Worldwide gun control disscussion

[Esquire]

Channel72: you are misunderstanding the statistical concepts of correlation and aggregation.

I am not misunderstanding anything. I am telling you you how the authors of the study themselves interpret the data. They see gun ownership (or wide availability of guns) as a statistically significant predictor of gun violence.

Yes, you are, and no, you aren't, or at least not entirely. I quote from your own cited article: "A reverse causal association was also possible. For example, increases in firearm homicide rates could have led to efforts by state residents to acquire guns, thus increasing gun ownership levels." Furthermore: "We conducted an ecological study with large aggregates (states) representing the units of analysis. This introduced the possibility that an unknown confounder could explain the observed relationship." They do, to be fair, claim this is unlikely because of the number of other variables controlled for, but such techniques are A) of uncertain effectiveness in such autocorrelated data, and B) still don't address the direction of causality. Gun ownership and gun deaths are statistically significant correlates, nothing more or less. As the study authors themselves say, "it is not possible in a panel study such as ours to determine causality."

There's some autocorrelation as well, between race, poverty, crime, and gun homicides among other variables, further muddying things. Correlation is not causation.

Yeah, I know amateur debaters on the Internet love to repeat the phrase "correlation is not causation", but medical professionals don't fucking care. In fact, nobody cares that in the realm of deductive logic, correlation != causation. Medical/health studies that find correlations use inductive reasoning to argue for cause and effect. The Medical Community uses correlations ALL the fucking time to affect public health/safety measures. For example, studies show that consumption of red meat is highly correlated with colon cancer, but there's no precisely known causation for this. But the point is, your doctor will tell you that if you eat red meat every single day, you're a certain percentage more likely to get colon cancer than if you didn't, even if your doctor can't tell you exactly why. And of course, even if you never eat red meat, you can still get colon cancer. And it's the same thing here. The rate of gun ownership is a statistically significant predictor of gun violence, among many other factors.

I, however, am not an amateur debater. I am a member of the medical community you mention, specifically and formally qualified to comment on statistical interpretations of public health problems. We use statistical correlations to inform experimental (/interventionary) approaches to solving public health problems. There is very little evidence that focusing specifically on gun laws actually accomplishes anything; there is, however, significant evidence that broader approaches are quite effective, for example the Perry preschool program. It is a mistake to treat gun deaths* as anything other than a single instance of the many negative effects of endemic poverty among and (therefore, see again autocorrelation) discrimination against US minority populations. Single-axis solutions do not work, both according to MKSheppard's cited data and because it is extremely and increasingly difficult to pass more restrictive gun laws in this country.

*This does not address the... ~50%, I think, of gun deaths which are suicides; this is a separate - although related, see again autocorrelation - and similarly complex problem with just as many contributing factors.

[Channel72]

Gun ownership and gun deaths are statistically significant correlates, nothing more or less. As the study authors themselves say, "it is not possible in a panel study such as ours to determine causality."

Yeah... and I never claimed anything more than that. As you obviously know, many public health problems are informed by statistically significant correlates. Why, when it comes to gun violence, are we ignoring this correlation?

I, however, am not an amateur debater. I am a member of the medical community you mention, specifically and formally qualified to comment on statistical interpretations of public health problems.

Awesome. Then please forgive my assumption.

We use statistical correlations to inform experimental (/interventionary) approaches to solving public health problems. There is very little evidence that focusing specifically on gun laws actually accomplishes anything; there is, however, significant evidence that broader approaches are quite effective, for example the Perry preschool program. It is a mistake to treat gun deaths* as anything other than a single instance of the many negative effects of endemic poverty among and (therefore, see again autocorrelation) discrimination against US minority populations. Single-axis solutions do not work, both according to MKSheppard's cited data and because it is extremely and increasingly difficult to pass more restrictive gun laws in this country.

So you admit that statistical correlations are used to inform solutions to public health problems... and you admit that there is a statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and gun violence... but then dismiss this by saying that single-axis solutions like gun control measures simply don't work in practice.

Firstly, whether or not specific legislation at the state or city level actually works is completely orthogonal to the fact that a correlation actually exists. Secondly, I'm not proposing here a specific state-level or city-level solution, just trying to establish that a significant correlation between gun violence and gun ownership actually exists. We all know, as I've said countless times, that this is a multi-faceted problem rooted in concentrated poverty, incarceration rates, and systemic racism. But the study attempts to address the problem of autocorrelation and reverse causal association. The fact that they "cannot determine causation" does not prevent us from maintaining that there is significant statistical evidence for the hypothesis that "gun ownership rates affect subsequent firearm homicide rates".

