One incredibly puzzling thing about the suddenly and tragically lime lit gun debate is how little people pay attention to facts. Criminologists have researched this for a while, and people should be talking about what they have found. Since I am a researcher, I read this stuff all the time. Here are a few facts that people on both sides overlook. I am not looking to debate the issue, but if the country wants to have a debate, it dang well needs to be an informed one.
Things that don’t work:
1) Automatic weapon bans. Automatic weapons are already illegal in almost all circumstances.
2) Banning all guns.
Harvard ran a study a few years ago that look at violent crime rates in countries that banned guns. The ban showed no effect on violent crime rates (in about half the countries the crime rate went up; however, there is not evidence to determine that banning guns caused it to go up, like many in the gun lobby try to argue). Japan was the only country of the 25 or so studied that showed a statistically significant decrease in violent crime due to the ban.
3) Banning 'assault weapons'.
The Brady Bill, which did ban the sale of assault weapons, had no effect at all on crime rates. They were falling before the bill passed, fell at about the same rate while the ban was in effect, and continued to fall at about the same rate after the ban expired.
More people are killed each year by baseball bats and knives than by assault weapons. Hand guns are the most common gun of choice.
Things that do work:
Researchers have found that the following policies do work (I guess the correct scientific phrase should be “can work”, but I am going to step out of the scientific cautionary language, and be assertive in my language because the evidence is fairly clear) in lowering violent crime and gun violence.
1) Universal background checks for all gun sales, even private “craigslist sales”.
If someone sells a gun on craigslist, but does not go with the buyer to get a background check on the buyer, they are responsible for any crime committed with that gun.
2) Mandatory waiting periods of 3–7 days.
If someone who wants to kill someone else, forcing them to wait several days and think about it seems to have a calming effect. I know gun rights activists will bring up the case of a battered woman who needs a gun now; this rarely happens. It is not often that a victim must have a gun immediately or they die. Often there are other options, like leaving, or involving the police. In cases where this will not work allowing a judge to clear the waiting period for the buyer in these instances is shown to be effective.
3) High capacity magazine bans.
Some bans are set at 10 rounds, some at 50. There is not direct correlation between the size of the magazine limit and the violent crime rate (at 10 round law is not 5 times more effective than a 50 round law). Most laws seem to be around 30 rounds, probably because this is the most common size of a magazine for assault weapons. What is clear is that it does lead to a decrease in violence.
4) Mandatory mental health registries.
If doctors and other practitioners, and even family members (optionally) are required to report mental health or wellness threats to the background database, so that it shows up in checks, and a gun buyer must have a psych evaluation prior to being taken off the list (and sometimes even then a 6 month waiting period after passing a psych eval), it can decrease violence.
Other things criminologists believe will work, but have not tested because there is not enough data:
1) Banning civilian ownership of body armor. Nobody, in a break in situation, yells down the stairs to the criminal, “Please wait 60–90 seconds for me to put on my body armor, then I will be happy to come down and deal with the situation.” Body armor is rarely (I am actually not aware of a single case, but I am not a criminologist, so there may be some) used in self defense. It is usually used in mass shootings by the lunatic with the gun.
2) Smart guns. Guns can be built to require something to activate the firing mechanism. There was a federal bill on this some years ago, but the NRA managed to squash it. Some designs I have seen would have the gun registered to a fingerprint or grip pattern, others , the gun requires a special ring or bracelet in order to fire.
3) A registry of guns, similar to a registry of vehicles. Gun rights activists will say this is the first step to taking away guns, but I disagree. Nobody is taking away vehicles not used in a crime. Also, despite all the rhetoric in the Obama administration the federal government did not forcibly take law abiding citizen’s guns. Criminologist believe that knowing where all the legal guns are will help to prevent crime. And if you are worried about this leading to taking away guns, you are already too late. I promise you, from a statistical analysis based on your social media and demographic data, the government can predict with roughly 99 percent accuracy who owns guns right now. Registering them won’t make a difference if there ever were a move to take them away, it would likely only serve to help fight crime.
The details of this Las Vegas shooting are still coming out, but unfortunately, it is not clear that any of these would have prevented this particular attack. These types of attacks can never be completely prevented. Even in Europe, where guns are banned in most countries, there are still terror attacks that kill dozens, with and without guns. Some people might try to argue in some form or another, that because we could not have prevented this or any one particular shooting we should not do anything at all. If you are one of these people, why does that same logic not apply to abortions? Something can be done, and it can be done without taking away the right of any sane, law abiding American to own a gun. Trying to argue against that is as much a lie as saying that taking away guns will fix the problem.