From RationalWiki

An example of a well regulated firearm.

“ ” Guns don't kill people. I kill people...with guns. —Jon Lajoie[1]

In legal terms, gun control refers to limiting access, "carrying rights", or use of firearms by the general public. Access limitations consist of completely banning the sale or possession of some types of firearms (like sawn-off shotguns, bazookas, nuclear bazookas , machine guns mounted on the back of your truck , and .50's 18-inch naval guns on the foredeck of your yacht), and also regulating who is permitted to obtain firearms in general — for instance, preventing convicted felons from owning firearms, but oddly enough, not suspected terrorists.[2] It is easier to get on the "no fly list " than to be banned from owning a gun.

"Carrying rights," when regulated, limit how and where firearms may be carried on the person (or even in a vehicle) — whether in full view or "concealed." In some jurisdictions there may be restrictions requiring that firearms carried in vehicles not be in the passenger compartment.

Regulating the use of firearms often consists of preventing their discharge in densely populated regions, such as in cities and towns.

“ ” It shouldn’t be really a surprise to people. —David Hemenway on the US having "more gun deaths than any other developed country in the world."[3]

Gun control has become a highly politicized issue in the United States, for many cultural and historical reasons that no one completely understands. It is often a moot topic in other civilized countries.[note 1]

The first attempts at federal gun-control legislation in the U.S. occurred during the 1930s. During that time unscrupulous weapons salesmen sold military-grade machine guns manufactured for use in World War I (especially the Thompson Submachine Gun[note 2]) to criminals; as a result, gangsters and bank robbers were often better armed than many police forces (who may have only had side arms, or a rifle or shotgun at best) and could pretty much rob banks with impunity. Tommy Guns were also marketed to police[4] during the 1920s.

Indeed, any major shooting in the US is usually followed by a round of both gun-control advocates and gun nuts arguing that said incident would never have happened if only we had strict gun-control laws or if only everyone packed heat Wild West-style, respectively. A 2004 meta-analysis on gun-control research conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) found efficacy for certain types of police intervention in reducing gun crime but also found that the literature was mixed and ambiguous on whether right-to-carry (RTC) laws increased or decreased crime either way[5] though a 2019 meta-analysis found that RTC laws increased violent crime by 13–15% after 10 years of adoption.[6] In addition, gun nuts will inevitably cite the "research" of serial cherry-picker, data fabricator, and sock puppeteer John Lott.[note 3][7] Some may also use the equally fraudulent arguments of Lott's source, the criminologist Gary Kleck.[8][9]

A 2014 Stanford University study reviewed and expanded on the NRC study with additional data. The Stanford study, though sympathetic to the NRC's view that it was difficult to determine whether right-to-carry laws increased or decreased crime, nevertheless criticized their statistical methodology for not using cluster adjustments. The Stanford study found that RTC laws may have increased aggravated assault by 33% (p<.1), and also increased rape and robbery during 1970-2010 (p<.1), and murder during 1999-2010 (p<0.05).[10] A five-year study of US violent crime found that of all non-fatal crime victims, 99.2% failed to defend or to threaten the criminal with a gun.[11] In 2012 alone, 190,342 firearms were reported lost or stolen in the US, with Texas leading at 10% of all incidents.[12] More guns do not mean more safety but more guns for criminals.[13]

Since both the proposing of new gun-control laws and opposition to gun-control laws can garner votes for politicians, the gun laws in the U.S. have become a morass of often-contradictory rules, with either gaping loopholes or severe penalties for a misstep. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban,[14] for example, invented an entirely new legal category of firearms — "assault weapons" — identified not by their lethality but by a list of scary-looking cosmetic features.[note 4] Suppressors are even more strictly controlled than the guns they can be attached to. Guns that have had their firing mechanism removed are legal, but "imitation guns" are completely forbidden. Firearms dealers must obtain licenses, and all sales through such dealers are subject to a criminal-background check. Private person-to-person transactions are exempt from the federal background-check requirement, but some states require background checks for all sales, including private sales. Online sales by private individuals are also allowed, but the seller must send the gun to a licensed dealer, who will complete the transfer to the buyer (including doing the required background check). If both the buyer and seller are residents of the same state, they can complete the sale in person like any other private sale, but interstate sales must be completed via a licensed dealer with a background check, and are subject to a complex set of rules as to the states of residency for the seller and buyer. Individual states often supplement the federal laws with their own maze of legal dos-and-don'ts.

