Does the stricter gun control method reduce the mass shootings?

ThangNguyen

Proponents of anti-gun-control suggest that it will be useless because of a large number of guns in circulation prior to the bans, the suspect in the mass shootings can buy the gun in the black market. So stricter gun control will not reduce the mass shootings.

Opposite with the opinion of the anti-gun-control group, the support group of the gun-control believes that stricter gun control method like require a gun-license (gun-owner need to pass the exam about gun safety), stricter background check (help to figure out suspects do not appropriate to own a gun), require selling-records from all the gun-stores and ammunition control (help the police can predict the crimination before it happens) are the appropriate method to reduce mass shootings without rob the gun-owned right (following the Database1982-2018 of Mother Jones - Mass Shootings, there is more than 80 percent of guns which used mass shootings obtained legally). Besides that, there will be more challenges for the suspects in mass shootings if they want to buy a gun from the black market to commit the crime such as the high price, can be robbed in trading, can be arrested if trade with a police undercover. 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

robertp

@ThangNguyen

With all the gun laws we have in place now, we can see it is not working.  Why would anyone think that more of something that doesn't work would work better?  You are only kidding yourself if you think you are trying to reduce gun violence.  Even police are being convicted of gun violence.  I admit gun control would make it harder to buy a gun legally but it does not stop violence.  I admire the fact that you want to stop gun violence but do not understand the method you want to use if we can see they do not work.  I think that making it harder to buy a gun legally would cause more people to buy guns illegally.  I do not think there are any studies on my theories because I can not understand why anyone would think we needed them if they are plain to see especially if you want to reduce gun violence.  My only conclusion is you do not want to reduce gun violence but want to reduce guns.  Not that I am trying to be harsh, I appreciate your input.

ThangNguyen

Robertp

The stricter gun control method does not insulate the good people with the gun's right. if you want to own a gun just obey all the requirements and you can obtain it, it is just simply that you need a driver license if you want to drive a car. Is it so hard to satisfy requirements of gun control? (take a little more time and money). Have you ever think why the government requires you to pass a driver exam if you want to drive? Responsibility to the social is the answer. You can think the same way with stricter gun control. Moreover, stricter gun control reduces the bad people can obtain a legal gun and give the police more chance to prevent the crime. Let's think that obey the gun control requirement is the duty of a citizen to the social.

robertp

There is no way to enforce laws of gun control.  If a person doesn't have a license they can break the law and drive a car.  It doesn't stop accidents.  A license doesn't stop someone from getting in a car and killing someone.  Why would you think it would stop someone from killing someone else with a gun.  I don't think you are rationalizing clearly or I am just not seeing your point.  A criminal is not going to buy a gun legally unless they are really really dumb.  If an undercover police officer were to sell a gun to a criminal illegally they could track a criminal but what would be the point and it wouldn't take stricter gun laws. 

Criminals are not going to be responsible to society, that is what makes them criminals.  I admire your persistence in trying to prevent crime but the only effect stricter gun laws would do is make it harder and more expensive for law abiding people to get guns which may cause them to break the law.