[ahlatimer]

Where did the author conclude there was no need to fix the current problem? My understanding of the article is that there is no clear answer to the problem, given that every potential solution has loads of potential side effects, some of them with the potential to outweigh the positives of the original solution. That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed; just that the fix should be driven by rational thought and understanding rather than emotion.

[diego]

Exactly. All I said is that I don't know if there are any fixes to the problem that wouldn't cause potentially worse problems. That's why I mention iatrogenics: unintended side effects of a cure that are more damaging than leaving a disease alone.

[grecy]

> I don't know if there are any fixes to the problem that wouldn't cause potentially worse problems

Again, comparison to other developed countries proves there are.

[diego]

Why? What country is close enough to the US in size, heterogeneity and number of guns so that you can make a fair comparison?

Edit to answer to the comment below: think what you want. Don't try to convince me. I'm skeptical, you're not. Write to your legislators instead of here. Write your own blog posts.

[RyanMcGreal]

> What country is close enough to the US in size, heterogeneity and number of guns so that you can make a fair comparison?

In terms of number of guns, no other country is. That's the point: other countries made decisions and implemented policies to severely restrict access to guns, and the predictable result today is that there are far fewer guns and much less gun violence.

The decision to restrict guns is a long-term decision - it won't reduce gun violence overnight, but it will reduce gun violence over decades.

[hga]

The Swiss are an obvious exception, although their gun-grabbers are steady tightening things.

But I think you're wrong about the path that restrictions would take in the US: the slowly boiling a frog approach won't accomplish the goal, anything too quick, sharp and raw will merely spark the 2nd American Civil War during which "gun violence" will go way up. And most any restriction scheme will increase gun violence, if only on the part of the authorities using force to seize guns and the like.

Maybe in the long term public attitudes could be changed, the 2nd Amendment repealed, and the path you envision might happen, but that's the work of generations and will require a reversal of the renorming of gun ownership we've seen in the last quarter century (I take Florida's 1987 establishment of a shall issue concealed carry license regime as the start; today 42 states have them, de facto or de jure).

[RyanMcGreal]

Gun control in the US can start with control of those types of firearms most likely to be used in mass shootings: automatic and semi-automatic weapons with magazines that accommodate large numbers of rounds. The US can do what other countries have done successfully: ban sales, restrict ownership, and offer amnesty/buyback for weapons already in circulation.

The US can also mandate safe storage of weapons and ammunition in separate, locked, secure cases. That in itself would reduce the incidence of gun suicide and so-called crimes of passion by introducing a long-enough delay between decision and action that sanity prevails.

[grecy]

Size is irrelevant, these are per-capita statistics.

If heterogeneity was a factor, surely homicide rates would be climbing in countries like Canada and Australia that have the highest immigration rates in the Developed world[1]. They are not.

Number of guns is precisely the factor at the heart of the issue.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migrat...