Research findings [ edit ]

Studies on firearms- and ammunition-bans have been inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases. Several studies found that the number of banned guns retrieved after a crime declined when bans were enacted, but these studies did not assess violent consequences. Studies of the 1976 Washington, D.C. handgun ban yielded inconsistent results. Bans often include "grandfather" provisions, allowing ownership of an item if it is acquired before the ban, complicating an assessment of causality. A 2003 study indicated that sales of firearms to be banned might increase in the period before implementation of the bans (e.g., the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)).[15]

The research behind the "self-defense" aspect of owning a gun is not convincing. A 2015 study by David Hemenay of Harvard University researched National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data on about 14,000 people, and has shown that legitimate self-defense cases occur statistically rarely, in less than 1% of the population surveyed.[16] Even officers from big cities, despite being exposed to far more criminals, report rarely having to use a gun; a Pew Research Center survey conducted by the National Police Research Platform reported that, out of 7,917 officers from 54 departments with 100 or more officers, only 27% have fired a weapon on duty.[17]

There is an association between US states with less-restrictive gun laws and higher homicide rates.[18] In 1996 Australia enacted strict gun laws and a nationwide buy-back program following a mass shooting;[19] following these actions, mass shootings in Australia have essentially ended.[18] This is further confirmed by a follow-up metanalysis[20] demonstrating an overall reduction in homicide and suicide rates.

There is a convincing link between gun availability and gun suicide.[18][16][20] A 2016 meta-analysis found that stronger gun laws did reduce homicide rates, and that the strongest evidence was for laws that required background checks and permits to purchase firearms.[21]

A 2013 study noticed a correlation (not causation) that suggested that white racists are more likely to own guns and to oppose gun-control laws, which is not to suggest that white gun owners tend to be more racist[22] and might not apply to Haiti. The FBI has also identified a dangerous spike in "Active Shooter Events" — even as overall gun-violence has managed to level off during the same time period.[23]

Unsurprisingly, the National Rifle Association does not like research findings.[18][16] They called it "junk science" and encouraged readers of American Rifleman to protest against the CDC for funding such research. They have effectively lobbied against funding of aspects of the CDC since the mid-1990s. For instance, in 1996, Congress cut $2.6 million of the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had been allocated for firearm research the previous year. In December 2019, however, legislation introduced a spending bill that includes $25 million for research of firearm violence,[24] thus overturning the ban on research that was effective since 1996.

3D printing [ edit ]

See the main article on this topic: 3D printing

A zip gun: the old-fashioned homemade gun.

The spread of consumer-level additive manufacturing (a.k.a. "3D printing") since about 2010 has fed into gun-control debates. As soon as knowledge of the technology became known, people pondered its use in gun-making. One or two groups have made guns this way. For "research purposes", of course. Early models were fragile and primitive — even the creators did not bill them as effective firearms.[25] A great deal of press coverage - ranging in tone from blasé to terrified - ensued, the result of a combination of desperation for headlines, of devoting excessive attention to "new" technology that doesn't come close to the hype and of ignorance of how easy it already is to make any given item (zip guns for instance) the "old fashioned" way.

In fact, some of the first examples of "3D printed" guns were actually just 3D-printed lower receivers (the part of a rifle legally regarded as the "gun," since it bears the weapon's serial number) which were then completed with off-the-shelf parts. This is rather like 3D-printing an engine block intake manifold and claiming you've built an entire car.

