Death Race 2014
January 25, 2016 11:40 AM Subscribe
In 2014, gun deaths outpace motor vehicle deaths in 21 states and D.C., according to the newest study from Violence Policy Center. (VPC previously)
the 21 state -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
more details here
the 21 state -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
more details here
I like the graph, but what happened between 06 and 09 to lower car deaths so much, and keep them at the new lower rate?
Vehicle-miles travelled dropped after 2007 due to the recession, but not by 10 percent. Generally, cars have been getting safer (85-page PDF), thanks to advances in technology that filter down from high-end cars to become commonplace.
posted by Etrigan at 11:50 AM on January 25, 2016
Vehicle-miles travelled dropped after 2007 due to the recession, but not by 10 percent. Generally, cars have been getting safer (85-page PDF), thanks to advances in technology that filter down from high-end cars to become commonplace.
posted by Etrigan at 11:50 AM on January 25, 2016
Self-firing guns cannot get here soon enough.
posted by indubitable at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [13 favorites]
The comparison is interesting because the numbers of deaths are so similar. But there are other causes of death in the same range, like alcohol: "Last year, more than 30,700 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes, including alcohol poisoning and cirrhosis, which is primarily caused by alcohol use."
Picking something like car deaths, which are dropping, gives a different comparison than something that is sharply rising, like alcohol. And for the comparison to have any meaning, you would want to pick things that were at least somewhat linked, rather than just sharing a comparable number of fatalities.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Picking something like car deaths, which are dropping, gives a different comparison than something that is sharply rising, like alcohol. And for the comparison to have any meaning, you would want to pick things that were at least somewhat linked, rather than just sharing a comparable number of fatalities.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Self-firing guns cannot get here soon enough.
I know you're being facetious but we have technology which allows guns only to be fired by their owners. However, New Jersey has a law that states once a smart gun is sold the other manufacturers have three years to fall in line. Gun lobbyists are firmly against these firearms and stores that have stated that they will stock them have subsequently stopped due to threats.
This is going to get worse before it gets better.
posted by Talez at 11:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know you're being facetious but we have technology which allows guns only to be fired by their owners. However, New Jersey has a law that states once a smart gun is sold the other manufacturers have three years to fall in line. Gun lobbyists are firmly against these firearms and stores that have stated that they will stock them have subsequently stopped due to threats.
This is going to get worse before it gets better.
posted by Talez at 11:59 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
And for the comparison to have any meaning, you would want to pick things that were at least somewhat linked, rather than just sharing a comparable number of fatalities.
I don't think the Violence Policy Center (first sentence on the About Us page of their website: "The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration.") is really interested in a deep dive into comparative epidemiology. They're just saying "There's a lot of X; more even than Y," to engender a response of "Damn, that's a lot. I had no idea."
posted by Etrigan at 12:03 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think the Violence Policy Center (first sentence on the About Us page of their website: "The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration.") is really interested in a deep dive into comparative epidemiology. They're just saying "There's a lot of X; more even than Y," to engender a response of "Damn, that's a lot. I had no idea."
posted by Etrigan at 12:03 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
per Sternmeyer's question, this study says car deaths declined due to safety tech and other factors.
posted by Mr.Pointy at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr.Pointy at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
From the article: Gun deaths include gun suicides
This is problematic, as suicide by firearms is on a significant upswing since the recession, and it's impossible to know how many of those people (which constitute >50% - now approaching 66% - of firearm deaths in any year: scroll to the bottom, sourced from CDC numbers) would have simply found another method, and how many were genuinely victims of the immediacy of firearms as a means for committing suicide. Australia's rate fell off after the buyback, but this was the continuation of an ongoing drastic decline that significantly pre-dated the buyback. Neither side can deny the validity of either possibility, and the hypothetical split is obviously unknowable.
posted by Ryvar at 12:07 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is problematic, as suicide by firearms is on a significant upswing since the recession, and it's impossible to know how many of those people (which constitute >50% - now approaching 66% - of firearm deaths in any year: scroll to the bottom, sourced from CDC numbers) would have simply found another method, and how many were genuinely victims of the immediacy of firearms as a means for committing suicide. Australia's rate fell off after the buyback, but this was the continuation of an ongoing drastic decline that significantly pre-dated the buyback. Neither side can deny the validity of either possibility, and the hypothetical split is obviously unknowable.
posted by Ryvar at 12:07 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Found the problem! -- “Firearms are the only consumer product the federal government does not regulate for health and safety,” states VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand. Every person who purchases a gun and/or ammunition should have to purchase insurance, just like all Americans must have car insurancel. I know it will never happen, but it would be the fastest way to make gun safety measures get implemented super fast.
posted by pjsky at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pjsky at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
To see how much safer cars are now: Crash test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
posted by octothorpe at 12:11 PM on January 25, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:11 PM on January 25, 2016 [15 favorites]
it's impossible to know how many of those people (which constitute >50% - now approaching 66% - of firearm deaths in any year: scroll to the bottom, sourced from CDC numbers) would have simply found another method
Obstacles to a particular suicide method tend to reduce all suicides (NYT link).
posted by Etrigan at 12:14 PM on January 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
Obstacles to a particular suicide method tend to reduce all suicides (NYT link).
posted by Etrigan at 12:14 PM on January 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's probably also news that suicides outnumber these car deaths. Per the CDC, in 2013, the number was 41,149, of which 21,175 were gun suicides, just over 51%. The other major methods of suicide were suffocation and poisoning.
20,000 people for whom no gun was no obstacle.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:19 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
20,000 people for whom no gun was no obstacle.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:19 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Every person who purchases a gun and/or ammunition should have to purchase insurance, just like all Americans must have car insurance. I know it will never happen, but it would be the fastest way to make gun safety measures get implemented super fast.
There's a risk of riot breaking out of your upcoming protest, resulting in property damage, injury, and additional police costs. So we need you to secure a bond in an amount to be determined by the munipality, and submit paperwork for background checks on all protest participants. I know it's your civil right and all, but there are costs involved.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:24 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's a risk of riot breaking out of your upcoming protest, resulting in property damage, injury, and additional police costs. So we need you to secure a bond in an amount to be determined by the munipality, and submit paperwork for background checks on all protest participants. I know it's your civil right and all, but there are costs involved.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:24 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Every person who purchases a gun and/or ammunition should have to purchase insurance, just like all Americans must have car insurancel.
This seems to come up in every gun violence discussion here. Perhaps counterintuitively, guns aren't big insurance risks, probably because they are mostly either being used as designed with no liability or are being used illegally in which case insurance companies wash their hands and you are on your own. In a previous comment I quoted a Guardian article on the subject:
This seems to come up in every gun violence discussion here. Perhaps counterintuitively, guns aren't big insurance risks, probably because they are mostly either being used as designed with no liability or are being used illegally in which case insurance companies wash their hands and you are on your own. In a previous comment I quoted a Guardian article on the subject:
Insurance companies are opposing the legislation for a basic reason: right now, the vast amount of gun carnage does not result in any industry liability. Homeowner policies only cover accidental shootings, something that does not describe the vast majority of the more than 30,000 deaths, and 55,000 injuries caused by guns annually.posted by Dip Flash at 12:25 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Instead, it might describe about 600 gun-related deaths each year. "Add this up and guns are not a large risk to insurers for homeowner's insurance," says Tom Harvey, who writes the Gun Insurance Blog.
"I know you're being facetious but we have technology which allows guns only to be fired by their owners."
We do? Ones that will reliably work in the cold and with gloves on? Because everything I've heard about so far has been experimental.
posted by I-baLL at 12:27 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
We do? Ones that will reliably work in the cold and with gloves on? Because everything I've heard about so far has been experimental.
posted by I-baLL at 12:27 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Shootout in gun shop over $25 kills 2, sheriff says
Shit. If you aren't safe in a gun shop, then where are you safe?
And speaking of flying the friendly skies ...
Texas travelers No. 1 for bringing guns to airports
It looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:29 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Shit. If you aren't safe in a gun shop, then where are you safe?
And speaking of flying the friendly skies ...
Texas travelers No. 1 for bringing guns to airports
It looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:29 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
pjsky: I'm a supporter of private gun ownership, though a raving socialist and about as far left on any other social issue as is possible in the context of American (and possibly Swedish) politics. I think that both firearm ownership insurance and licensing at least on par with a driver's license would be fantastic ideas. We require both for one of the means by which private citizens kill each other off en masse, why not the other?
What I'm not at all a fan of is the attempts to regulate assault weapons, .50cal sniper rifles, etc. Categorically those types of weapons have statistically negligible contributions to firearms deaths, even after correcting for relative rarity, and I resent the frequent intellectual dishonesty on this point from gun control supporters. Stop trying to ban things simply because they look scary - the concealment factor of handguns makes them statistically an order of magnitude more dangerous and likely to be used. Going one further: the current licensing process for private ownership of fully automatic weapons is so stringent that legally owned examples are virtually never used in felonies of any kind, full stop. Nobody who cares enough to go through the required work is going to risk losing their ownership rights.
Prohibition aside, I'm in firm agreement with the proposed methods to filter out people who simply shouldn't own weapons of any kind: universal background checks, licensing, insurance. Mandatory safety training on a supervised range before you can take your gun home would eventually weed out a lot of the problematic owners after existing stockpiles age out of circulation. Provided a citizen passes through those hoops, the most dangerous thing they can own (to themselves or anybody else) by far is a common semi-automatic handgun, and nobody's seriously proposing prohibition of that particular category, except as part of a total ban.
posted by Ryvar at 12:31 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I'm not at all a fan of is the attempts to regulate assault weapons, .50cal sniper rifles, etc. Categorically those types of weapons have statistically negligible contributions to firearms deaths, even after correcting for relative rarity, and I resent the frequent intellectual dishonesty on this point from gun control supporters. Stop trying to ban things simply because they look scary - the concealment factor of handguns makes them statistically an order of magnitude more dangerous and likely to be used. Going one further: the current licensing process for private ownership of fully automatic weapons is so stringent that legally owned examples are virtually never used in felonies of any kind, full stop. Nobody who cares enough to go through the required work is going to risk losing their ownership rights.
Prohibition aside, I'm in firm agreement with the proposed methods to filter out people who simply shouldn't own weapons of any kind: universal background checks, licensing, insurance. Mandatory safety training on a supervised range before you can take your gun home would eventually weed out a lot of the problematic owners after existing stockpiles age out of circulation. Provided a citizen passes through those hoops, the most dangerous thing they can own (to themselves or anybody else) by far is a common semi-automatic handgun, and nobody's seriously proposing prohibition of that particular category, except as part of a total ban.
posted by Ryvar at 12:31 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
NEW ORLEANS —A toddler was killed when a gun went off early Wednesday morning while he and his grandmother were asleep inside a New Orleans home, authorities said.posted by octobersurprise at 12:38 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Detectives said the 3-year-old boy was sleeping in the bed with his grandmother. A gun underneath a pillow discharged, striking the infant in the chest, NOPD said.
I know it's your civil right and all, but there are costs involved.
Yeah, like innocents murdered in the almost-daily rampages you folks have. Dead children laying in pools of blood.
Wilfully blind adherence to "but but it's my RIGHT" comes at a significant cost to society.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:43 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, like innocents murdered in the almost-daily rampages you folks have. Dead children laying in pools of blood.
