Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #7: Gun ownership has increased over the last 25 years, while gun violence/crime has decreased over the same time. This proves that more guns do not cause more violence/crime.

Argument: Gun ownership has increased over the last 25 years, while gun violence/crime/homicide has decreased over the same time. This proves that more guns do not cause more violence/crime/homicide, and, if anything, proves that they do the opposite (as per the title of the (in)famous book "More Guns, Less Crime").

Example: "...the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56% increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49%." -American Enterprise Institute

Response: 
The claim that an increase in rates of gun ownership in the US in recent decades has coincided with a decrease in homicide and other violent crime rates over the same time is made very often by those opposing gun control. That this is so makes sense because this seems to indicate that more guns = less crime, as many, if not most, gun rights activists believe. 

The problem with this claim isn't with the part that says that crime & homicide have declined in the US significantly in the last 25 years or so--there is little doubt that this is the case (e.g. Levitt 2004). The problem is with how "gun ownership" is defined--usually either the total number of guns in the U.S. or, as in the AEI post linked above, the number of guns per person. Both of these figures have indeed increased significantly in the past several decades, but during the same time period, the % of households with (a) gun(s) has dropped significantly, as has the % of adults that personally own any gun(s) (Washington Post 2016, NORC 2015).

Why have these trends been going in opposite directions in the past several decades? Zimring (2017, p. 11) pointed out that "These two trends could coexist if most of the new guns introduced into the civilian market are purchased by persons who already own guns." He also notes that "If the increase in guns hasn’t been accompanied by an increase in rates of personal or household ownership, it should not be expected to produce a major increase in the proportion of violence that involves gun use" (Huffington Post 2017). 

References:
Huffington Post 2017
Levitt 2004
NORC 2015
Washington Post 2016
Zimring 2017

Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #6: Other countries have way higher homicide rates than the US does

Example: "...the Small Arms Survey found that the United States experienced 8,592 firearm homicides annually in a five-year average, giving us a firearm homicide rate of 2.70 gun homicides per 100,000 people.

That rate placed us at number 59. Honduras led the pack in that survey, at an alarming 67.19 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 in population — nearly 25 times the U.S. rate.

On the other hand, Honduras came in at number 88 for gun ownership — a paltry 6.2 privately-owned guns per 100 people." -Newsmax

Response:
These comparisons ignore the fact that middle- and low-income countries tend to be more violent regardless of their gun laws, meaning that a truly honest comparison would only involve high-income countries. 

As Politifact noted regarding a similar comparison of Honduras to Switzerland, "There’s really no point in comparing the challenges of Honduras, a lower middle-income country in Central America beleaguered by corruption and violence from the drug trade and gangs, to Switzerland, an affluent country nestled in western Europe." Similarly, Hepburn & Hemenway (2004) noted that, "Generally, an important first step is to compare likes to likes...For international studies, that means comparing high-income countries to high-income countries, thus helping to hold constant many socioeconomic variables."


Among high-income countries, the US is clearly exceptional in terms of our rate of firearm homicides (25 times higher than average), as well as overall homicides (7 times higher than average) (Grinshteyn & Hemenway 2016). Another study found a strong positive effect of gun availability on homicide rates among 36 countries (Hoskin 2001). In 1993, Martin Killias found a strong positive association between gun ownership and homicide among 14 developed countries (including the US), but no negative association between gun ownership and non-gun homicide. This indicates that no method substitution occurred, and that increases in gun ownership cause increases in both gun and overall homicide rates (Killias 1993). More recent evidence also indicates that "...a country’s homicide rate reflects, to a large extent, the tendency of its offenders to use firearms" (Felson et al. 2014).

References:
Felson et al. 2014
Grinshteyn & Hemenway 2016
Hepburn & Hemenway 2004
Hoskin 2001
Killias 1993

Further reading:
Webster et al. 2012
Politifact 2015

Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #5: The real problem is gang violence, not guns

Argument: The real reason for violence/crime/homicide/whatever in America is not the high rate of gun ownership in this country, but the large number of violent, murderous gangs.
Example: "America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine." -FrontPage Magazine
Response: Data from the National Youth Gang Survey indicate that from 2007 to 2011, "...gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually" (National Gang Center). Other data indicate that the percentage of homicides that are gang-related in the US may be even lower (6.6%) (Frazier et al. 2017). Furthermore, the term "gang-related" itself tends to deflect from the underlying problems that lead to such acts of violence (Younge 2016).

