I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them.
If the guns are illegal, they aren't as easy to get. They aren't in everyone's home. If you break in somewhere to steal a gun, you'll not get a handgun. You know, because most folks aren't willing to hold onto an illegal gun. You aren't going to go to a gun show and buy an illegal gun because those folks don't want the shows shut down.
Which does mean that you'll have to go to the black market. The thing about the black market: If something is harder to come by, you'll be charged more. Same if the penalty is higher. You could see this in the drug market: LSD was generally more expensive than weed. (Still probably is, but I really don't know how pot legalisation has affected black market prices).
If guns are harder to get, there is less chance that a mass shooter will be able to get one. Could it mean that they use other means?
Sure they could. But realistically, those options don't always have the same effect. You could build a bomb, maybe. If you can get the supplies and knowledge to do it. Most options available to the average person, though, aren't going to be as deadly as guns and in general, won't kill so many people in such a short span of time and so many simply aren't as lethal.
In this, it is much like suicides. When gun laws are more strict, fewer people choose guns for a suicide. They choose different methods, though, and most of these are less lethal - which overall means that death by suicide goes down.
For a decent comparison, check Australia, which used to have a similar gun culture.
I’m a little surprised the black market in highly regulated countries doesn’t adapt by way of 3D-printed guns. Obviously most criminals aren’t going to learn how to make their own, but rather there are specialists as there are with forgers and traffickers and so on (hence “black market”). I wonder if there’s some limitation to those guns that I’m not aware of?
Doesn't track for many places in the US. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country, yet also has a mass shooting every other week in the summer.
Sure, in no small part because of the different policies between states and between cities. Chicago, in particular, has strict laws that are almost worthless because of lax gun laws in Indiana. Gary, Indiana might as well be included in part of the Chicago metro area - in other words, you barely need to leave the city to get to easy gun access. It is very much similar to Canada having issues with guns because despite laws, it is fairly easy to smuggle legally bought guns from the US into Canada.
In other words, it should be obvious that regulations in one city do not hamper interstate trade - or heck, they likely don't hamper intrastate trade either, but I don't have any examples in my head about that specifically.
While that possibly makes it harder to acquire a gun in the city, an individual purchaser or black market dealer could simply drive a couple of hours to get their hands on one, no?
Also while impossible to prove, I think the numbers would be even higher in the city without the control in place.
..an individual purchaser or black market dealer could simply drive a couple of hours to get their hands on one, no?
Gary, Indiana shares a fence with Chicago: The fence sits on the Indiana/Illinois state line. Indiana has fairly lax gun laws. Also of note: There are not border checks on that line, nor on the border of Chicago.
If the guns are illegal, they aren't as easy to get. They aren't in everyone's home. If you break in somewhere to steal a gun, you'll not get a handgun. You know, because most folks aren't willing to hold onto an illegal gun. You aren't going to go to a gun show and buy an illegal gun because those folks don't want the shows shut down.
Which does mean that you'll have to go to the black market. The thing about the black market: If something is harder to come by, you'll be charged more. Same if the penalty is higher. You could see this in the drug market: LSD was generally more expensive than weed. (Still probably is, but I really don't know how pot legalisation has affected black market prices).
If guns are harder to get, there is less chance that a mass shooter will be able to get one. Could it mean that they use other means?
Sure they could. But realistically, those options don't always have the same effect. You could build a bomb, maybe. If you can get the supplies and knowledge to do it. Most options available to the average person, though, aren't going to be as deadly as guns and in general, won't kill so many people in such a short span of time and so many simply aren't as lethal.
In this, it is much like suicides. When gun laws are more strict, fewer people choose guns for a suicide. They choose different methods, though, and most of these are less lethal - which overall means that death by suicide goes down.
For a decent comparison, check Australia, which used to have a similar gun culture.