Wilfully blind adherence to "but but it's my RIGHT" comes at a significant cost to society.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:43 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Economic deterrents of gun ownership, like compulsory insurance coverage, are universally regressive, unless you're also proposing a subsidized gun-use insurance, special gun/ammo tax waivers, free gun training on the weekends or evenings, and free gun safes for the poor. To all of those economic obstacles, you can throw in these "signature" gun requirements that can only be fired by their owner-- mandated or not, it'll be a long time before they're cheap.
Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:45 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:45 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Some time in the distant future a subset of our deluded descendants will look back on our civilization's love of human sacrifice via controlled explosive propulsion and think we romantically barbaric.
posted by srboisvert at 12:46 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 12:46 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
We do? Ones that will reliably work in the cold and with gloves on? Because everything I've heard about so far has been experimental.
The tech to accomplish this (miniaturized biometrics and actuators) was laid down in the '70s. Practical modern solutions have been available for more than a decade. Ongoing development and integration has been stifled due to opposition to the tech is from gun manufacturers through their regulatory capture cartel (also known as the NRA) because they don't want to bother with electronics R&D.
The police, who need to fire weapons reliably in all manner of conditions and with all manner of dress, have been demanding smartguns for decades.
We have wearable electronics that can tell what kind of exercise you're doing just by the way you shake it around, and knows when you've loaned it to someone else. We can make a multi-factor biometric ID that can work wirelessly with a firearm. It will likely still not be the most likely cause of failure-to-fire when implemented - poor maintenance and shoddy loads and other causes of misfire will. No-one has ever complained that their electronic red-dot sight malfunctions more than their weapon misfires in the field.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:47 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
The tech to accomplish this (miniaturized biometrics and actuators) was laid down in the '70s. Practical modern solutions have been available for more than a decade. Ongoing development and integration has been stifled due to opposition to the tech is from gun manufacturers through their regulatory capture cartel (also known as the NRA) because they don't want to bother with electronics R&D.
The police, who need to fire weapons reliably in all manner of conditions and with all manner of dress, have been demanding smartguns for decades.
We have wearable electronics that can tell what kind of exercise you're doing just by the way you shake it around, and knows when you've loaned it to someone else. We can make a multi-factor biometric ID that can work wirelessly with a firearm. It will likely still not be the most likely cause of failure-to-fire when implemented - poor maintenance and shoddy loads and other causes of misfire will. No-one has ever complained that their electronic red-dot sight malfunctions more than their weapon misfires in the field.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:47 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though.
They have them already. They're called foreclosed properties.
posted by srboisvert at 12:47 PM on January 25, 2016
They have them already. They're called foreclosed properties.
posted by srboisvert at 12:47 PM on January 25, 2016
The widespread belief that one MUST own guns is regressive in and of itself, Sunburnt. Stop ignoring the very real, daily human cost of this belief.
I mean, want to talk suicide? I've attempted suicide multiple times in my life, and have come frighteningly close more than once. If I'd had guns around, I would not be typing this right now--I'd have been dead twenty years ago.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, want to talk suicide? I've attempted suicide multiple times in my life, and have come frighteningly close more than once. If I'd had guns around, I would not be typing this right now--I'd have been dead twenty years ago.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
> Wilfully blind adherence to "but but it's my RIGHT" comes at a significant cost to society.
Think of all the crimes that could be solved in a heartbeat if it weren't for the pesky 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Search warrants and due process are just holding back the wheels of justice. These crimes have a terrible toll on society and we could make them go away just by putting those rights aside. You're being willfully blind to suggest otherwise.
Of course every right has a cost. But apparently it's easier to deprive people of the right to protect themselves than it is to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Think of all the crimes that could be solved in a heartbeat if it weren't for the pesky 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Search warrants and due process are just holding back the wheels of justice. These crimes have a terrible toll on society and we could make them go away just by putting those rights aside. You're being willfully blind to suggest otherwise.
Of course every right has a cost. But apparently it's easier to deprive people of the right to protect themselves than it is to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
after existing stockpiles age out of circulation
If you don't leave them outside, this basically isn't going to happen, at least on any useful timescale. I'm not a big gun nut but I like to go target shooting once in a while, and most of the guns I have been shooting recently are all older than I am and some more than twice my age.
Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though.
At least in some states, gun safes and gun locks are exempt from sales tax, so as to create an incentive for people to buy them. All or most of the guns I have bought new came with gun locks, too, though I don't know how common that is. You can buy a basic gun safe for around $100, a gun lock for around $5, and a biometric handgun safe for under $200. If you can afford to buy a gun, you can afford to store it safely.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:53 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you don't leave them outside, this basically isn't going to happen, at least on any useful timescale. I'm not a big gun nut but I like to go target shooting once in a while, and most of the guns I have been shooting recently are all older than I am and some more than twice my age.
Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though.
At least in some states, gun safes and gun locks are exempt from sales tax, so as to create an incentive for people to buy them. All or most of the guns I have bought new came with gun locks, too, though I don't know how common that is. You can buy a basic gun safe for around $100, a gun lock for around $5, and a biometric handgun safe for under $200. If you can afford to buy a gun, you can afford to store it safely.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:53 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Those are entirely different things and you know it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:53 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:53 PM on January 25, 2016
(not you, Dip Flash)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:53 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:53 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
[Inclusion of suicide-by-gun in a gun-deaths stat] is problematic, as suicide by firearms is on a significant upswing since the recession, and it's impossible to know how many of those people ... would have simply found another method, and how many were genuinely victims of the immediacy of firearms as a means for committing suicide.It's also impossible to know how many gun-rampage victims would instead have been bludgeoned to death with lawn furniture in the absence of guns, or how many men who shot their wives would instead have strangled them with a brassiere or something in the absence of "the immediacy of firearms." I guess we need background checks on brassiere purchases, really. Maybe on underwear in general.
Did you know that underwear isn't even mentioned in the Constitution?
posted by Western Infidels at 1:00 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Further complicating the issue: there are large swaths of America, both rural and sadly urban, where a 911 call won't result in responders on the scene in under twenty minutes (I grew up in one such, and was almost a victim of an attempted kidnapping when I was 4, prevented by a neighbor who was a retired cop). With 300 million weapons in circulation, how do you tell law-abiding citizens living in those circumstance, "no, you disarm first?"
If you don't leave them outside, this basically isn't going to happen, at least on any useful timescale.
To some extent this is true - hell, Polish resistance fighters knocked together full-auto Sten submachineguns in basements, since they're comprised of 13 relatively simple parts, but I think adding some significant costs and paperwork would eventually bring that 300 million number down to something a little more manageable, particularly in urban centers.
Did you know that underwear isn't even mentioned in the Constitution?
Neither is toilet paper. Consider the implications.
posted by Ryvar at 1:01 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you don't leave them outside, this basically isn't going to happen, at least on any useful timescale.
To some extent this is true - hell, Polish resistance fighters knocked together full-auto Sten submachineguns in basements, since they're comprised of 13 relatively simple parts, but I think adding some significant costs and paperwork would eventually bring that 300 million number down to something a little more manageable, particularly in urban centers.
Did you know that underwear isn't even mentioned in the Constitution?
Neither is toilet paper. Consider the implications.
posted by Ryvar at 1:01 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
What are gun safes meant to achieve? Do prevent much theft short of being embedded in a concrete slab?
posted by indubitable at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by indubitable at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2016
Sunburnt: I know it's your civil right and all, but there are costs involved.
Did you know transportation is a civil right? It's not immediately obvious, but the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment (among other textual matters) means we have a constitutional right to move about the country without restriction except via due process.
And yet, and yet, we have driver's licenses, insurance mandates, airplane regulations out the wazoo, and any number of other limitations on the exercise of that right. Just like all our other rights, except apparently guns to some people, who get all constitutionally fundamentalist about just one amendment and then try to correlate that viewpoint by analogy with, say, the 4–6 amendments. For which we allow search warrants and plain-view exceptions, among many others.
It is the fundamentalist's error to confuse "willful, blind adherence" with "adherence".
posted by traveler_ at 1:05 PM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Did you know transportation is a civil right? It's not immediately obvious, but the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment (among other textual matters) means we have a constitutional right to move about the country without restriction except via due process.
And yet, and yet, we have driver's licenses, insurance mandates, airplane regulations out the wazoo, and any number of other limitations on the exercise of that right. Just like all our other rights, except apparently guns to some people, who get all constitutionally fundamentalist about just one amendment and then try to correlate that viewpoint by analogy with, say, the 4–6 amendments. For which we allow search warrants and plain-view exceptions, among many others.
It is the fundamentalist's error to confuse "willful, blind adherence" with "adherence".
posted by traveler_ at 1:05 PM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
I just cannot understand the vitriol aimed at people who think the USA could do better in preventing accidental gun deaths. Seriously, WTF y'all?
posted by pjsky at 1:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 1:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
They (gun safes) prevent e.g. toddlers getting shot by accident.
That said, any argument for gun safes is an argument that implicitly admits that 'self defence' is an utterly ridiculous justification for owning guns. If your gun is stored safely (in a safe, unloaded), then it is useless as a self-defence tool if someone comes into your home. That and handguns are totally useless for in-home self-defence anyway.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
That said, any argument for gun safes is an argument that implicitly admits that 'self defence' is an utterly ridiculous justification for owning guns. If your gun is stored safely (in a safe, unloaded), then it is useless as a self-defence tool if someone comes into your home. That and handguns are totally useless for in-home self-defence anyway.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
who get all constitutionally fundamentalist about just one amendment
No, they get constitutionally fundamentalist about half of one amendment, and cheerfully ignore the bit about a "well-regulated militia."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
No, they get constitutionally fundamentalist about half of one amendment, and cheerfully ignore the bit about a "well-regulated militia."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though.
That's socialism!
But if we're providing everyone with a free gun safe in order that they may exercise their god-given and strictly constitutional second amendment rights, does that mean everyone gets a free printing press in order to exercise their GG&SC first amendment rights?
Because I would loves a free printing press.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:09 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's socialism!
But if we're providing everyone with a free gun safe in order that they may exercise their god-given and strictly constitutional second amendment rights, does that mean everyone gets a free printing press in order to exercise their GG&SC first amendment rights?
Because I would loves a free printing press.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:09 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's also impossible to know how many gun-rampage victims would instead have been bludgeoned to death with lawn furniture in the absence of guns, or how many men who shot their wives would instead have strangled them with a brassiere or something in the absence of "the immediacy of firearms." I guess we need background checks on brassiere purchases, really. Maybe on underwear in general.
Amazingly people still beat, stab and strangle their spouses to death. It's tracked by the FBI. Guns just make it easier.
You "not everyone stops at stop signs so why have them at all?" argument is weak tea.
posted by Max Power at 1:09 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Amazingly people still beat, stab and strangle their spouses to death. It's tracked by the FBI. Guns just make it easier.
You "not everyone stops at stop signs so why have them at all?" argument is weak tea.
posted by Max Power at 1:09 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
indubitable: What are gun safes meant to achieve? Do prevent much theft short of being embedded in a concrete slab?