Finally, I admit that a reverse causal association (homicide rates increase gun ownership) is also a possible explanation of the data, although the study addresses this by pointing out that with a lagged variable, gun ownership was still a significant predictor of homicide rates. It's also worth noting that the worst states (in terms of gun ownership and homicide) include places like Mississippi and Louisiana, both of which suffer from serious poverty issues, but also places like Alaska and Wyoming, which have high rates of gun ownership and gun homicides, but where the median income is above average. In many of these instances, things like concentrated poverty and incarceration rates are not present to a significant degree in the states that have high gun rates + high gun homicides. It's also worth noting, that according to this survey at least, most gun owners are median income ($50-100K) individuals - they are not poor and not living in the hood. This would seem to count against the reverse causal association hypothesis, which would lead us to expect to see many low income people become gun owners, to protect themselves from gun violence in their neighborhoods.

[Esquire]

Gun ownership and gun deaths are statistically significant correlates, nothing more or less. As the study authors themselves say, "it is not possible in a panel study such as ours to determine causality."

Yeah... and I never claimed anything more than that. As you obviously know, many public health problems are informed by statistically significant correlates. Why, when it comes to gun violence, are we ignoring this correlation?

The short answer is: because it has no practical significance. What can we reasonably do with the information that more guns equals 0.9% more gun deaths?

I, however, am not an amateur debater. I am a member of the medical community you mention, specifically and formally qualified to comment on statistical interpretations of public health problems.

Awesome. Then please forgive my assumption.

Certainly. I note - this isn't directed at you, really it isn't - that this site tends to react both quickly and harshly to any sign of disagreement. It's unfortunate; we can't improve without disagreement. I note preemtively that an ability to contribute to constructive debate is necessary to this.

We use statistical correlations to inform experimental (/interventionary) approaches to solving public health problems. There is very little evidence that focusing specifically on gun laws actually accomplishes anything; there is, however, significant evidence that broader approaches are quite effective, for example the Perry preschool program. It is a mistake to treat gun deaths* as anything other than a single instance of the many negative effects of endemic poverty among and (therefore, see again autocorrelation) discrimination against US minority populations. Single-axis solutions do not work, both according to MKSheppard's cited data and because it is extremely and increasingly difficult to pass more restrictive gun laws in this country.

So you admit that statistical correlations are used to inform solutions to public health problems... and you admit that there is a statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and gun violence... but then dismiss this by saying that single-axis solutions like gun control measures simply don't work in practice.

Of course we use statistics as policy tools. Overwhelmingly we do. The problem is that statistics are, probably, the most misunderstood and the most mis-used branch of science and mathematics; simultaneously, they offer no suggestions for future policy outside the rarest circumstances. I say that single-axis solutions don't work because objectively they don't - again, see MKSheppard's data.

Firstly, whether or not specific legislation at the state or city level actually works is completely orthogonal to the fact that a correlation actually exists. Secondly, I'm not proposing here a specific state-level or city-level solution, just trying to establish that a significant correlation between gun violence and gun ownership actually exists. We all know, as I've said countless times, that this is a multi-faceted problem rooted in concentrated poverty, incarceration rates, and systemic racism. But the study attempts to address the problem of autocorrelation and reverse causal association. The fact that they "cannot determine causation" does not prevent us from maintaining that there is significant statistical evidence for the hypothesis that "gun ownership rates affect subsequent firearm homicide rates".

The short answer is, "yes, but." I am explicitly not contesting the statistical claim you mention; I observe that it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Absolutely, and I can't be clearer here, a statistically-significant correlation exists between state-level gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates. However: while this is true, it doesn't mean that reducing gun ownership rates will reduce gun homicide rates, doubly because causality has not been established and because the total national effect size is less than one percent increased risk, and even less on the individual level (see results section).

Finally, I admit that a reverse causal association (homicide rates increase gun ownership) is also a possible explanation of the data, although the study addresses this by pointing out that with a lagged variable, gun ownership was still a significant predictor of homicide rates. It's also worth noting that the worst states (in terms of gun ownership and homicide) include places like Mississippi and Louisiana, both of which suffer from serious poverty issues, but also places like Alaska and Wyoming, which have high rates of gun ownership and gun homicides, but where the median income is above average. In many of these instances, things like concentrated poverty and incarceration rates are not present to a significant degree in the states that have high gun rates + high gun homicides.

