It's easy to get guns now because there are so many of them and they are readily available. You make them illegal, it becomes a whole hell of a lot harder.

Having recreational drugs being illegal has worked very well.

Lol, if your goal is to make drugs easily available, then yes.

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.
Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.
EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.
JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

You think limiting access to guns isn't part of the solution?

So the general opinion seems to be, "Gun control won't stop psychopaths from committing heinous acts [even with guns]. Therefore, why even try to control them?"

I am not saying this is the general opinion on THIS particular thread, but from all the comments I read on Yahoo, CNN and all of the media comment threads under the Sandy Hook Massacre articles.

I'm all for the Second Amendment. As a teenager I went hunting with my old man and now as an adult, I have a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol safely locked away in my home. I feel that is all I need to protect my home from an intruder, in the unlikely event that should happen. With that being said, I do not see the point in the assault rifles. Shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles and handguns. Cool. Even low-capacity semi automatic rifles are fine, for those hunters with terrible aim. But a .223 Bushmaster AR? Come on... That is just a civilian semi-automatic model of the M4 Carbine.

Anyway, I know we are beyond the point of being able to control assault rifles. We're not like Switzerland, who have an almost airtight model of how guns should be controlled; ammo counts, mandatory gun safety courses for firearm owners and all that stuff. But there is no reason we shouldn't at least TRY to restrict these types of weapons from the hands of individuals who are intent to do harm. Hey, if tighter control on these types of weapons will save the lives of a classroom full of children a decade down the road. I'll call it a complete success. Tragedies like this should simply not happen and we as a society should do everything possible (without severely restricting the general public's rights/freedom) to prevent them.

Can someone please tell me why assault rifles are necessary outside of the military anyway? They're made for one thing, and one thing only: Ending as many lives in the shortest amount of time possible. There is no way around it. If you want to fire an assault rifle, go to a gun club and rent one. Other than that, you can protect your home with a .40 S&W cal handgun or even a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun (if you dont trust your aim with a pistol). You certainly don't need to hunt any kind of game with an M4 Carbine style AR...

I try to live my life by the code and knowledge of 1775 or so.

"What the fuck you mean an x-ray? Jefferson used leeches, motherfucker! What am I, a communist?"

Facts; very inconvenient for conservative frothy emotional appeal...

Ya know what? I don't mind the idea of people working to restrict or even ban the ownership of guns by the people of this country.

My problem with them is that they want to cheat.

If they want to ban guns, let them do it in the only constitutionally approved method -- amend the US Constitution to change or repeal the 2nd Amendment. But they don't want to do that (because it is extremely difficult by design, and they know they'd never get it done). Instead, they want to do an end run around the Constitution by arbitrarily redefining words and using courts to bypass the constitutional process.

Good point Foghawk, a worthy read.

Guns are not the problem here. Again, I am a gun owner, but I do agree that cirtain types of guns simply don't belong in the hands of the civilian population. I would vote for a law that says you will be held liable if a firearm you legally own is used in the commission of a crime weather you knew about it or not. We have a responsibility as gun owners to ensure that our firearms don't fall in the hands of those that would use them to evil ends. Common sense stuff. I have a gun safe myself. The only gun in my house not under constant lock and key is the one I carry for Personal Protection, and it doesn't leave my side, except at work, where the law prevents me from carrying it. I carry it because there are bad people in the world who will do bad things given the opportunity and I'm not the victim type. The rest stay locked up unless they come out to be used in hunting or target practice and that is their only purpose. Just how I roll, obviously some don't feel the same way...

Putting guns in schools would only work if it was in the hands of a designated Security/Law Enforcement Professional. I'm down with that. Teachers with guns? You can't be serious...

But as stated above, mental illness is a serious issue in this country and until that problem gets worked out, anything we do will only show small improvements IMHO. You must change the person. Guns are inanimate objects, and in this day and age they will be impossible to get rid of, (not that I advocate for that line of reasoning.)