Yes, just as money safes reduce the theft of money. Honestly, the most annoying thing in the world is talking about gun control in the USA as if no other countries have any experience whatsoever in attempting these laws, and they're all just experiments and hypotheticals—"what about other means of suicide", "what about other means of mass-violence", "what about self-defense", "what about criminal smuggling", whatabout whatabout whatabout. Honestly it's know-nothingism at this point.
posted by traveler_ at 1:11 PM on January 25, 2016 [24 favorites]
Yes, just as money safes reduce the theft of money. Honestly, the most annoying thing in the world is talking about gun control in the USA as if no other countries have any experience whatsoever in attempting these laws, and they're all just experiments and hypotheticals—"what about other means of suicide", "what about other means of mass-violence", "what about self-defense", "what about criminal smuggling", whatabout whatabout whatabout. Honestly it's know-nothingism at this point.
posted by traveler_ at 1:11 PM on January 25, 2016 [24 favorites]
If your gun is stored safely (in a safe, unloaded), then it is useless as a self-defence tool if someone comes into your home.
fffm: it took the severely mentally ill woman attempting to kidnap myself and my sister a few minutes to batter her way into the house. By which point my mother had already handed us out a window on the other side of the house to our neighbor, who came from a block over with his gun that he kept in a safe (I know this because we went target shooting together several years later when I was starting to learn gun safety).
I'm not saying that it isn't a major hindrance in the defend-my-castle fantasy a lot of casual gun owners have, but I can't see it being a total show-stopper, either.
posted by Ryvar at 1:14 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
fffm: it took the severely mentally ill woman attempting to kidnap myself and my sister a few minutes to batter her way into the house. By which point my mother had already handed us out a window on the other side of the house to our neighbor, who came from a block over with his gun that he kept in a safe (I know this because we went target shooting together several years later when I was starting to learn gun safety).
I'm not saying that it isn't a major hindrance in the defend-my-castle fantasy a lot of casual gun owners have, but I can't see it being a total show-stopper, either.
posted by Ryvar at 1:14 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly it's know-nothingism at this point.
Have you seen a Trump rally? It's literally the Whig Party for 2016.
posted by Talez at 1:15 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you seen a Trump rally? It's literally the Whig Party for 2016.
posted by Talez at 1:15 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
And yet, and yet, we have driver's licenses, insurance mandates, airplane regulations out the wazoo, and any number of other limitations on the exercise of that right.
Unconstitutional! According to a GG&SC reading of Holy Writ (i.e., the constitution):
Unconstitutional! According to a GG&SC reading of Holy Writ (i.e., the constitution):
"Using a common sovereign argument, Barber, 62, insists he doesn't need tags on his car if he is "traveling" rather than "driving," because "driving" implies that he's engaged in commerce, as opposed to "traveling," which is a God-given right.posted by octobersurprise at 1:25 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Barber has been hauled into court repeatedly over the years and is well known to local judges. When Judge David Lichtenstein found Barber guilty of having disabled vehicles in his yard, he said Barber sent him a letter demanding $6 million in gold."
Picking something like car deaths, which are dropping, gives a different comparison than something that is sharply rising, like alcohol. And for the comparison to have any meaning, you would want to pick things that were at least somewhat linked, rather than just sharing a comparable number of fatalities.
Anecdotally, whenever I'm on a thread in reddit involving gun control, the Gun Nut contingent always brings up cars in their rhetoric. Hundreds of times I've seen them say "more people are killed in car crashes than are by guns, do you want to ban those too?" It might be A Thing with the pro-gun types, I don't know. The other one they seem to like is "guns are a tool, not a weapon", which always leaves me wondering if they realize that "tool" and "weapon" aren't really mutually exclusive.
posted by Hoopo at 1:37 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anecdotally, whenever I'm on a thread in reddit involving gun control, the Gun Nut contingent always brings up cars in their rhetoric. Hundreds of times I've seen them say "more people are killed in car crashes than are by guns, do you want to ban those too?" It might be A Thing with the pro-gun types, I don't know. The other one they seem to like is "guns are a tool, not a weapon", which always leaves me wondering if they realize that "tool" and "weapon" aren't really mutually exclusive.
posted by Hoopo at 1:37 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
But apparently it's easier to deprive people of the right to protect themselves than it is to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal.
That's disingenuous, we need protection from the people wielding guns. And adding more guns into the mix makes people less safe, not more so.
posted by JenMarie at 1:45 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's disingenuous, we need protection from the people wielding guns. And adding more guns into the mix makes people less safe, not more so.
posted by JenMarie at 1:45 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
In fairness US vehicle death stats are pretty poor. There's a lot of lives there that could be saved also.
posted by biffa at 2:20 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 2:20 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Perhaps counterintuitively, guns aren't big insurance risks, probably because they are mostly either being used as designed with no liability or are being used illegally in which case insurance companies wash their hands and you are on your own.
No, gun accidents are common but they're not prosecuted (in stark contrast to car accidents). Many/most guns used illegally were initially obtained legally and diverted (such as guns that were stolen because they weren't stored properly in a gun safe, for example), and so on.
Once insurance policies are liable for the downstream costs of an owner's gun, then not only will safe secure behavior be financially incentivized, but serious high-stakes profit-driven scrutiny will drill down on finding out what behaviors empirically genuinely work in reducing liability and increasing profitability. Right now, we're doing the opposite - banning the CDC from even basic research, and creating moral hazard by pushing the the costs of accidents away from the causes of the accident, onto government and health insurance companies and so on.
posted by anonymisc at 2:24 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, gun accidents are common but they're not prosecuted (in stark contrast to car accidents). Many/most guns used illegally were initially obtained legally and diverted (such as guns that were stolen because they weren't stored properly in a gun safe, for example), and so on.
Once insurance policies are liable for the downstream costs of an owner's gun, then not only will safe secure behavior be financially incentivized, but serious high-stakes profit-driven scrutiny will drill down on finding out what behaviors empirically genuinely work in reducing liability and increasing profitability. Right now, we're doing the opposite - banning the CDC from even basic research, and creating moral hazard by pushing the the costs of accidents away from the causes of the accident, onto government and health insurance companies and so on.
posted by anonymisc at 2:24 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Think of all the crimes that could be solved in a heartbeat if it weren't for the pesky 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
Congratulations, you just cited random amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd. Portraying the Bill of Rights as evidence in this sort of "the Founders could do no wrong" is indeed a sort of willful blindness. After all, I can think of all of the crimes allowed in the hundred years before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
But apparently it's easier to deprive people of the right to protect themselves than it is to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal.
And yet there are many countries with far more restrictive gun rights than the US where people manage to protect themselves as well or better than here. And please tell me how preventing the CDC from even the slightest bit of funding for researching gun violence is helping to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal. Because from the research we do have, we know that firearms don't actually contribute very much to protecting one's self, and are very likely to be harmful either to the potential victim or innocent bystanders. We also know that having guns available makes it much easier for domestic violence, especially violence against women, to become deadly.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:36 PM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Congratulations, you just cited random amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd. Portraying the Bill of Rights as evidence in this sort of "the Founders could do no wrong" is indeed a sort of willful blindness. After all, I can think of all of the crimes allowed in the hundred years before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
But apparently it's easier to deprive people of the right to protect themselves than it is to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal.
And yet there are many countries with far more restrictive gun rights than the US where people manage to protect themselves as well or better than here. And please tell me how preventing the CDC from even the slightest bit of funding for researching gun violence is helping to address the reasons people are murderous and/or suicidal. Because from the research we do have, we know that firearms don't actually contribute very much to protecting one's self, and are very likely to be harmful either to the potential victim or innocent bystanders. We also know that having guns available makes it much easier for domestic violence, especially violence against women, to become deadly.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:36 PM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
There's a risk of riot breaking out of your upcoming protest, resulting in property damage, injury, and additional police costs. So we need you to secure a bond in an amount to be determined by the munipality, and submit paperwork for background checks on all protest participants.
False equivalence. A protest is not a weapon engineered for the sole purpose of taking life.
What I'm not at all a fan of is the attempts to regulate assault weapons, .50cal sniper rifles, etc. Categorically those types of weapons have statistically negligible contributions to firearms deaths, even after correcting for relative rarity, and I resent the frequent intellectual dishonesty on this point from gun control supporters. Stop trying to ban things simply because they look scary - the concealment factor of handguns makes them statistically an order of magnitude more dangerous and likely to be used.
Again, these weapons don't just "look scary," they are engineered to take human lives as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's not unreasonable to regulate them. Think of them as something like a drag racer, illegal to operate on city streets.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:49 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
False equivalence. A protest is not a weapon engineered for the sole purpose of taking life.
What I'm not at all a fan of is the attempts to regulate assault weapons, .50cal sniper rifles, etc. Categorically those types of weapons have statistically negligible contributions to firearms deaths, even after correcting for relative rarity, and I resent the frequent intellectual dishonesty on this point from gun control supporters. Stop trying to ban things simply because they look scary - the concealment factor of handguns makes them statistically an order of magnitude more dangerous and likely to be used.
Again, these weapons don't just "look scary," they are engineered to take human lives as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's not unreasonable to regulate them. Think of them as something like a drag racer, illegal to operate on city streets.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:49 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
> That and handguns are totally useless for in-home self-defence anyway.
They're probably not the best weapon for the job, but totally useless? Are you really unaware of evidence to the contrary?
posted by Sunburnt at 3:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
They're probably not the best weapon for the job, but totally useless? Are you really unaware of evidence to the contrary?
posted by Sunburnt at 3:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not going to play the sea lion game. The facts, the very simple facts, are these: guns kill people. Countries with far more restrictive gun laws are also significantly safer.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:22 PM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:22 PM on January 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
They're probably not the best weapon for the job, but totally useless? Are you really unaware of evidence to the contrary?
I'm assuming by "evidence" here, you're referring to the NRA's propaganda campaign that regularly quotes a figure of 2.5m crimes stopped every year? Because that number is pulled out of their ass:
Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use (PDF, emphasis in original):
I'm assuming by "evidence" here, you're referring to the NRA's propaganda campaign that regularly quotes a figure of 2.5m crimes stopped every year? Because that number is pulled out of their ass:
Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use (PDF, emphasis in original):
While it is clear that guns are rarely used to justifiably kill criminals, an obvious question remains: How often are guns used in self defense whether or not a criminal is killed?And yes, they are pretty damn close to totally useless, particularly in preventing property crimes, where they have a whopping 0.1% effect:
Pro-gun advocates—from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Rifle Association—frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States. According to the 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health by Dr. David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the “most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.”In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million number from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self defense claims for firearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassification that is well known to medical epidemiologists.”
Hemenway notes, and numerous others agree, that the most accurate survey of self-defense gun use is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The survey has been ongoing since 1973.
Violent Crimeposted by zombieflanders at 3:43 PM on January 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.” As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.
Property Crime
According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of attempted or completed property crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.1 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.” As detailed in the table on the previous page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 84,495,500 victims of attempted or completed property crime. During this same five-year period, only 103,000 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And as before, the number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison, new data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010.
And just in case you think the problem is those commie fascist hippies in California and NY (where complaints about gun restrictions are wildly overblown anyway), the states in which no justifiable homicides in defense of person or property took place include Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Most of those have among the most permissive gun laws in the country--if not the world--including open carry and "stand your ground," neither of which are covered by the 2nd Amendment.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:55 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 3:55 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Again, these weapons don't just "look scary," they are engineered to take human lives as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's not unreasonable to regulate them. Think of them as something like a drag racer, illegal to operate on city streets.
