[minot]

> Restricting access to guns is popular in this country.

I think this is a problem with or feature of our democracy. If eighty percent of the voters want gun control but only half of them show up (forty percent) and vote for one of four different candidates but twenty percent of the population makes it their single issue and votes reliably for the same candidate, the candidate wins in first past the post.

[aksss]

Be suspicious when you’re told 80% of the country agrees on any policy position. 80% of the people also probably want society to have less offensive speech, but does that translate to 80% of the people wanting to abridge freedom of speech (particularly theirs)? Probably not. Effective policy, especially when abridging rights, is a very nuanced discussion that most people don’t have the patience or interest to discuss, but everyone has sentiment. “If wishes were fishes, nobody would go hungry.”

[HideousKojima]

Similarly, you'll see crazy high numbers in support of things like universal background checks, but as soon as you ask questions like "Do you believe a background check should be required to loan your roommate your gun to take to the range/loan your nextdoor neighbor a gun when her ex finds out where she lives/etc." the percentages plummet.

[AnthonyMouse]

This is a common rhetorical technique in politics.

There are a lot of policies that sound good at first glance but are basically useless or harmful on closer inspection.

For example, there are two categories that dominate firearms deaths in the US. The first is gang violence; in this case background checks would have no real effect because gangs have the means to acquire firearms outside of legal channels. The second is suicides; in this case background checks do very little because the purchaser would generally pass the background check.

So you have a policy that sounds good, but doesn't make a real dent in the problem and costs a lot in fees and inconvenience on innocent people.

But it polls well so it's a rhetorically effective attack, because the opponents who have actually done the cost benefit analysis have to register their opposition to a "popular" proposal.

[clairity]

> "For example, the large majority of firearms deaths fall into one of two categories. The first is gang violence..."

that's incorrect. accidental shootings and suicide are major categories, while intentional homicides, of which "gang violence" is a subset, is pretty low on the list.

[AnthonyMouse]

> that's incorrect. accidental shootings and suicide are major categories, while intentional homicides, of which "gang violence" is a subset, is pretty low on the list.

So you're saying that it is correct, because the combination of the two categories constitute the large majority of firearms deaths.

Suicides by themselves are the large majority of firearms deaths, granted. And accidental deaths would generally fall under the same "the purchaser would have passed the background check" issue.

The point was that people would expect the policy to make a difference in homicides. But the large category of homicides where background checks would be expected to be useful, i.e. career criminals, are the place where they don't happen, because career criminals are members of criminal organizations that can provide access outside of legal channels.

[clairity]

to clarify, yes, you're right that background checks are largely useless at reducing firearm deaths, but no, intentional homicides are not a major category of firearm death, and to worry about "career criminals" is a non-sequitur.

your (as in anyone's) chances of successfully defending your property and friends/family from a "career criminal" using a gun is basically zero, both because it's exceedingly rare to encounter such situations and because it's even rarer to have the necessary skill (i.e., intense training and practice) and the necessary presence of mind to mount such a successful defense, so that doesn't matter to the argument at all. it's generally a bugaboo brought up to generate irrational fear.

edit: i should add that while reducing homicides is often used as a justification for background checks, it's a poor policy because it doesn't achieve that aim, as you point out. to have much impact, we need to focus on accidental shootings and suicides principally.

[Acrobatic_Road]

Correct. "Universal background checks" just sounds good to people. Problem is many supporters think we don't have background checks at all.