To be perfectly clear: It's neither one nor the other. Absolutely and objectively, this is not a one-dimensional problem. The problem, as I see it, is that too many of my colleagues are too focused on their own specific areas of interest to notice the larger problem, which is some awful combination of all of the above. As a direct and sincerely unfortunate consequence, any 'solution' to the 'gun violence' problem will certainly fail unless is addresses all of the contributing factors. Again, we can tell because the full gamut of gun laws have been tried, and have had no particular effect on anything except politician's 'bill's passed' numbers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just gonna chime in here. Having read the prior exchange, and given that my PhD is in quantitative biology (and you can guess what that quantitative part means [statistics]), Esquire is absolutely correct. The statistical relationship (between guns and homicide) is there, but because we cannot readily perform controlled experiments on human populations, you have to be very careful about assigning the meaning of those statistical relationships. If there is a causal relationship (which has not been determined), we dont know what direction it is in (More Guns-->More Homicide, or More Homicide-->More Guns). Plus, for complex problems like this, the data is a mess. It is autocorrelated (race and poverty for example are strongly correlated) all to hell, so making recommendations about interventions can be very difficult.

[madd0ct0r]

Presumably better mental health facilities would work well?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Presumably better mental health facilities would work well?

Not really. Most people with severe mental disorders are not dangerous to anyone but maybe themselves. There are some off-the-wall psychopathologies that only really show themselves when they land you in prison, and a few others where the person does not believe they need help. Garden variety bipolar disorder does not lead to murder. Being jealous of your spouse can, but abusers dont usually report their abuse to their therapist...

Most murders are either arguments between two people who have a competing interest (drugs, money, or in the really banal case, hockey), or relationships that implode spectacularly.

Even spree shooters dont usually do so because of their mental illness (they might have mental illnesses, but dont usually kill because of them), mostly because the overwhelming majority of mental illnesses wont overcome the psychological barrier to killing someone else. Oneself, sure, but not others.

...........

There are plenty of reasons to want better mental health facilities and access to treatment providers and medication. Homicide is not one of them.

[Channel72]

The statistical relationship (between guns and homicide) is there, but because we cannot readily perform controlled experiments on human populations, you have to be very careful about assigning the meaning of those statistical relationships. If there is a causal relationship (which has not been determined), we dont know what direction it is in (More Guns-->More Homicide, or More Homicide-->More Guns).

I would argue that there's evidence it's More Guns --> More Homicide. As I noted earlier, if it's More Homicide --> More Guns, then we should intuitively expect that the people who are most affected by homicide (inner city, low-income minorities) should be the most ardent gun owners. Yet, as far as my (admittedly hasty) research has found, this is not the case at all. Most gun owners are median income people living in the suburbs or in rural areas. So the idea that homicide rates drive gun ownership is difficult to maintain.

Now, I realize this is complicated and I can already imagine various objections to this argument: poor people just can't afford guns, poor people living in inner cities are (ironically) hampered by well-meaning gun control measures and can't legally obtain guns, etc.

But really, the more likely interpretation of all this is: gun ownership is significantly driven by politics. Middle class people rush to buy guns when sensational events (like mass shootings) are widely reported on the news, or when they fear gun laws will become more restrictive. This leads to an increase in the number of guns among civilians. Some percentage of these guns ultimately make their way into inner-cities, thus increasing the homicide rate. The homicide rate may also experience an uptick among the middle class due to things like accidents, random heated arguments, or whatever, but I don't have stats for that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would argue that there's evidence it's More Guns --> More Homicide. As I noted earlier, if it's More Homicide --> More Guns, then we should intuitively expect that the people who are most affected by homicide (inner city, low-income minorities) should be the most ardent gun owners. Yet, as far as my (admittedly hasty) research has found, this is not the case at all. Most gun owners are median income people living in the suburbs or in rural areas. So the idea that homicide rates drive gun ownership is difficult to maintain.

Most ardent? No. Not necessarily. The most ardent gun owners are those who have a lifestyle, ideology, or personal identity that somehow revolves around guns. Maybe they are hunters, or 2nd amendment activists, or are maintaining their country roots etc etc.

For people who are worried about home invasions or being shot in the streets, gun ownership is likely to me a more utilitarian exercise. These are the people with a handgun locked in their nightstand, or quietly concealed on their hip and no other weapons. No arsenal full of guns they lovingly clean weekly. In major cities that dont particularly inhibit gun ownership such people are fairly common. How common they are relative to the suburban and rural gun owners, I dont think anyone really knows because no one collects data with high enough resolution to tell.