This analogy would work if either a) drag racers were already on the streets, or b) assault weapons (which are in fairly wide circulation in the case of the AR-15) were racking up a statistically meaningful number of fatalities.
Neither of those things are true. Drag racers would probably kill an awful lot of people if they were on our streets, because young testosterone-junkie males/privilege-addled middle-aged males would fail to control themselves and kill a lot of innocent bystanders. And this is in fact what we see happening with those same groups and handguns, because they are highly portable and concealable in ways that are qualitatively different from assault weapons. Taking human lives as quickly and efficiently as possible just isn't the determining factor in firearm deaths - the element of surprise is clearly of greater importance and this is supported by all of the facts on the ground and their tragic results.
I apologize if this is too blunt but your analogy just doesn't hold in theory or in practice.
posted by Ryvar at 4:22 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
This analogy would work if either a) drag racers were already on the streets, or b) assault weapons (which are in fairly wide circulation in the case of the AR-15) were racking up a statistically meaningful number of fatalities.
Neither of those things are true. Drag racers would probably kill an awful lot of people if they were on our streets, because young testosterone-junkie males/privilege-addled middle-aged males would fail to control themselves and kill a lot of innocent bystanders. And this is in fact what we see happening with those same groups and handguns, because they are highly portable and concealable in ways that are qualitatively different from assault weapons. Taking human lives as quickly and efficiently as possible just isn't the determining factor in firearm deaths - the element of surprise is clearly of greater importance and this is supported by all of the facts on the ground and their tragic results.
I apologize if this is too blunt but your analogy just doesn't hold in theory or in practice.
posted by Ryvar at 4:22 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
or b) assault weapons (which are in fairly wide circulation in the case of the AR-15) were racking up a statistically meaningful number of fatalities.
Mass shootings frequently use them. More to the point, there is literally no purpose whatsoever for such weapons to ever be in private hands, in private homes, or on the street. None.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:28 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mass shootings frequently use them. More to the point, there is literally no purpose whatsoever for such weapons to ever be in private hands, in private homes, or on the street. None.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:28 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Assault weapon" is an artificial category whose name conjures up images of an automatic rifle covered in scopes, laser pointers, and detachable grenade launchers; but which can actually include (depending on the bill in question) something as trivial as a semi-automatic handgun, or an otherwise-legal rifle with a mount point for a scope.
Furthermore, you're being very insistent that an outright ban on as many guns as you can justify is an uncontroversial good, when the evidence for that is actually unclear. Scott Alexander has an analysis of multiple studies on gun control, with followup after getting comments, and Mother Jones has thorough data on mass shootings in particular (since that's the scary kind that sparks gun control debates, as opposed to police shootings or suicides).
In short, further gun control in America might have more pros than cons, for example a gun buyback program like Australia implemented, but there's plenty of room for disagreement and further data analysis. Absolute statements like "totally useless" and "no purpose whatsoever" are not justified.
Back to the original post's link: it's heartening that nationwide, vehicle deaths went down by more than gun deaths went up. I'd like to see what effect smart guns, like one that can only be fired when next to the owner's RFID ring (to avoid issues with unreliable biometrics), would have on this statistic.
posted by Rangi at 4:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Furthermore, you're being very insistent that an outright ban on as many guns as you can justify is an uncontroversial good, when the evidence for that is actually unclear. Scott Alexander has an analysis of multiple studies on gun control, with followup after getting comments, and Mother Jones has thorough data on mass shootings in particular (since that's the scary kind that sparks gun control debates, as opposed to police shootings or suicides).
In short, further gun control in America might have more pros than cons, for example a gun buyback program like Australia implemented, but there's plenty of room for disagreement and further data analysis. Absolute statements like "totally useless" and "no purpose whatsoever" are not justified.
Back to the original post's link: it's heartening that nationwide, vehicle deaths went down by more than gun deaths went up. I'd like to see what effect smart guns, like one that can only be fired when next to the owner's RFID ring (to avoid issues with unreliable biometrics), would have on this statistic.
posted by Rangi at 4:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
when the evidence for that is actually unclear.
Only if you pretend that a) the only country that exists is the USA, and b) that statistics within the USA are lies.
The rest of the Western world has much more significant gun control, and far fewer deaths by firearms per capita. There is just no way around that, and there is no anti-control argument that you can make that is worth listening to unless it takes those facts into account.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:56 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Only if you pretend that a) the only country that exists is the USA, and b) that statistics within the USA are lies.
The rest of the Western world has much more significant gun control, and far fewer deaths by firearms per capita. There is just no way around that, and there is no anti-control argument that you can make that is worth listening to unless it takes those facts into account.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:56 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
and Mother Jones has thorough data on mass shootings in particular (since that's the scary kind that sparks gun control debates, as opposed to police shootings or suicides)
This is a pretty disingenuous description of their work. Mother Jones, like many other publications doing extensive reporting, has thorough data on gun violence as a whole. In fact, if you'd clicked on the "Guns" tag at the top of the article, the first article linked is about the incredible financial cost of all the gun violence in the US. Which, as it turns out, is $229 billion. That's more than the current cost of addressing obesity and almost as much as we spend on Medicaid and addressing smoking illnesses and deaths. And that doesn't even get into the emotional costs, the stresses on families of those killed or permanently disabled, or any of a number of other factors.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is a pretty disingenuous description of their work. Mother Jones, like many other publications doing extensive reporting, has thorough data on gun violence as a whole. In fact, if you'd clicked on the "Guns" tag at the top of the article, the first article linked is about the incredible financial cost of all the gun violence in the US. Which, as it turns out, is $229 billion. That's more than the current cost of addressing obesity and almost as much as we spend on Medicaid and addressing smoking illnesses and deaths. And that doesn't even get into the emotional costs, the stresses on families of those killed or permanently disabled, or any of a number of other factors.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Back to the original post's link: it's heartening that nationwide, vehicle deaths went down by more than gun deaths went up. I'd like to see what effect smart guns, like one that can only be fired when next to the owner's RFID ring (to avoid issues with unreliable bio-metrics), would have on this statistic.
I didn't want to editorialize in my initial post, as it was my first - but the article made me wonder why indeed we lack bio-metrics on weapons, and if a public health framing might push the industry that way as it did with vehicle safety. It seems unnecessarily difficult to even have discussion about reductions in gun violence no matter what predicates it.
While noodling about for this post, I did notice the VPC is funded mostly by the Joyce Foundation, with Obama serving as board member from 1994-2002, and had even considered taking the chairman role.
Ok, carry on.
posted by Mr.Pointy at 5:15 PM on January 25, 2016
I didn't want to editorialize in my initial post, as it was my first - but the article made me wonder why indeed we lack bio-metrics on weapons, and if a public health framing might push the industry that way as it did with vehicle safety. It seems unnecessarily difficult to even have discussion about reductions in gun violence no matter what predicates it.
While noodling about for this post, I did notice the VPC is funded mostly by the Joyce Foundation, with Obama serving as board member from 1994-2002, and had even considered taking the chairman role.
Ok, carry on.
posted by Mr.Pointy at 5:15 PM on January 25, 2016
The rest of the Western world has much more significant gun control, and far fewer deaths by firearms per capita.
It's hard enough to draw clear conclusions from US-only data. States are far enough apart that they can have different climates, demographics, cultures, et cetera, and all of those have to be accounted for to figure out how guns themselves are affecting death rates. (For example, gun homicides and gun suicides correlate with Southernness, which could have to do with historical Scots-Irish "culture of honor". Five of the VPC's 21 cited states are Southern.)
Take Japan, for instance. They have very strict gun control and practically no gun homicides or suicides. That doesn't mean that importing their gun control laws to the US would have the same effect. The other day I saw this MeFi thread dissecting Tim Rogers' long rant about living in Japan, where vorfeed pointed out that his attempt to introduce American business techniques there was silly, just like the "Japanese management method" craze in America. Cultures are important and difficult to quantify. Switzerland has high gun ownership and low gun homicides, but that's weak evidence against gun control—more likely it has to do with conscription, military training, or other cultural factors.
On preview: zombieflanders, thanks for the article. I linked to the mass-shootings one because I found it via a previous thread here about such a shooting, and because it has plenty of first-hand data. (The Mother Jones article you cited explains why this is unusual: "Why the lack of solid data? A prime reason is that the National Rifle Association and other influential gun rights advocates have long pressured political leaders to shut down research related to firearms. The Annals of Internal Medicine editorial detailed this "suppression of science.")
posted by Rangi at 5:21 PM on January 25, 2016
It's hard enough to draw clear conclusions from US-only data. States are far enough apart that they can have different climates, demographics, cultures, et cetera, and all of those have to be accounted for to figure out how guns themselves are affecting death rates. (For example, gun homicides and gun suicides correlate with Southernness, which could have to do with historical Scots-Irish "culture of honor". Five of the VPC's 21 cited states are Southern.)
Take Japan, for instance. They have very strict gun control and practically no gun homicides or suicides. That doesn't mean that importing their gun control laws to the US would have the same effect. The other day I saw this MeFi thread dissecting Tim Rogers' long rant about living in Japan, where vorfeed pointed out that his attempt to introduce American business techniques there was silly, just like the "Japanese management method" craze in America. Cultures are important and difficult to quantify. Switzerland has high gun ownership and low gun homicides, but that's weak evidence against gun control—more likely it has to do with conscription, military training, or other cultural factors.
On preview: zombieflanders, thanks for the article. I linked to the mass-shootings one because I found it via a previous thread here about such a shooting, and because it has plenty of first-hand data. (The Mother Jones article you cited explains why this is unusual: "Why the lack of solid data? A prime reason is that the National Rifle Association and other influential gun rights advocates have long pressured political leaders to shut down research related to firearms. The Annals of Internal Medicine editorial detailed this "suppression of science.")
posted by Rangi at 5:21 PM on January 25, 2016
Right, how did I forget about American Exceptionalism?
Then look at Canada. Same frontier country, similar distribution of urban vs country living (and attendant politics), etc. We have much stronger gun control than you do (oh and if you could stop smuggling weapons northward across the border that would be great, thanks), and per capita our gun death rate is something like 1/8 of yours.
gee I wonder what the biggest difference is hmmm let me tryyyyy to figure it out
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:27 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Then look at Canada. Same frontier country, similar distribution of urban vs country living (and attendant politics), etc. We have much stronger gun control than you do (oh and if you could stop smuggling weapons northward across the border that would be great, thanks), and per capita our gun death rate is something like 1/8 of yours.
gee I wonder what the biggest difference is hmmm let me tryyyyy to figure it out
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:27 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mass shootings frequently use them.
I challenge you to back that up with even a shred of evidence. The articles you're probably thinking of (based on the Mother Jones 2013 study) very specifically lumped in America's ubiquitous semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. Weapons targeted by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban accounted for 20 of the 143 weapons used in major front-page mass shootings (the near-daily 4+ people in a public place mass shooting definition used elsewhere almost universally involves handguns). This is called out specifically in the infographic for that article. Even that 20 is amazingly low given the typical "going out in a blaze of glory" fantasies on the part of the deranged individuals involved.
In every single way that matters America's gun problem is a handgun problem and the reason for that is very simple: there is no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't until it's far too late. This is compounded by the near-total legal (and illegal) availability of such weapons to even the casually interested, and lax licensing laws for the whole category (which should be fixable, but isn't due to the fucking NRA) with the sole exception of concealed carry licenses.
