a back alley holding a baseball bat, because what justification would they have? They thought you might shoot them? Yeah as if that kind thing happens here.
nbanks 9y ago
Breivik managed to obtain his guns legally in Norway despite fairly tough gun control. It took him a while to do it. He said his semi-automatic .223 would be used for deer hunting. It would make sense to ban semi-automatic rifles since bolt action rifles should be good enough for hunting. Paddock had ten times as many guns, many of which were modified with bump stocks to make them practically fully automatic. It would be much more difficult to achieve this starting with a bolt action rifle.
- DanBC 9y ago
  And Breivik only legally got guns after trying, and failing, to illegally get guns in Prague.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

Murders are committed with illegal guns, suicides are committed by people with legal guns and mental health problems. I'm painting with a roller here. The pro-gun crowd doesn't like the mental health side because it's a possible end run around the 2a. The anti-gun crowd doesn't like to acknowledge that a lot of violent gun crime is committed with guns that are illegal under existing law.

megaman22 9y ago

In a number of states, it's almost impossible to determine the chain of custody of any particular firearm. It's no more difficult or encumbered by regulation to buy, sell, or swap them than it is lawn mowers or picture frames, between private individuals. The state I grew up in, Uncle Henry's was always full of people with ads selling rifles and shotguns, or offering to trade them for a boat.