[Channel72]

Also, regarding specific state-level and city-level legislation: many people point to Chicago or whatever as the go-to argument for why gun control measures inevitably fail. And I agree, they have a point. But the take-away from this shouldn't be that restricting access to guns is somehow fundamentally flawed. The problem is that city and state legislators inevitably have very myopic powers. Again, Illinois is not some kind of closed-off Universe, and interstate gun trafficking is very common. Stuff like this happens all the time. More than two-thirds of guns used in crimes committed in New York and New Jersey, for example, were obtained from Southern states with more relaxed gun laws.

This demonstrates that strict gun control measures in New York and New Jersey work, in the sense that they prevent criminals from obtaining guns in those states. But they fail in the sense that they don't actually prevent homicides/crime.

Which is why I don't really buy into arguments about gun restrictions mysteriously "not working". The real problem is the restrictions are too myopic - they are, by necessity, limited to certain jurisdictions. But criminals don't care about jurisdictions. Only federal level gun laws would have any hope of actually paying off in the long run. Now, of course, that won't happen due to the gun culture in America - but that doesn't mean restricting access to guns on a federal level isn't a legitimate solution.

[Channel72]

I would argue that there's evidence it's More Guns --> More Homicide. As I noted earlier, if it's More Homicide --> More Guns, then we should intuitively expect that the people who are most affected by homicide (inner city, low-income minorities) should be the most ardent gun owners. Yet, as far as my (admittedly hasty) research has found, this is not the case at all. Most gun owners are median income people living in the suburbs or in rural areas. So the idea that homicide rates drive gun ownership is difficult to maintain.

Most ardent? No. Not necessarily. The most ardent gun owners are those who have a lifestyle, ideology, or personal identity that somehow revolves around guns. Maybe they are hunters, or 2nd amendment activists, or are maintaining their country roots etc etc.

Okay, ardent isn't the best word. I mean, we should expect low-income minorities to exhibit high rates of gun ownership if homicide rates really drive gun ownership rates significantly.

How common they are relative to the suburban and rural gun owners, I dont think anyone really knows because no one collects data with high enough resolution to tell.

Yeah, the data sucks. But there's some evidence that most gun owners have a median income ($50K-$100K), and thus are not likely inner-city minorities. So the people who are most affected by homicide don't seem to be the most likely to actually own guns. This would seem to make the Homicide --> Gun Ownership interpretation of the correlation highly questionable.

[Esquire]

That's just as problematic for the opposite causality, though, which further supports the idea that it's a whole lot more complicated than just 'guns lead to murders.' There is no statistically-significant relationship at the individual level, according to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (see results section of the paper).

[TheFeniX]

The problem is: with so many people legally purchasing firearms, there's that much more in stock. Thefts aren't as big a problem as they are made out to be, (but I'm sure "thefts" or "I lost my gun" are). This means FFLs deal with that many more people and if you hit enough gun stores, you may just find one where you pass a background check when you shouldn't be able to. This also means FFLs (since there are so damn many) which exist solely to sell guns to people who aren't legally allowed to own them can hide much easier to either sell these guns directly or through straw buys ("Bring in your mom, she'll buy the gun.").

It's an old article and I've posted it before, but I've found nothing that assumes things have changed that much:

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

So, yes. High legal gun ownership likely does correlate with illegal gun ownership and crime. But the people legally buying guns aren't the problem, not directly.

There needs to be a rework at the top to keep guns from hitting the street. You don't even have to go as far as registration because once a gun has the serial filed off, that tracking is garbage and ballistics do not work like they do in NCIS (or whatever). Registration is for tracking LEGAL gun ownership, which is just not a problem in this country. We need a centralized and modern background checking system combined with accurate reporting and maybe not letting the Federal government order FFLs to sell guns to criminals and instead start performing more checks on current FFLs or just make it harder for THEM to get a license to operate.

We could also jump into how the mental health care system is garbage and recidisim rates are stupidly high in this country. Of course I can't find it, but there was a report released by either the FBI or DoJ in the middle of the last decade talking about how, depending on jurisdiction, that 65% to 85% of violent crime was committed by repeat offenders, some/many released early due to needing more room for War in Drugs mandatory minimums. I can't find the article, so I can't back this up anymore.