More to the point, there is literally no purpose whatsoever for such weapons to ever be in private hands, in private homes, or on the street. None.
Ranchers and farmers like the ones I grew up around *love* AR-15s for pest control, because it allows them to accurately put multiple shots on a small distant target in a hurry. They're also incredibly fun at a range, and I can always tell when somebody has one on their person just by looking at them. Their utility in a typical mass shooting scenario is considerably less than a handgun: everybody's been warned, they're unwieldy in any tight space, require more time to focus on a target, and usually fire ammunition with terminal ballistics designed to wound rather than kill. The reason they even show up at all in mass shootings is that it's what soldiers have on hand when they snap, or angry teenagers looking to emulate the lobby scene from The Matrix.
but the article made me wonder why indeed we lack bio-metrics on weapons, and if a public health framing might push the industry that way as it did with vehicle safety.
As above: the fucking NRA is the problem. They're locked into an unbreakable feedback loop with the true believers, and at this point it's impossible to discern which side is promulgating a toxic culture in the other. There are far more pro-gun liberals out there than I think most Metafilter users realize, but nowhere near enough to stand a snowball's chance in hell of effecting any positive change free of categorical/general prohibition.
posted by Ryvar at 5:27 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I challenge you to back that up with even a shred of evidence. The articles you're probably thinking of (based on the Mother Jones 2013 study) very specifically lumped in America's ubiquitous semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. Weapons targeted by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban accounted for 20 of the 143 weapons used in major front-page mass shootings (the near-daily 4+ people in a public place mass shooting definition used elsewhere almost universally involves handguns). This is called out specifically in the infographic for that article. Even that 20 is amazingly low given the typical "going out in a blaze of glory" fantasies on the part of the deranged individuals involved.
In every single way that matters America's gun problem is a handgun problem and the reason for that is very simple: there is no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't until it's far too late. This is compounded by the near-total legal (and illegal) availability of such weapons to even the casually interested, and lax licensing laws for the whole category (which should be fixable, but isn't due to the fucking NRA) with the sole exception of concealed carry licenses.
More to the point, there is literally no purpose whatsoever for such weapons to ever be in private hands, in private homes, or on the street. None.
Ranchers and farmers like the ones I grew up around *love* AR-15s for pest control, because it allows them to accurately put multiple shots on a small distant target in a hurry. They're also incredibly fun at a range, and I can always tell when somebody has one on their person just by looking at them. Their utility in a typical mass shooting scenario is considerably less than a handgun: everybody's been warned, they're unwieldy in any tight space, require more time to focus on a target, and usually fire ammunition with terminal ballistics designed to wound rather than kill. The reason they even show up at all in mass shootings is that it's what soldiers have on hand when they snap, or angry teenagers looking to emulate the lobby scene from The Matrix.
but the article made me wonder why indeed we lack bio-metrics on weapons, and if a public health framing might push the industry that way as it did with vehicle safety.
As above: the fucking NRA is the problem. They're locked into an unbreakable feedback loop with the true believers, and at this point it's impossible to discern which side is promulgating a toxic culture in the other. There are far more pro-gun liberals out there than I think most Metafilter users realize, but nowhere near enough to stand a snowball's chance in hell of effecting any positive change free of categorical/general prohibition.
posted by Ryvar at 5:27 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
The evidence is in the news, your cherrypicking notwithstanding.
Guns kill people. Guns kill more people per capita in the USA than in any other Western nation. The USA has amongst the most lax gun laws on the planet. The math here isn't hard.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:31 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Guns kill people. Guns kill more people per capita in the USA than in any other Western nation. The USA has amongst the most lax gun laws on the planet. The math here isn't hard.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:31 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
gee I wonder what the biggest difference is hmmm let me tryyyyy to figure it out
Appalling income inequality? Unresolved history of slavery? Foundation in a successful war of independence?
You'd almost think we were describing entirely different countries with separate histories, demographics, and legal systems.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Appalling income inequality? Unresolved history of slavery? Foundation in a successful war of independence?
You'd almost think we were describing entirely different countries with separate histories, demographics, and legal systems.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
This analogy would work if either a) drag racers were already on the streets, or b) assault weapons (which are in fairly wide circulation in the case of the AR-15) were racking up a statistically meaningful number of fatalities.
Neither of those things are true.
I see. Sandyhook isn't statistically meaningful. The hi-cap semi-auto rifle is the Cuddle Gun, only murders children in small numbers, just a blip in statistics, really. The Cuddle Gun is just there for grown men to cuddle while daydreaming about killing their fellow Americans for political reasons. If it wasn't available, Adam Lanza would have killed those kids with a garden trowel, shouldn't we regulate garden trowels if you want to regulate Cuddle Guns?
If I seem bitter and sarcastic, it's because I am.
Assault rifles - or since the "gun enthusiasts" all love denying such a category exists (they're wrong, but let's roll with it) - high capacity, quick-detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles based closely in form and function on infantry weapons designed to be effective at killing people above all other purposes - are a big part of the problem. If you need more than six shots to take down that deer, venison was not meant to be on the menu. I mean, bow-hunters seem to get by with one.
The burning neeeeeeed many "gun enthusiasts" have for infantry weapons capable of mowing down every six year old in a classroom is unseemly. At best.
Don't get me wrong, pistols, especially automatics, need to be highly regulated and restricted as well. (Funny how the internet gun experts forget the careful distinctions between "semi-automatic" and "automatic" when pistols are involved, you got your revolver and your automatic. Of course, the distinction they mean when they tut-tut at you about your lack of gun-nuttery on the "auto vs. semi-auto" thing is between full-automatic, select-fire and semi-automatic - they're all automatic action firearms, where the energy of the expended cartridge loads the next and cocks the firing mechanism. Yes, the AR-15 is an automatic rifle, because it it not bolt or lever action. Won't stop our fine friends who smell of cordite from falling all over themselves trying to "correct" you.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:59 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Neither of those things are true.
I see. Sandyhook isn't statistically meaningful. The hi-cap semi-auto rifle is the Cuddle Gun, only murders children in small numbers, just a blip in statistics, really. The Cuddle Gun is just there for grown men to cuddle while daydreaming about killing their fellow Americans for political reasons. If it wasn't available, Adam Lanza would have killed those kids with a garden trowel, shouldn't we regulate garden trowels if you want to regulate Cuddle Guns?
If I seem bitter and sarcastic, it's because I am.
Assault rifles - or since the "gun enthusiasts" all love denying such a category exists (they're wrong, but let's roll with it) - high capacity, quick-detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles based closely in form and function on infantry weapons designed to be effective at killing people above all other purposes - are a big part of the problem. If you need more than six shots to take down that deer, venison was not meant to be on the menu. I mean, bow-hunters seem to get by with one.
The burning neeeeeeed many "gun enthusiasts" have for infantry weapons capable of mowing down every six year old in a classroom is unseemly. At best.
Don't get me wrong, pistols, especially automatics, need to be highly regulated and restricted as well. (Funny how the internet gun experts forget the careful distinctions between "semi-automatic" and "automatic" when pistols are involved, you got your revolver and your automatic. Of course, the distinction they mean when they tut-tut at you about your lack of gun-nuttery on the "auto vs. semi-auto" thing is between full-automatic, select-fire and semi-automatic - they're all automatic action firearms, where the energy of the expended cartridge loads the next and cocks the firing mechanism. Yes, the AR-15 is an automatic rifle, because it it not bolt or lever action. Won't stop our fine friends who smell of cordite from falling all over themselves trying to "correct" you.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:59 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Rangi: It's hard enough to draw clear conclusions from US-only data.
This is an argument for more data, not less. In which case take a look. It doesn't matter whether a country is as culturally similar to the US as it's probably possible to be (like Canada, I mean come on) or very different like Japan, we stand way out with our "American Exceptionalism". Every other country with our resources that's tried gun control has seen it work.
posted by traveler_ at 6:17 PM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is an argument for more data, not less. In which case take a look. It doesn't matter whether a country is as culturally similar to the US as it's probably possible to be (like Canada, I mean come on) or very different like Japan, we stand way out with our "American Exceptionalism". Every other country with our resources that's tried gun control has seen it work.
posted by traveler_ at 6:17 PM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
What I'm not at all a fan of is the attempts to regulate assault weapons, .50cal sniper rifles, etc. Categorically those types of weapons have statistically negligible contributions to firearms deaths, even after correcting for relative rarity, and I resent the frequent intellectual dishonesty on this point from gun control supporters. Stop trying to ban things simply because they look scary
For 1 cent on Amazon you can get the book "The Saturday night special: And other guns with which Americans won the West, protected bootleg franchises, slew wildlife, robbed countless banks, ... with the debate over continuing same", wherein, all the way back in 1973, Robert Sherrill makes the strong case that bans against machine guns and assault rifles and other "scary" firearms are the only ones that the pro-gun lobby and politicians will allow. Most firearm regulations start with the inclusion of regulations on handguns and long rifles and get whittled down in committee until only bans or limitations on "scary" guns are left.
Those in favor of gun control are not guilty of intellectual dishonesty - they're being steamrollered and bullied by the anti-regulation side. The pro-gun lobby is only willing to "compromise" on scary guns, so that's what gets banned. Claiming that gun control supporters are intellectually dishonest is some prime victim-blaming and fact-ignoring.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:25 PM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
For 1 cent on Amazon you can get the book "The Saturday night special: And other guns with which Americans won the West, protected bootleg franchises, slew wildlife, robbed countless banks, ... with the debate over continuing same", wherein, all the way back in 1973, Robert Sherrill makes the strong case that bans against machine guns and assault rifles and other "scary" firearms are the only ones that the pro-gun lobby and politicians will allow. Most firearm regulations start with the inclusion of regulations on handguns and long rifles and get whittled down in committee until only bans or limitations on "scary" guns are left.
Those in favor of gun control are not guilty of intellectual dishonesty - they're being steamrollered and bullied by the anti-regulation side. The pro-gun lobby is only willing to "compromise" on scary guns, so that's what gets banned. Claiming that gun control supporters are intellectually dishonest is some prime victim-blaming and fact-ignoring.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:25 PM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
the right to protect themselves
A man arrested for accidentally shooting a woman at a Washington state movie theater on Friday reportedly told police that he was armed because he feared mass shootings.
There's yer "right to protect yourself" in action in the actual real world. Works real good, huh, Sparky?
posted by soundguy99 at 6:32 PM on January 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
A man arrested for accidentally shooting a woman at a Washington state movie theater on Friday reportedly told police that he was armed because he feared mass shootings.
There's yer "right to protect yourself" in action in the actual real world. Works real good, huh, Sparky?
posted by soundguy99 at 6:32 PM on January 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
Countries with far more restrictive gun laws are also significantly safer.
I addressed this in an old thread, here, with supporting data here. The assertion I was disputing was that countries with more guns had proportionally more death, which I would consider analogous to "more restrictive gun laws means safer". I found that the US has a whole lot more firearms but only a little bit more death than the average among developed nations.
The person with whom I was arguing said that I correlated the columns (a more reliable technique than just looking for means). In the whole set of countries you listed there is not a statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and both murder and suicide. That's interesting and surprising.