Sources:
Frazier et al. 2017: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29173934
National Gang Center: https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
Younge 2016: https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-refusal-to-control-firearms-is-killing-teens-at-an-absurd-rate/

Further reading: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html

Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #4: Gun control doesn't reduce suicide because people just kill themselves another way.

Argument: Gun control doesn't reduce suicide rates, because decreases in gun suicides are offset completely by increases in suicides by other means. (Also stated as "people just kill themselves another way" or something like that.)

Example: "...even if you remove guns from a home, a person who wants to commit suicide will still find other means." (The Federalist)

Another example: "Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used." (Psychology Today)

Response: 
Method substitution (people killing themselves another way if firearms, or any method, becomes less available) is not a large-scale concern when it comes to the effectiveness of means restriction (including gun control) (Daigle 2005). Specifically, decreases in gun suicide rates within the US are not associated with increases in suicides by other methods (Anestis et al. 2017). In Switzerland, a gun control law passed in 2005 was followed by a drop in gun suicides, and an increase in non-gun suicides. However, only about 22% of gun suicides estimated to have been prevented by the law were offset by suicides by other methods (Reisch et al. 2013).

Further evidence against the substitution hypothesis as a major factor in suicide prevention has been presented elsewhere (Chapman et al. 2006, 2016; Bridges & Kunselman 2004, Leenaars 2007, Lambert & Silva 1998). It makes sense that, as these studies indicate, means restriction is effective, because suicide is often an impulsive act done as a result of a fleeting urge (Lewiecki & Miller 2013)

Anestis et al. 2017: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28455222
Bridges & Kunselman 2004: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15141925
Chapman et al. 2006: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170183 
" 2016: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27332876
Daigle 2005: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457505000400
Lambert & Silva 1998: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1024714619938
Leenaars 2007: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-13949-008
Lewiecki & Miller 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518361/
Reisch et al. 2013: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12091256

Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #3: Chicago has strict gun control laws and lots of gun violence (aka the Chicago canard).

Argument: Gun control doesn't reduce gun violence because if it did, Chicago's strict gun laws would make it very safe relative to other large US cities. Instead, Chicago/another large city (e.g. Washington, DC) has an especially big problem with gun violence compared to other cities.
Example: "So far in Chicago, where Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for Barack Obama, is mayor, there have been 519 murders this year...In 2015, 2,988 people were victims of gun violence, according to records kept by The Chicago Tribune....Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, right up there with New York and Los Angeles" (the Daily Wire).
Example #2: "Chicago, run by liberals, liberals who are very likely protected by their tax-paid armed security details, is one of the nation’s riskiest places to live in terms of avoiding gunshot wounds. And yet, it has some of the toughest gun control laws" (the Washington Times).

Response: 
Chicago's gun control laws are not the strictest in the United States, nor are Illinois' the strictest of any state in the U.S. (Politifact 2017). San Francisco, for example, has a safe-storage law, which Chicago does not have. This argument also ignores the well-documented ability of states with weak gun laws to influence rates of gun violence in nearby states with stricter laws (NPR 2017). 

Claims about Chicago being the "murder capital" of America do not stand up to scrutiny either. For example, Chicago's homicide rate is the 8th highest of any U.S. city (The Trace 2017). The number of homicides there has been increasing in recent years, but the rate is still much lower than it was in the 1990s (Quartz 2017, FiveThirtyEight 2017).





Sources:
FiveThirtyEight 2017: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/chicagos-murder-rate-is-rising-but-it-isnt-unprecedented/
NPR 2017: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
Politifact 2017: http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/oct/03/sarah-huckabee-sanders/chicago-toughest-gun-control-claim-shot-full-holes/
Quartz 2017: https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/

Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #2: Why single guns out?

Argument: There is no good reason to focus mainly on guns, rather than crime or criminals in general. It doesn't matter what weapon the criminal uses, it matters that they are committing a crime in the first place; guns shouldn't be "singled out". (Alternative versions include "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!")