Designers and makers of 3D-printed guns have released a variety of new designs since the appearance of the first one (described above), expanding greatly on the functionality of the original, and 3D-printed guns represented, for a period of a few months, a political football unto themselves. The US Justice Department ruled in 2018 that 3D-printed gun blueprints (as part of unregistered weapons) are legal per the Second Amendment.[26]

Common arguments against gun control [ edit ]

Pro-gun argument Rebuttal

Stricter gun control violates the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights gives Americans the right to bear arms: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment is really about the right for a militia to have arms, which pro-gun advocates rarely focus on. "Militia" does not refer to the general populace, as so many pro-gun nuts love to believe, but in fact a literal militia. Back when the constitution was passed, the federal army was very, very small, and thus the United States relied heavily on the militias maintained by its individual states for national defence.[27] In fact, at the time the constitution was passed, only 14.7% of male property owners (read: anyone who could own a gun in the first place) had guns.[28] Today, a militia is unneeded, since, you know, there's a large federal army. While unrelated to the main argument, given their right-wing political leanings, gun supporters are also likely to support military spending. If gun supporters were truly for defending against governmental tyranny, they would sensibly oppose strengthening the military and the police. But as we should all know by now, right-wingers don't care for hypocrisy.

You can't change the meaning of the Second Amendment like that. It's really about giving citizens the right to guns! It says "the right of the People". It's not specifically about guns, it's about armaments , which is a fancy word for weapons. Therefore, the Second Amendment theoretically gives the rights to: Nuclear weapons Mustard gas However, despite the ban of these weapons in the US, people aren't complaining about rights violations. Why? Because allowing citizens the rights to these weapons is insane; both sides of the political spectrum agree on this. But unfortunately, people can't be bothered to actually read the Bill of Rights even though it's literally a sentence to digest.

When people say they want stricter gun laws, they really want to repeal the Second Amendment. This is an argument argument by assertion and a whiff of the slippery slope fallacy, not to mention it has technically no legal bearing on owning guns in the first place, so this argument is a non sequitur. Just because certain guns are banned doesn't mean all guns will, people just want certain guns that pose extreme danger, such as automatic firearm . And even if the Second Amendment is repealed, this does not necessarily mean owning a gun is banned, only that it's not considered a right to bear arms, just as how owning a car is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, yet cars are not banned. Moreso, even with the Second Amendment, it is reasonable that this right carries limtations, as even rights people agree on, such as free speech and freedom of religious expression, also carry limitations. The problem with the Second Amendment, then, is that it's used as a quick and cheap mean of dismissing critique of gun ownership while also propagating gun ownership with the fewest restrictions as possible (as restrictions "impede" on this apparent right).

Guns can be used in self-defense, therefore, more citizens and teachers should be armed. The research behind the "self-defense" aspect of owning a gun is not convincing. A 2015 study by David Hemenay of Harvard University researched NCVS data , about 14,000 people, and has shown that genuine self-defense cases are statistically rare, less than 1% of the population who was surveyed.[16] On the other hand, guns have proven to be a terrible investment in self-defense as gun ownership increases the chances of being killed. This includes deaths from family conflicts,[6] suicide, thieves stealing the gun, children mishandling the gun, ricocheting bullets, misfiring, and police confrontations.[29] This is further exacerbated by racial profiling, as black Americans with guns are far more likely to get shot. A gun additionally gives its owner a false sense of security as well as an exaggerated sensitivity to threats, letting the owner take risks he or she otherwise will not take. For instance, in Florida, in a physical confrontation over parking, the man who was knocked down overreacted to the threat and fatally shot the man who shoved him.[30] If he didn't have a gun, he would resort to more responsible measures such as calling the police or security. Finally, given that guns increase crime, this can be a burden on the police and can impair the police's ability to reduce crime.

Controlling your weapon [ edit ]

Gun control has another meaning in enthusiast and hunting terms. It refers to making sure you hit only your intended target when discharging a firearm and preventing unintended discharges. Some people seem incapable of this, but "oops, sorry, I thought you were a quail" seems to get most of them off the hook.[note 5] Some people are just not good enough and disciplined enough to use guns,[31] while others clearly are.[32]

See also [ edit ]

Notes [ edit ]