Check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, my data has links to the sources.
posted by MoTLD at 7:12 PM on January 25, 2016
I addressed this in an old thread, here, with supporting data here. The assertion I was disputing was that countries with more guns had proportionally more death, which I would consider analogous to "more restrictive gun laws means safer". I found that the US has a whole lot more firearms but only a little bit more death than the average among developed nations.
The person with whom I was arguing said that I correlated the columns (a more reliable technique than just looking for means). In the whole set of countries you listed there is not a statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and both murder and suicide. That's interesting and surprising.
Check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, my data has links to the sources.
posted by MoTLD at 7:12 PM on January 25, 2016
"intentional deaths" is not the same as "death by firearms," so.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:19 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:19 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Robert Sherrill makes the strong case that bans against machine guns and assault rifles and other "scary" firearms are the only ones that the pro-gun lobby and politicians will allow. Most firearm regulations start with the inclusion of regulations on handguns and long rifles and get whittled down in committee until only bans or limitations on "scary" guns are left.
FWIW, the one thing every single left-leaning or far-left gun rights supporter I know (or am) has in common is a desire to approach the problem from the perspective of licensing, mandatory training, etc. I don't believe I should ever be allowed to own a gun that I can take away from a supervised range. Successfully treated or not, it's just not compatible with a severe mood disorder. I know a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who can be trusted, though, and should be allowed to exercise that right for a variety of reasons. I think the answer lies in filtering out people like myself, not in attempting a blanket/categorical ban in a country where guns outnumber people.
I'm out, thank you all for the thread. I did learn a few new things and enjoyed talking to you all about it.
posted by Ryvar at 7:30 PM on January 25, 2016
FWIW, the one thing every single left-leaning or far-left gun rights supporter I know (or am) has in common is a desire to approach the problem from the perspective of licensing, mandatory training, etc. I don't believe I should ever be allowed to own a gun that I can take away from a supervised range. Successfully treated or not, it's just not compatible with a severe mood disorder. I know a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who can be trusted, though, and should be allowed to exercise that right for a variety of reasons. I think the answer lies in filtering out people like myself, not in attempting a blanket/categorical ban in a country where guns outnumber people.
I'm out, thank you all for the thread. I did learn a few new things and enjoyed talking to you all about it.
posted by Ryvar at 7:30 PM on January 25, 2016
I addressed this in an old thread, here, with supporting data here. The assertion I was disputing was that countries with more guns had proportionally more death, which I would consider analogous to "more restrictive gun laws means safer". I found that the US has a whole lot more firearms but only a little bit more death than the average among developed nations.
The weird dodge about "intentional deaths" aside, you may want to leave the statistical work to the experts, who have confirmed across multiple studies that the death rate from firearms is:
Check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, my data has links to the sources.
Not surprisingly, the people that check the numbers for a living directly contradict your argument.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
The weird dodge about "intentional deaths" aside, you may want to leave the statistical work to the experts, who have confirmed across multiple studies that the death rate from firearms is:
- higher in the US than other developed countries, ranging from 3x that of Switzerland to 20x that of Australia
- higher in general in countries with more guns
- higher in states with more guns
- higher in states with looser gun laws
Check the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, my data has links to the sources.
Not surprisingly, the people that check the numbers for a living directly contradict your argument.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:08 PM on January 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
At this point (and with the disclaimer that of course it'd never make it through Congress, etc. etc.), I wouldn't mind seeing firearm injuries/deaths switch to a strict liability standard. None of this "3 year old accidentally shot by the gun under the pillow, nobody's charged" business, none of this "Scared of a movie theater shooting and shot someone"... If you've shot somebody, the burden is on you to prove due diligence. Period. (I'd also like to see a similar burden of due diligence on all firearms sales, but one thing at a time here.)
Your right to a gun might currently be interpreted as an individual right, but that doesn't mean you should have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to injuring/killing someone with it.
posted by CrystalDave at 8:15 PM on January 25, 2016
Your right to a gun might currently be interpreted as an individual right, but that doesn't mean you should have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to injuring/killing someone with it.
posted by CrystalDave at 8:15 PM on January 25, 2016
"intentional deaths" is not the same as "death by firearms,"
That's right.
The weird dodge about "intentional deaths" aside
It's not a dodge, it's the heading of the Wikipedia page which lists murders and suicides by country, which was the source of my numbers. Where you see "intentional deaths," substitute "murders plus suicides."
The real dodge is correlating "the death rate from firearms" without corresponding statistics on the overall rate of murders and suicides. Places with fewer guns likely have fewer gun deaths, that's a tautology. But the numbers say those places have no fewer murders and suicides, which I'd say means they aren't any safer, which was the claim.
Is a place safer when there's less death by firearms? Or is it safer when there's less death?
posted by MoTLD at 8:17 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's right.
The weird dodge about "intentional deaths" aside
It's not a dodge, it's the heading of the Wikipedia page which lists murders and suicides by country, which was the source of my numbers. Where you see "intentional deaths," substitute "murders plus suicides."
The real dodge is correlating "the death rate from firearms" without corresponding statistics on the overall rate of murders and suicides. Places with fewer guns likely have fewer gun deaths, that's a tautology. But the numbers say those places have no fewer murders and suicides, which I'd say means they aren't any safer, which was the claim.
Is a place safer when there's less death by firearms? Or is it safer when there's less death?
posted by MoTLD at 8:17 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Extending your logic, controlling guns in the USA would therefore lead to fewer deaths, given the outsize rate at which they occur.
That woman in the movie theatre wouldn't have been shot if that idiot weren't allowed to carry a gun around. The toddler wouldn't be dead if the idiots running the house weren't allowed to have a gun and treat it so irresponsibly as to leave it under a damn pillow. The usual ridiculous argument is that "well they'd just find another method," and in some cases that would be true. In many, many cases, guns escalate a situation from something that can be dangerous but survivable into something possibly deadly.
Plus it's pretty hard to fatally stab a toddler by mistake.
Guns take dangerous impulses and make them incredibly easy and seductive to submit to. Add to that the American entertainment industry's insistence on the trope of guns fixing literally every problem (if you're a good guy, and probably white), and there is a terrible problem.
The more distance you place between the impulse and the act, the less likely it is for the act to be completed. And the numbers do not lie; gun violence in the USA is worse per capita than any other Western nation.
None of which addresses the very simple and salient fact that 2nd Amendment absolutism relies on ignoring the first half of the amendment. Well. Regulated. Militia.
That doesn't mean military-derived hardware being carried by asocial asshats while they go grocery shopping.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:28 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
That woman in the movie theatre wouldn't have been shot if that idiot weren't allowed to carry a gun around. The toddler wouldn't be dead if the idiots running the house weren't allowed to have a gun and treat it so irresponsibly as to leave it under a damn pillow. The usual ridiculous argument is that "well they'd just find another method," and in some cases that would be true. In many, many cases, guns escalate a situation from something that can be dangerous but survivable into something possibly deadly.
Plus it's pretty hard to fatally stab a toddler by mistake.
Guns take dangerous impulses and make them incredibly easy and seductive to submit to. Add to that the American entertainment industry's insistence on the trope of guns fixing literally every problem (if you're a good guy, and probably white), and there is a terrible problem.
The more distance you place between the impulse and the act, the less likely it is for the act to be completed. And the numbers do not lie; gun violence in the USA is worse per capita than any other Western nation.
None of which addresses the very simple and salient fact that 2nd Amendment absolutism relies on ignoring the first half of the amendment. Well. Regulated. Militia.
That doesn't mean military-derived hardware being carried by asocial asshats while they go grocery shopping.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:28 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The real dodge is correlating "the death rate from firearms" without corresponding statistics on the overall rate of murders and suicides.
This is getting ridiculous. Yes, the US has a much higher rate of deaths from assaults than other developed countries. And as I linked to above, suicide rates (attempted and successful) are higher when compared with gun ownership. No, it is not a coincidence that it has both a higher gun ownership rate and a higher gun death rate. No, saying that higher rates of gun ownership and gun deaths are connected is not a tautology.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:31 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is getting ridiculous. Yes, the US has a much higher rate of deaths from assaults than other developed countries. And as I linked to above, suicide rates (attempted and successful) are higher when compared with gun ownership. No, it is not a coincidence that it has both a higher gun ownership rate and a higher gun death rate. No, saying that higher rates of gun ownership and gun deaths are connected is not a tautology.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:31 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regardless of what any of us think about the phrase "well-regulated militia"—which does not have a single obvious meaning in context, else it wouldn't be so debated—the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the whole amendment to mean an individual right to bear arms, regardless of whether the individual is part of a militia or the federal military. You may not like the laws that result, but they are the law.
That said, I agree with CrystalDave: "Your right to a gun might currently be interpreted as an individual right, but that doesn't mean you should have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to injuring/killing someone with it."
posted by Rangi at 8:51 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
That said, I agree with CrystalDave: "Your right to a gun might currently be interpreted as an individual right, but that doesn't mean you should have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to injuring/killing someone with it."
posted by Rangi at 8:51 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well. Regulated. I think well regulated could very well mean a $5k/yr licensing fee and mandatory 16 hour firearm safety course for handguns, semi-auto long weapons with a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds and manual mechanical action shotguns with same.
If gun fondling isn't worth $5k/yr to you, you could always hunt with nine of the ten best guns for hunting today without having to pay the Murder Machine tax, the proceeds of which should be required by law to go to covering the medical and social cost of gun deaths. We'd still come up short, but it's a start.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:10 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
If gun fondling isn't worth $5k/yr to you, you could always hunt with nine of the ten best guns for hunting today without having to pay the Murder Machine tax, the proceeds of which should be required by law to go to covering the medical and social cost of gun deaths. We'd still come up short, but it's a start.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:10 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the whole amendment to mean an individual right to bear arms, regardless of whether the individual is part of a militia or the federal military.
Of course, by "repeatedly" you mean "twice in the last decade" - D.C. vs. Heller in 2008 and McDonald vs. Chicago in 2010. Cause that's been about it as far as the SC goes.
Not exactly a long-established position on the part of the Court, there.
And you just have to go back to 1939, in U.S. vs. Miller, where the court specifically noted that, "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Hunh. Apparently less than a generation ago the Court thought "militia" was an important element of the Second Amendment.
So it may be the law, but it's a recent law essentially created by activist conservative justices. It can be overturned or negated by future Court decisions.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:12 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course, by "repeatedly" you mean "twice in the last decade" - D.C. vs. Heller in 2008 and McDonald vs. Chicago in 2010. Cause that's been about it as far as the SC goes.
Not exactly a long-established position on the part of the Court, there.
And you just have to go back to 1939, in U.S. vs. Miller, where the court specifically noted that, "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Hunh. Apparently less than a generation ago the Court thought "militia" was an important element of the Second Amendment.
So it may be the law, but it's a recent law essentially created by activist conservative justices. It can be overturned or negated by future Court decisions.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:12 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Laws can change. And need to.
And "well regulated militia" isn't 'debated,' it is flat-out ignored by 2A absolutists.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:13 PM on January 25, 2016
And "well regulated militia" isn't 'debated,' it is flat-out ignored by 2A absolutists.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:13 PM on January 25, 2016
MoTLD: Places with fewer guns likely have fewer gun deaths, that's a tautology.