Example: "We’ve seen terrorist attacks committed with knives, by people driving cars into crowds, and hijacking airplanes." -Trump administration anti-gun control talking point

Another example: "A gun is a tool. But guns serve as a distraction from the essential human problems at the heart of these symptoms of our national ill health. The cure for what ails Americans is to seek approaches that strengthen our communities." -American Greatness

Response:
Assaults committed with guns are much more likely to result in death than are those involving other weapons (Zimring 2004, Saltzman et al. 1992). As Powell et al. (1996) put it, "guns are more likely to kill than any other weapon used in an assault." Also, this difference does not appear to be entirely due to differences in intentions between criminals using guns vs. other weapons; instead, it is apparently at least partly because of differences in the weapons themselves (Roth 1994). A 2002 study (Harris et al. 2002) corroborated this finding (see p. 148, "Firearm assaults are by far the most lethal form of assault..."). 

In 1985, Susan P. Baker made a similar point when she wrote, "...in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns. These deaths would largely be replaced by non-fatal injuries if a gun were not handy. Thus, [instead of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!",] a far more appropriate generality would be that "People without guns injure people; guns kill them"" (Baker 1985).

References:
Baker 1985: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.75.6.587 Harris et al. 2002: http://www.universitychurchchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Murder-and-Medicine.pdf
Powell et al. 1996: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019606449670063X
Roth 1994: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt
Saltzman et al. 1992: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/397728
Zimring 2004: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2004.tb00446.x/full

Other examples of this argument: 
"Guns are not the source of violence in the world—people are." -The Odyssey Online

Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #1: "Criminals don't follow laws!"

Argument:
Criminals don't follow gun laws, and so won't be affected by gun control; only law-abiding citizens will. 
Example: "Numerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago." (NRA)
Another example: "Regardless of gun control laws, criminals, crazies and terrorists manage to obtain firearms. Always have. Always will. To believe otherwise is dangerously naive." (USA Today op-ed)

Response:
1. Criminals sometimes (though not always) obtain guns legally; a 2012 study found that almost 30% of imprisoned criminals legally possessed their most recent gun (Vittes et al. 2012). There is also evidence that licensed dealers that become corrupted play a major role in selling guns to people who shouldn't be able to buy them legally, such as criminals and illegal street sellers (Wachtel 1998). When Maryland banned Saturday Night Specials, a cheap type of handgun, it effectively reduced the frequency with which criminals in Baltimore used them to commit crimes. This indicates that gun laws can affect criminals (Vernick et al. 1999).

Studies of multiple US states have shown that states with permit and licensing laws in place regarding gun sales were less likely to have guns sold there be recovered in crimes (Webster et al. 2001). There is also good evidence that states with weak gun laws act as a source of crime guns that end up being used in other states with strict gun laws. For example, a 2015 study found that over 60% of new guns used in gang-related crimes in Chicago, Illinois, as well as over 30% of those used in non-gang-related crimes there, were sold in other states. The study looked at crimes committed in the city from 2009 to 2013. Indiana was a particularly big source of crime guns in the study, a finding that has also been replicated by other research (NPR 2017). Other studies have reached similar results (Kahane 2013, Knight 2013).

Federal and state gun laws have also been associated with changes in the diversion of guns to criminals consistent with these laws being effective (Pierce et al. 2014, Webster et al. 2012, 2013).

The study the NRA and other right-wing gun rights activists cited to argue that criminals do not obtain guns legally, and thus are not affected by gun laws, doesn't show any such thing. In fact, the study's authors called out some of these misrepresentations in a letter to a Las Vegas newspaper, in which they stated, 

"The editorial board concludes, “Regardless, as has been shown many times, criminals are not going to follow any gun control law.” This is plainly not the case — by similar logic, there would be no reason to have any laws. We doubt the editorial board of this newspaper would take a stance against legal prohibitions of burglary, domestic violence or drunken driving, just because those prohibitions — like regulations on gun transactions — are sometimes violated.

In fact, our research indicates that criminals are very much influenced by existing gun laws. Background checks and other laws deter most offenders from purchasing guns from gun stores, despite the obvious advantages of doing so. Those who are determined to obtain a gun often attempt to do so by searching for someone they know personally who might have one for sale" (Cook et al. 2015).

Harold Pollack, another of the study's authors, said that much of the misleading coverage it got "seemed to just grab a soundbite … that we don’t feel accurately reflects what we found" (Clark 2015).







Sources:
Clark 2015
Cook et al. 2015
Kahane 2013
Knight 2013
NPR 2017
Pierce et al. 2014
Vernick et al. 1999
Vittes et al. 2012
Wachtel 1998
Webster et al. 2001
Webster et al. 2012
Webster et al. 2013 (Ch. 8, pp. 109-121)