Did anyone else catch this article from the NY Times? “How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree.”
Admittedly, there’s some room for skewed results and broad interpretations, but the concept is interesting at least.
The Times asked a polling firm to survey experts on gun violence (“dozens of social scientists, lawyers and public health officials”) and just shy of 2000 registered voters for their opinions on 29 different firearms-related policies.
They broke the responses out graphically, plotting levels of effectiveness and support for the measures. Both of those measures introduce some ambiguity, and “effectiveness” tends to be fairly speculative.
I tend to find it difficult to put much stock in reports and surveys and the like, but this seems to be one of the more solid attempts that I’ve seen recently.
What do you think of the results? Would your opinion differ much on any of the policies in particular?
Keep & Bear Gunsmithing 
Most of the “measures” have to do with new laws or requirements. If the current gun laws were completely effective (everyone followed them) we’d see much less “gun crime” (not much less crime overall, but that’s a different argument). Mainly because criminals wouldn’t have guns. I don’t think people engaging in illegal activity really care about following the law. The black market for guns will just grow bigger. Bottom line, any new laws will be almost completely ineffective while creating more burdens and risks for lawful gun owners.
LikeLike