No it bloody well is not. And at this point, I'm too tired to bother saying why. Oh, what the heck. Gun control opponents seem to like this graph, of homicide rate versus gun ownership rate. I just feel like slapping whoever thought that "trend" line was an actual fit of anything. Meanwhile there's a different curve that resembles it pretty closely. My point? These plots are Rorschach tests of confounding factors and there is no sense in mussing around with half-baked, thrown-together statistical folderol. I wanted, really badly, to get some international numbers on strictness of gun control versus both gun-related harm rates and all harm rates—both, because it's important to do both and not just switch back and forth depending on which numbers support one's cause. But I couldn't find them. Everything was just in terms of gun ownership rates, but with countries like Finland or Switzerland where rates are high but regulations are strict, those are totally not the same thing.
posted by traveler_ at 9:24 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
No it bloody well is not. And at this point, I'm too tired to bother saying why. Oh, what the heck. Gun control opponents seem to like this graph, of homicide rate versus gun ownership rate. I just feel like slapping whoever thought that "trend" line was an actual fit of anything. Meanwhile there's a different curve that resembles it pretty closely. My point? These plots are Rorschach tests of confounding factors and there is no sense in mussing around with half-baked, thrown-together statistical folderol. I wanted, really badly, to get some international numbers on strictness of gun control versus both gun-related harm rates and all harm rates—both, because it's important to do both and not just switch back and forth depending on which numbers support one's cause. But I couldn't find them. Everything was just in terms of gun ownership rates, but with countries like Finland or Switzerland where rates are high but regulations are strict, those are totally not the same thing.
posted by traveler_ at 9:24 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
zombieflanders, that's an interesting link, and well worth studying in the context of culture and violence. But the author's followup link is also interesting, in that it includes a graph with the two OECD countries with higher assault rates than the US, Mexico and Estonia (as well as Chile, the Czech Republic, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, which had lower rates). Mexico and Estonia don't even break the top 40 countries for per capita gun ownership, but Germany, Norway, Switzerland, France, Greece, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Finland do - all countries with more guns than Mexico or Estonia but assaults more in line with the rest of the OECD countries. Something other than guns must be at play here.
These plots are Rorschach tests of confounding factors
Well put, traveler_. My assertion was that gun ownership rates do not in and of themselves correlate with murder or suicide rates. That's all. Confounding factors, indeed.
Places with fewer guns likely have fewer gun deaths, that's a tautology.
No it bloody well is not.
You're right. I was (mis)using a rhetorical device. I guess I just meant that it seems logical that gun violence rates would track gun rates, but if violence rates don't track gun rates, guns aren't the primary factor driving violence. If only understanding violence were so simple...
I wanted, really badly, to get some international numbers on strictness of gun control versus both gun-related harm rates and all harm rates
Me too. Best I could do on short notice was gun ownership versus murder and/or suicide, per country, and those stats show no correlation. Adding a (rather subjective, but still very useful) metric for strictness of gun regulation would add a lot of nuance to the gun ownership figures.
posted by MoTLD at 9:48 PM on January 25, 2016
These plots are Rorschach tests of confounding factors
Well put, traveler_. My assertion was that gun ownership rates do not in and of themselves correlate with murder or suicide rates. That's all. Confounding factors, indeed.
Places with fewer guns likely have fewer gun deaths, that's a tautology.
No it bloody well is not.
You're right. I was (mis)using a rhetorical device. I guess I just meant that it seems logical that gun violence rates would track gun rates, but if violence rates don't track gun rates, guns aren't the primary factor driving violence. If only understanding violence were so simple...
I wanted, really badly, to get some international numbers on strictness of gun control versus both gun-related harm rates and all harm rates
Me too. Best I could do on short notice was gun ownership versus murder and/or suicide, per country, and those stats show no correlation. Adding a (rather subjective, but still very useful) metric for strictness of gun regulation would add a lot of nuance to the gun ownership figures.
posted by MoTLD at 9:48 PM on January 25, 2016
Well I wouldn't say no correlation. Take another look at this plot and compare it against this example. That's not "no correlation", it's "complex relationship".
I'll mention it now, partly to hedge against accusations of cherry-picking, that I've got an idea but it'll take some time to mash the numbers around: I found the list of criteria the Brady Campaign uses to rank U.S. states on their gun control strictness. I figure I can modify it to work for countries. Since that means manually scoring them myself I don't know how many I'll get to, but I intend to do some from at least all three corners of this plot. I also intend to scale that by the countries' corruption indices, to account for the difference between laws on paper and laws as applied. Then I'll plot that against whatever numbers I can find for crime and/or harm, gun-linked and/or all types; more is better but apples-to-apples is most important.
I'm also thinking of combining that with the gun ownership rate to produce an "uncontrolled gun ownership rate" to see if that matters. Mostly because the nonlinear shape of the gun rate vs. homicide rate scatterplot suggests that it can be turned into a linear correlation if a person could just find the right hidden variable.
Maybe tomorrow I'll have that done. I just wanted to get my plan on record now, before I see what shakes out.
posted by traveler_ at 10:26 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll mention it now, partly to hedge against accusations of cherry-picking, that I've got an idea but it'll take some time to mash the numbers around: I found the list of criteria the Brady Campaign uses to rank U.S. states on their gun control strictness. I figure I can modify it to work for countries. Since that means manually scoring them myself I don't know how many I'll get to, but I intend to do some from at least all three corners of this plot. I also intend to scale that by the countries' corruption indices, to account for the difference between laws on paper and laws as applied. Then I'll plot that against whatever numbers I can find for crime and/or harm, gun-linked and/or all types; more is better but apples-to-apples is most important.
I'm also thinking of combining that with the gun ownership rate to produce an "uncontrolled gun ownership rate" to see if that matters. Mostly because the nonlinear shape of the gun rate vs. homicide rate scatterplot suggests that it can be turned into a linear correlation if a person could just find the right hidden variable.
Maybe tomorrow I'll have that done. I just wanted to get my plan on record now, before I see what shakes out.
posted by traveler_ at 10:26 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sunburnt: "Free gun safes for the poor's not a bad idea, though."
Add a requirement for a built ingun valuables safe to the building code. It would cost less than the new Arc Fault Breaker requirements and in the States might save more lives over time.
indubitable: "What are gun safes meant to achieve? Do prevent much theft short of being embedded in a concrete slab?"
Gun safes are 80% preventing your kid from accessing your guns and 20% stopping a thief. A safe that is merely bolted into the house framing so as to prevent pickup and go is pretty much all you need to keep weapons safe in the vast majority of B&Es.
posted by Mitheral at 10:41 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Add a requirement for a built in
indubitable: "What are gun safes meant to achieve? Do prevent much theft short of being embedded in a concrete slab?"
Gun safes are 80% preventing your kid from accessing your guns and 20% stopping a thief. A safe that is merely bolted into the house framing so as to prevent pickup and go is pretty much all you need to keep weapons safe in the vast majority of B&Es.
posted by Mitheral at 10:41 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well I wouldn't say no correlation. Take another look at this plot and compare it against this example. That's not "no correlation", it's "complex relationship".
Let me clarify: I meant gun ownership versus overall murders and/or suicides had no correlation, as per the "correlating the columns" done by another user on the data I collated back in the old thread (I did simple mean comparisons). The plot you're referring to is gun ownership versus gun deaths, and that is indeed a complex relationship!
posted by MoTLD at 10:42 PM on January 25, 2016
Let me clarify: I meant gun ownership versus overall murders and/or suicides had no correlation, as per the "correlating the columns" done by another user on the data I collated back in the old thread (I did simple mean comparisons). The plot you're referring to is gun ownership versus gun deaths, and that is indeed a complex relationship!
posted by MoTLD at 10:42 PM on January 25, 2016
Well. Regulated. I think well regulated could very well mean a $5k/yr licensing fee and mandatory 16 hour firearm safety course for handguns, semi-auto long weapons with a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds and manual mechanical action shotguns with same.
I don't know what a "manual mechanical action shotgun" is and Google isn't helping. Are you talking about bump stocks and other add-ons that people use to get rapid rates of fire, maybe? Or do you just mean "shotguns that are not semi-automatic"?
Mandatory training before getting a hunting license or a concealed carry permit is already common and is a good idea that could easily (and I think legally) be extended as a requirement before any purchases from a licensed dealer, though not so easily to ongoing ownership. (We would first need a way to track gun ownership before we would be able to require yearly training.) A punitive yearly fee, though, is not going to stand up in court when it's purpose is so obviously to block access to a constitutional right. New York City's gun laws are the strictest in the US but don't come close to that financially, for example.
In other words, I'd rather we tightened our gun laws directly and fairly, rather than with high fees that restrict ownership to the wealthy. If my ability to own guns is going to be limited, I want the same to apply to the rich. Extending background checks and increasing training requirements are obvious no-brainers, but they aren't going to make a big dent in the overall death rates, any more than would magically banning all assault rifles.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:28 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know what a "manual mechanical action shotgun" is and Google isn't helping. Are you talking about bump stocks and other add-ons that people use to get rapid rates of fire, maybe? Or do you just mean "shotguns that are not semi-automatic"?
Mandatory training before getting a hunting license or a concealed carry permit is already common and is a good idea that could easily (and I think legally) be extended as a requirement before any purchases from a licensed dealer, though not so easily to ongoing ownership. (We would first need a way to track gun ownership before we would be able to require yearly training.) A punitive yearly fee, though, is not going to stand up in court when it's purpose is so obviously to block access to a constitutional right. New York City's gun laws are the strictest in the US but don't come close to that financially, for example.
In other words, I'd rather we tightened our gun laws directly and fairly, rather than with high fees that restrict ownership to the wealthy. If my ability to own guns is going to be limited, I want the same to apply to the rich. Extending background checks and increasing training requirements are obvious no-brainers, but they aren't going to make a big dent in the overall death rates, any more than would magically banning all assault rifles.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:28 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know what a "manual mechanical action shotgun" is and Google isn't helping.
Sorry! You are right, I spaced out there. Pretensions of technical expertise are a common rhetorical trick of the "gun enthusiast," and to counter, we must be accurate at all times.
Shotguns with a manual-action repeating mechanism is what I meant. This is not going to just be pump-action (slide action, if we're getting real technical) when discussing shotguns, as lever-action shotguns are a thing. It's what Arnie was using in Terminator 2 - Chiappas sells a replica that they try to pass off as legal by categorizing it as a "12/70 caliber" pistol.
Bolt-action shotguns are never going to be combat weapons, and as such typically have small magazines.
I'm kind of uneasy on the "5 round magazine" requirement, too - I chose it as it's currently the most popular configuration, but six rounds of 12ga (5 plus one in the chamber) is a lot of damage done very, very quickly to a lot of people in a crowded area. Four rounds (three in the tube, one in the chamber) is plenty for hunting and home defense. Maybe a non-transferable grandfather clause?
New York City's gun laws are the strictest in the US but don't come close to that financially, for example.
New York City still has far too many gun deaths. Most of them handguns. Sin-tax the hell out of that.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:27 AM on January 26, 2016
Sorry! You are right, I spaced out there. Pretensions of technical expertise are a common rhetorical trick of the "gun enthusiast," and to counter, we must be accurate at all times.
