Would stricter gun control reduce gun crime in the US?

The body of research on this is growing more and more convincing every year

More Guns = more gun crime
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

• The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
• But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
• Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/gun-violence.html

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
More Guns, More Crime
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.PDF

 

Then for heavens sake and especially the sake of the little children - lobby to have those laws enforced

 

Other countries have all those issues but what they do NOT have is a plethora of guns and a toxic gun culture

 

The second amendment also contains the phrase “well regulated” which most seem to forget

 

All that causes is a civil war

 

Plus unless you have a reason you have to leave the ammunition under lock and key in a central armoury

 

So why have any laws at all? Let’s ditch all road rules, throw out all food regulations, shred the criminal code

 

You are discounting the “weapons effect”

 

Fine, if you're 18 and want to pay with guns, join the military.

Too young to drink is too young for weapons of war for toys.

 

How many Tim McVeigh's have there been compared to mass shooters?

Give a sociopath a highly efficient killing machine and they become a highly efficient killer. And it is orders of magnitude easier to buy an AR and hose down a crowd of people, than it is to bomb a building. Most 18 year olds would never be able to pull off what McVeigh did.

 

Well then! So much for the Switzerland argument for gun anarchy.

Limiting ammo seems to be the easiest way to start controlling this nightmare. It sounds like the Switzerland solution might be interesting to consider after all.

 

The reason is obvious. The judicial system needs a framework from which to work. That framework is the law. They define the behavior society doesn't want and prescribes the ways for the judicial system to deal with it. Laws are critical to any successful society. They just don't prevent crimes. How can this be news to you?

 

So you want to ignore the shooters. All of them are young male sociopaths. We know who they are. Don't you want to do anything about them? They are the problem.

 

It would absolutely cause a drop in gun crime if the federal government banned private ownership of firearms and then sent the military door to door to confiscate every gun in the nation and then locked down the borders to catch anyone trying to smuggle guns in. All you need to stop gun crime is to apply enough force to the population. I mean, if we can kill enough American gun owners then we'll absolutely cause a decrease in gun crime and, frankly, maybe some of those white supremacist bastards will learn the meaning of freedom! We simply can never have freedom in this country if people are allowed to have rights to things like self defense and to say stuff we generally disagree with. Until the rights of the obstructionists are crushed like maggots on a dead rat then we can never be free.

 

So? Why is it different for guns? The second amendment does say “well regulated”

 

Not ever going to happen.
Didn’t even happen in Australia and we are notorious for having got rid of assault weapons

 

Yes, because the military issues them. However, the military does NOT issue ammunition.

As for concealed carry licenses, - they are practically impossible to get in Switzerland. In other words, their gun laws are off the carts strict compared to the US.

 

In Australia people turned in between 600k and 1m guns, somewhere between 20% and 33% of owned firearms. In the US, if we got rid of 1/3 of all firearms we would still have more an 200 million guns in private hands. That would bee unacceptable to the political establishment and would necessitate a military intervention to clear up the matter. Furthermore, Australians, as we have seen over the past couple of years, don't particularly care for individual liberty. They were willing to lock Australian citizens out of their own country because of COVID and celebrated, rather than resisted, lockdowns. America ain't exactly like that. Sure, in San Francisco and NYC we'd have a bunch of people happily turn in their guns and pose for selfies while doing it. In other places we wouldn't see quite that same level of enthusiasm. Heck, when Tucson did a gun buyback a few years ago people set up tables outside the turn in location and bought guns from people that were going to turn them in. Furthermore, most of the stuff that got turned in was junk.

The ONLY way a gun ban in the US would work would be with intense military intervention and even then there's no guarantee that the military would go for it.,

 

Firstly, the way you presented the question is, I think, a bit biased. I presume the overarching goal of any additional "gun control" legislation would be reduction of violent crime overall, not just "gun crime". Legislation that merely shifts so-called "gun crimes" to different methods does nothing to benefit society at all, if fact it is a detriment because it infringes on the rights of the law-abiding. We should be careful not to conflate a decrease in gun related crime with a decrease in crime overall. And, we should be especially careful not to engage in "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy when formulating a plan to deal with the problem of violent crime.

That said, if "benefit to society" is NOT the measure by which the overall efficacy of "gun control" legislation is to be measured, and just reducing gun crimes is the goal, then YES. There is no question that if, hypothetically, you could somehow enact legislation that significantly reduced the number of firearms in criminal hands, that it would reduce "gun crimes".

Again, if those crimes merely shifted to other means, then you will end up with less gun crime, but overall detriment to free society.

 

too young to drink-to young to vote
too young to decide to change your gender
too young to get drafted
too young to face adult criminal charges

when you make comments like "play with guns" what I see is a cultural/political animus not someone who really is upset with criminals getting guns

 

which means nothing to us in the USA.

 

But they did not come door to door

Sacramento recently offered gas coupons for weapons and ran out of coupons within hours. What you are NOT understanding is that the gun buy back here the government had to offer “reasonable market price” BUT it was also done in conjunction with a ban and I KNOW that during that time you could not buy PVC piping to save your life as people buried guns in caches all over the suburbs but it still got them off the street and had mostly kept them out of the hands of criminals

You would not need “intense military intervention” simply a nice really hefty fine if caught with an illegal gun. If this comes down I might make some money selling PVC piping to America

Oh! And metal detectors lols!

 

not this garbage again-that refers to a militia in good working order-ie one when mustered can fulfill its duties. A militia of men who don't have nor know how to use weapons is hardly going to be useful when called up for an emergency. Nothing in the bill of rights was designed to confer any additional powers that the federal government was NOT granted in Article One Section Eight and well regulated-even if your erroneous interpretation was true-does not apply to the PEOPLE

 

Except to blow the “but Switzerland” argument completely out of the water

 

Except that it does refer to a “well regulated militia” not “every half witted idiot 18 year old”