Stealing guns from private citizens to use in other crimes has issues. Namely, if you need a gun RIGHT NOW, you have to either know the place you are burgling has guns (which means risking armed confrontation when, by nature of why you are robbing them, you have no gun to fight back with) or you're betting THIS PARTICULAR home has guns in it you can access easily. Guns stolen out of homes are almost always thefts of opportunity. This does not jive with "I need a gun to go mug people tonight." There's too many other way to get a gun to rely on theft.

[hunter5]

Registration has flaws too due to the case Haynes v United States which said convicting a felon for not registering his/her gun would violate their 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[General Zod]

Stealing guns from private citizens to use in other crimes has issues. Namely, if you need a gun RIGHT NOW, you have to either know the place you are burgling has guns (which means risking armed confrontation when, by nature of why you are robbing them, you have no gun to fight back with) or you're betting THIS PARTICULAR home has guns in it you can access easily. Guns stolen out of homes are almost always thefts of opportunity. This does not jive with "I need a gun to go mug people tonight." There's too many other way to get a gun to rely on theft.

Or you can just go to the internet and find a private seller, which helps avoid all those pesky background checks.

[Patroklos]

This demonstrates that strict gun control measures in New York and New Jersey work, in the sense that they prevent criminals from obtaining guns in those states. But they fail in the sense that they don't actually prevent homicides/crime.

Which is why I don't really buy into arguments about gun restrictions mysteriously "not working". The real problem is the restrictions are too myopic - they are, by necessity, limited to certain jurisdictions. But criminals don't care about jurisdictions. Only federal level gun laws would have any hope of actually paying off in the long run. Now, of course, that won't happen due to the gun culture in America - but that doesn't mean restricting access to guns on a federal level isn't a legitimate solution.

This does not follow. Its not news to anyone that people will obtain guns by the easiest means possible. It is a stretch, however, to say that if you remove this disparity in ease of access that they will simply stop getting guns. If there is no benefit from sourcing their weapons from outside NY they will just return to getting them from NY, with actors in NY realizing demand has returned and supplying.

You are operating on the assumption that one's desire for guns is so flippant that they will abandon the effort if they encounter trivial hurdles. This may work for a small portion of potential gun owners, but it hardly applies to the classes of gun owners most likely to want a gun (criminals, self defense folks, 2nd amendment activists, gun fetishists). Demand for these people is inelastic to a high degree. Most importantly its not going to deter anyone likely to use their weapon illegally.

[TheFeniX]

Or you can just go to the internet and find a private seller, which helps avoid all those pesky background checks.

How popular is that? Shipping across state lines requires an FFL to be involved. I'm sure sites such as GunBroker and Craigslist are more than happy to provide applicable "paperwork" to the authorities and I don't know how many gun sellers would be keen on risking their gun beings sold to criminals, which would make them liable.

Some "Dark Net" sites are selling guns. A guy looking at a Beretta for $3,000, over 3 times the price of a legal version. This is not really conducive to getting a gun to perform robberies when they payouts are much lower and you may have to ditch your weapon or sell it off for a drastically reduced price.

I have seen some articles about Facebook being used to setup meetings. Many of them legit, but it would be a good way to expand your purchasing base while still relying on a face-to-face for illegal sales. It's basically just an expansion of what criminals have done for decades: pickup a gun from their dealer or "a guy I know." Craigslist seems to be actively fighting it, but Facebook seems to only handle it on a case-by-case basis.

[General Zod]

Or you can just go to the internet and find a private seller, which helps avoid all those pesky background checks.

How popular is that? Shipping across state lines requires an FFL to be involved. I'm sure sites such as GunBroker and Craigslist are more than happy to provide applicable "paperwork" to the authorities and I don't know how many gun sellers would be keen on risking their gun beings sold to criminals, which would make them liable.

Some "Dark Net" sites are selling guns. A guy looking at a Beretta for $3,000, over 3 times the price of a legal version. This is not really conducive to getting a gun to perform robberies when they payouts are much lower and you may have to ditch your weapon or sell it off for a drastically reduced price.

Frankly I'd be less concerned about the people buying guns to do robberies and more concerned about drug dealers buying guns to protect their turf and wannabe gangsters out to make a name for themselves.

[TheFeniX]

By nature of their "business," dealers alone are put into contact will all manner of criminals (or just people who want some drugs). This makes them a perfect middle-man to get guns passed around between criminals. Gang-bangers also have their own network of people, sometimes pulling from other states, to perpetuate their violence. This is all without much of a paper-trail.

The kinds of people I'd be worried about using the Internet for gun purchases, in the vein you're talking about, would be those who don't already have that kind of network built up. So, your solo actors. Honestly, I would expect more mass shooters to go this route, but they seem to instead rely on the failures of the broken background check/mental health reporting system.