Shotguns with a manual-action repeating mechanism is what I meant. This is not going to just be pump-action (slide action, if we're getting real technical) when discussing shotguns, as lever-action shotguns are a thing. It's what Arnie was using in Terminator 2 - Chiappas sells a replica that they try to pass off as legal by categorizing it as a "12/70 caliber" pistol.
Bolt-action shotguns are never going to be combat weapons, and as such typically have small magazines.
I'm kind of uneasy on the "5 round magazine" requirement, too - I chose it as it's currently the most popular configuration, but six rounds of 12ga (5 plus one in the chamber) is a lot of damage done very, very quickly to a lot of people in a crowded area. Four rounds (three in the tube, one in the chamber) is plenty for hunting and home defense. Maybe a non-transferable grandfather clause?
New York City's gun laws are the strictest in the US but don't come close to that financially, for example.
New York City still has far too many gun deaths. Most of them handguns. Sin-tax the hell out of that.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:27 AM on January 26, 2016
Possible Active Shooter Reported at Naval Medical Center San Diego
posted by octobersurprise at 10:07 AM on January 26, 2016
posted by octobersurprise at 10:07 AM on January 26, 2016
as lever-action shotguns are a thing. It's what Arnie was using in Terminator 2 - Chiappas sells a replica that they try to pass off as legal by categorizing it as a "12/70 caliber" pistol.
I've shot one of those Chiappa lever action shotguns, and it seemed cheaply made and had trouble feeding shells. It's sort of a fun idea, but hokey in practice and I would never buy one. I think the only people who buy those are "cowboy action shooting" enthusiasts who want a copy of a historic design, while there is a reason modern designs have moved on in the intervening century.
12/70 is just a different way to denote "12 gauge, 2 3/4" shells," with 70 being the length in millimeters. It is a strange and irrational quirk of US gun laws that it is (mostly) legal to sell a shotgun pistol, but (mostly) illegal to take a regular shotgun and cut it down to pistol size. And shooting a sawn off shotgun is nothing like in the movies -- the recoil, noise, and flash are all horrible, even outdoors, and good luck hitting anything.
Again, these are edge cases, though -- people are mostly killed by pistols, not rifles or shotguns, and restricting those are where you could expect to have an impact on the death rate. Tacticool rifles and shotguns look movie-style scary and have been used in some mass killings, but represent a drop in the bucket of total deaths. (In terms of the automotive comparison, it's like the media hysteria some years back about street racing, while the vast majority of car deaths happen in much more quotidian ways.)
posted by Dip Flash at 7:29 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've shot one of those Chiappa lever action shotguns, and it seemed cheaply made and had trouble feeding shells. It's sort of a fun idea, but hokey in practice and I would never buy one. I think the only people who buy those are "cowboy action shooting" enthusiasts who want a copy of a historic design, while there is a reason modern designs have moved on in the intervening century.
12/70 is just a different way to denote "12 gauge, 2 3/4" shells," with 70 being the length in millimeters. It is a strange and irrational quirk of US gun laws that it is (mostly) legal to sell a shotgun pistol, but (mostly) illegal to take a regular shotgun and cut it down to pistol size. And shooting a sawn off shotgun is nothing like in the movies -- the recoil, noise, and flash are all horrible, even outdoors, and good luck hitting anything.
Again, these are edge cases, though -- people are mostly killed by pistols, not rifles or shotguns, and restricting those are where you could expect to have an impact on the death rate. Tacticool rifles and shotguns look movie-style scary and have been used in some mass killings, but represent a drop in the bucket of total deaths. (In terms of the automotive comparison, it's like the media hysteria some years back about street racing, while the vast majority of car deaths happen in much more quotidian ways.)
posted by Dip Flash at 7:29 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Comment deleted. Please direct comments to the topic, rather than making it personal about other commenters.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:33 AM on January 27, 2016
posted by taz (staff) at 3:33 AM on January 27, 2016
The NRA Just Scored One Of Its Biggest Victories In Years
posted by homunculus at 4:15 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by homunculus at 4:15 PM on February 8, 2016
Totally amazed even the AR-15 managed a full percentage of the guns owned considering the stunningly broad variety of guns available; even if grouped by family. There must be thousands of bins.
posted by Mitheral at 6:50 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 6:50 PM on February 8, 2016
Really? It seemed low to me, since the category is so ill defined and broad. I mean, I recognize this is just anecdata, but most people I know with more than two firearms have an AR, and I always seem to see a lot of them at the range. Though I'd be defining it as "non bolt action rifle", and they may be going off a more stringent definition.
posted by corb at 7:50 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by corb at 7:50 PM on February 8, 2016
Totally amazed even the AR-15 managed a full percentage of the guns owned considering the stunningly broad variety of guns available; even if grouped by family. There must be thousands of bins.
That's not quite the statistic they cite:
That may be true. Yet, as Judge Robert King points out in dissent, it’s also not the entire story. “The banned assault rifles and shotguns constitute no more than 3% of the civilian gun stock,” King writes, “and ownership of such weapons is concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.”
So the guns covered under Maryland's ban total three percent of the guns out there, but that three percent of guns is owned by just one percent of gun owners. That makes sense to me -- most people I know with guns don't own anything tactical, but the people who like those kinds of guns tend to own a bunch. The tactical stuff has only been popular for at most two decades, and probably less, so those numbers would look very different if you were looking just at recent sales, rather than total ownership.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:24 PM on February 8, 2016
That's not quite the statistic they cite:
That may be true. Yet, as Judge Robert King points out in dissent, it’s also not the entire story. “The banned assault rifles and shotguns constitute no more than 3% of the civilian gun stock,” King writes, “and ownership of such weapons is concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.”
So the guns covered under Maryland's ban total three percent of the guns out there, but that three percent of guns is owned by just one percent of gun owners. That makes sense to me -- most people I know with guns don't own anything tactical, but the people who like those kinds of guns tend to own a bunch. The tactical stuff has only been popular for at most two decades, and probably less, so those numbers would look very different if you were looking just at recent sales, rather than total ownership.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:24 PM on February 8, 2016
Oh, that makes sense! And most of the people I know are 40 or younger, so they've only really been buying guns in the last twenty years, when ARs have been pretty popular. I mean, that figure still seems low to me, but I could see where the older population, who've been buying guns for longer, would skew things.
posted by corb at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by corb at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016
I'd be defining it as "non bolt action rifle", and they may be going off a more stringent definition
More specifically, "black plastic non bolt action rifle" would pretty much positively ID an AR or clone thereof around here. But there is a stringent definition that statisticians (and lawmakers!) must use; not every hybrid car is a Prius, but plenty of folks say "Prius" when they mean "hybrid". The AR-15 is similarly a very specific model/platform and not every tricked out tactical-type rifle is an AR - just most of them.
posted by MoTLD at 6:17 PM on February 16, 2016
More specifically, "black plastic non bolt action rifle" would pretty much positively ID an AR or clone thereof around here. But there is a stringent definition that statisticians (and lawmakers!) must use; not every hybrid car is a Prius, but plenty of folks say "Prius" when they mean "hybrid". The AR-15 is similarly a very specific model/platform and not every tricked out tactical-type rifle is an AR - just most of them.
posted by MoTLD at 6:17 PM on February 16, 2016
They'd have to narrow it up a lot more than that or stuff like some Ruger mini 14 or 10/22 would fit into the description.
corb: "most people I know with more than two firearms have an AR, and I always seem to see a lot of them at the range."
It is probably a selection bias; I don't think I know anyone with an AR-15 but everyone I know with rifles uses them for hunting (not that the AR15 can't be used for that but it probably isn't most people's first choice). Or they aren't as popular in Canada.
Ah, that's it. The AR-15 is restricted in Canada. Even you have one you can only use it on a certified range. No wonder few have them.
posted by Mitheral at 6:28 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
corb: "most people I know with more than two firearms have an AR, and I always seem to see a lot of them at the range."
It is probably a selection bias; I don't think I know anyone with an AR-15 but everyone I know with rifles uses them for hunting (not that the AR15 can't be used for that but it probably isn't most people's first choice). Or they aren't as popular in Canada.
Ah, that's it. The AR-15 is restricted in Canada. Even you have one you can only use it on a certified range. No wonder few have them.
posted by Mitheral at 6:28 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
"; I don't think I know anyone with an AR-15 but everyone I know with rifles uses them for hunting (not that the AR15 can't be used for that but it probably isn't most people's first choice). "
With what caliber rifles do they hunt with? .223? I think your friends probably are hunting with stronger caliber weapons than the AR-15 since the AR-15 is basically considered to be a varmint rifle.
posted by I-baLL at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
With what caliber rifles do they hunt with? .223? I think your friends probably are hunting with stronger caliber weapons than the AR-15 since the AR-15 is basically considered to be a varmint rifle.
posted by I-baLL at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uber Driver Allegedly Responsible For Kalamazoo Shooting Spree That Killed 6
posted by homunculus at 3:53 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 3:53 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Will a Gun Manufacturer Be Held Liable for Sandy Hook? A lawsuit brought by families of victims blames the marketing of military-style guns to civilians.
Judge To Hear Argument On Dismissing Sandy Hook Families' Lawsuit Against Gun Maker
posted by homunculus at 4:04 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Judge To Hear Argument On Dismissing Sandy Hook Families' Lawsuit Against Gun Maker
posted by homunculus at 4:04 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jordan Sargent: University of Houston Offers Teachers Helpful Tips For How to Not Get Murdered:
[T]he school recently presented the following Powerpoint slide that suggests ways in which teachers may reduce their chances of being murdered by their students. It reads:posted by zombieflanders at 10:20 AM on February 23, 2016Altering curriculum and reducing the amount of time spent with students doesn’t really seem conducive to the act of “teaching.” But on the bright side, at least professors won’t be the only ones asked to issue trigger warnings?Be careful discussing sensitive topics
Drop certain topics from your curriculum
Not “go there” if you sense anger
Limit student access off hours
Colleen Flaherty: Don't 'Go There'
State legislators “have created a very uncomfortable situation for us,” said Maria Gonzalez, an associate professor of English and a member of Houston’s Faculty Senate. “There’s one thing we can’t do, and that’s ban guns. … So this slide was prepared basically to help people be careful and provide suggestions.”posted by zombieflanders at 6:53 AM on February 25, 2016
Jonathan Snow, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and president of the Faculty Senate, said he wrote the presentation based on discussions within the body and elsewhere. He also addressed faculty concerns about campus carry in comments to the university system’s Board of Regents last week, saying professors’ concerns weren’t political or about a fear of guns.
Rather, Snow said, “It’s because the intrusion of gun culture onto campus inevitably harms the academic enterprise in a myriad of ways." He asked regents to appeal to the Texas Legislature to reconsider.
Gonzalez said that there are “volatile” students on her campus, as there are on many others, and that she teaches queer and Marxist theory, which sometimes leads to heated discussions. But she said the Faculty Senate recommendations couldn’t help prevent what she feared most: accidents. Everyday, she said, students spill coffee or drop their iPhones on the floor. Who’s to say they couldn’t reach into their backpacks and accidentally fire the weapon they forgot to lock that morning? Gonzalez said she has experience with guns and knows that most don’t have a hair trigger. But negligent discharges are still possible, and it’s a risk many professors resent and fear, she said.
« Older Flying Lotus - FUCKKKYOUUU | Sexism in the Oxford Dictionary of English Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Sternmeyer at 11:43 AM on January 25, 2016