The logic behind gun control is simple—the fewer guns in people's hands, the fewer opportunities for gun violence and fatalities to occur. The goal is damage reduction, not the eradication of killing and violence altogether. That's never going to happen. Gun control is about making sure guns don't get into the hands of dangerous people. This means things like universal background checks, limiting the types of guns the public has access to, and other regulations.

Australia is an example of a country where gun control works. After 35 people died in the Port Arthur Massacre, Australia banned certain semiautomatic and automatic weapons. Australians are still allowed to guns if they get the proper permits and have a reason for owning the weapons besides personal protection.

The government introduced a buyback program which dramatically reduced the number of guns in circulation. Gun deaths across the board—homicide included—dropped dramatically. Here's what researchers found:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

A study that looked at global gun control studies also discovered gun control laws are associated with less gun violence. It's that simple. It found that countries usually passed a package of gun control laws at the same time. These countries would then see reductions in gun violence. Generally, countries required universal background checks, permits, and limited the ability to own powerful weapons—like automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

"Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms," they write, "are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively."

"There's some other evidence that we didn't include in this review," he says, that finds attempting suicide is an impulsive decision that people regret (if they fail) and thus don't repeat. Firearms, because they're much more effective than taking pills or slashing your wrists, don't give people that option. Thus, reducing access to guns should (and empirically generally does) reduce the overall suicide rate.

Gun control is necessary because guns give people the ability to wreak havoc on others in ways that no other weapons can. It's time to rethink whether we want everyone to have access to such power. Here's how one researcher put it:

“Whenever there’s a violent interaction in the United States, there’s a chance that somebody may die,” Hemenway said. “In most of these other countries, the worst thing that might happen is somebody gets hit with fists, or a glass bottle, or even stabbed, and in those cases there probably won’t be any deaths. But when there’s a gun, it really makes it so much more likely that something terrible will happen.”

Does gun control work? | The Tylt