[General Zod]

A significant amount of mass shooters purchased their weapons completely legally. The problem is high powered rifles are too easy to get.

[Grumman]

The problem is high powered rifles are too easy to get.

No it isn't. Most shootings are not done with rifles of any sort, and those that are aren't done with high-powered rifles. An AR-15 is not a high-powered rifle, no matter how many times ignorant morons scream about how black and scary it is.

[TheFeniX]

I assume by "hi-powered," you're talking more about ammo capacity since mass-shooters tend to deal with smaller caliber rounds like the .223, as opposed to Oswald going with a Caracano (in the 7mm range) and it was a bolt-action clip-fed weapon. AR-15 derivatives have probably come into popularity for shooting more for their cost vs ammo capacity and concealability not mattering than anything to do with power. They have been around for decades before they became the choice of murderous scumbags. They use to be $1500 minimum. Now they are cheaper than most mid-range pistols.

That said, they are also extremely popular among the millions of people that don't murder people for sport. And even then, other rifles do the job just fine. Even something like the cheap SKS holds 10 rounds and accepts stripper clips. In fact, with zero machining to the weapon, but modifying the magazine: they can even accept AK mags (increasing the ammo capacity to 30 rounds). The Mini-14 basically IS an AR-15, except it's woodstock version couldn't even make it onto the proposed list for the new AWB, even though the Takedown version did.

Now, I'm a big fan of tightening up the bullshit that lead to the Virginia tech shooter getting his guns, but going after rifles is punishing millions for due to a few bad eggs isn't an answer I'd give. And if law abiding citizens should be able to purchase firearms, and some do, then become murdering assholes. Them the breaks. If someone "snaps" and becomes a murderer, that's just how shit happens as terrible as it is. It's been proven time and again that these people will modify their tactics based on what's available. Bombs, low-capacity rifles/pistols, shotguns, vehicles, even resorting to stabbing toddlers.

Just like how your garden-variety criminal shifts tactics based on what's available, it doesn't change his desire/need to commit crimes. I'm much more interested in determining WHO is going to murder people rather than using that time to ban one method they might use to commit their crime.

[Simon_Jester]

Which is why I don't really buy into arguments about gun restrictions mysteriously "not working". The real problem is the restrictions are too myopic - they are, by necessity, limited to certain jurisdictions. But criminals don't care about jurisdictions. Only federal level gun laws would have any hope of actually paying off in the long run. Now, of course, that won't happen due to the gun culture in America - but that doesn't mean restricting access to guns on a federal level isn't a legitimate solution.

The problem with that is that you're taking parts of the country that don't have a major gun crime problem, and telling them that there is this category of valuable property that they can't own or trade in, due entirely to the action of criminals who live hundreds of miles away.

It seems a bit unfair.

One of the reasons there IS a gun control debate in America is that there are sharp regional differences between the issue. Guns are viewed as a dangerous tool of criminals in the cities, but as a routine tool of personal protection in rural areas. Trying to legislate gun possession for the rural areas because of their impact on the cities is basically telling the rural areas that cities "outrank" them.

[Broomstick]

Also, regarding specific state-level and city-level legislation: many people point to Chicago or whatever as the go-to argument for why gun control measures inevitably fail. And I agree, they have a point. But the take-away from this shouldn't be that restricting access to guns is somehow fundamentally flawed. The problem is that city and state legislators inevitably have very myopic powers. Again, Illinois is not some kind of closed-off Universe, and interstate gun trafficking is very common.

I'm going to nitpick slightly because I keep hearing this flawed assumption all over the internet.

Chicago has highly restrictive gun laws. Illinois does not. Which is why many of the guns in Chicago come not from Indiana but from the Illinois suburbs. (Some also come from Indiana). This makes Chicago even more of an island in the sense of gun control than New York or New Jersey, which is also a factor in why Chicago gun control is so woefully ineffective.

[MKSheppard]

Or you can just go to the internet and find a private seller, which helps avoid all those pesky background checks.

Illegal for handguns for the last 20 years in Maryland, as I've pointed out. And it's been illegal to transfer handguns from a resident of one state to another state without it passing through a FFL in the recepient's state since 1968.

[MKSheppard]

Chicago has highly restrictive gun laws. Illinois does not.

FOID required to buy/possess guns and ammunition in Illinois. ISP will take away your FOID if you're fucky.

Try again.