Sensible Gun Safety

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0444-0/pdf

This is true when comparing by country and when comparing deaths by gun by state.

More guns per capita are a strong predictor of more gun deaths per capita.

But hey, guns are used "defensively" so they must be "saving lives" right?
So more guns should mean more lives saved?

I write this as the owner of 5 guns, though no handguns and no assault weapons.

[PizzaSnake]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

Sorry, misquote. This is intended for get it to x, not TLD.

Per my bolded "notations" above, I would remark that without seeing the study design, and particularly any mechanism for validation of respondent assertion, that any conclusions drwawn would be of dubious value.

Do you have the name of the study and the principal investigator as well as name the of publisher (and validating journal or publication)?

This is from the link I posted. The entire study results updated to 2022.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4109494

FTA

"This survey employs five common devices to encourage more truthful responses. First, it uses an indirect “teaser” question to pre-screen respondents in order to select those who own firearms. The initial question prompt presents the survey as concerned with “recreational opportunities and related public policies” and asks respondents if they own any of the following items, presented in a random order: Bicycle, Canoe or Kayak, Firearm, Rock, Climbing Equipment, None of the Above. Only those who select “Firearm” are then presented the full survey. We also ask demographic questions at the outset, which allows us to assess the representativeness of the sample, including those who do not indicate firearms
ownership.

Second, the survey was carefully phrased so as to not suggest animus towards gun
owners or ignorance of firearms-related terminology.

Third, the survey assures respondentsof anonymity.

Fourth, in order to ensure that respondents are reading the survey questions
carefully, and then responding with considered answers thereto, a “disqualifying” question
(sometimes referred to as a “screening” question) was embedded a little over half of the way
through the survey instructing respondents to select a particular answer for that question,
which only those who read the question in its entirety would understand. Anyone registering
an incorrect answer to this question was disqualified from the survey and their responses to
any of the survey questions were neither considered nor tallied.

Finally, while responses were required for basic demographic questions, if questions of a
sensitive nature were left blank, the software would first call attention to the blank response
and prompt the respondent to enter a response. However, if a respondent persisted in not
responding and again tried to progress, rather than kick them out of the survey, they would
be allowed to progress to the next section in the interest of obtaining the maximum amount
of information that they were willing to share. Respondents were not made aware of this
possibility in advance, and in practice such “opting out” of a particular question was seldom
done (less than 1% of responses for the average question). This is the reason that small
variations are sometimes observed in the total number of respondents for certain question

One issue jumps out:
"Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of thirty (3.2%) occurred at work."

That's 91.4%. Where are the rest?

No corroboration, even another survey, for the number of incidents of "use", or should I say, "brandishing" of weapon for defensive purposes.

"Although it did not ask detailed questions concerning defensive use of firearms and the types
of firearms owned, this recent Pew survey serves as a helpful benchmark for corroborating
the general ownership estimates of the present survey."

In general, given Centiment is a "non-probability" survey and subject to issues re non-response, I have trouble with these conclusions. Further, the issue of a small but significant percentage of bogus respondents (I think this is a polite way of saying "troll") also impacts results and inferences.

"A new study by Pew Research Center finds that online polls conducted with widely-used opt-in sources contain small but measurable shares of bogus respondents (about 4% to 7%, depending on the source). Critically, these bogus respondents are not just answering at random, but rather they tend to select positive answer choices – introducing a small, systematic bias into estimates like presidential approval."

"While some challenges to polls are ever-present (e.g., respondents not answering carefully or giving socially desirable answers), the risk that bad actors could compromise a public opinion poll is, in some respects, a new one. It is a consequence of the field’s migration toward online convenience samples of people who sign themselves up to get money or other rewards by taking surveys. This introduces the risk that some people will answer not with their own views but instead with answers they believe are likely to please the poll’s sponsor. It also raises the possibility that people who do not belong in a U.S. poll (e.g., people in another country) will try to misrepresent themselves to complete surveys and accrue money or other rewards."

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/202 ... spondents/

[CU88]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/opin ... ealth.html


By Nicholas Kristof

Opinion Columnist

Jan. 24, 2023
14 MIN READ

Graphics by Nathaniel Lash and Stuart A. Thompson

Once again the United States is seared by screams, shots, blood, sirens and politicians’ calls for thoughts and prayers. Two shootings in California since Saturday have claimed at least 18 lives, leaving Americans asking once again: What can be done to break the political stalemate on gun policy so that we can save lives?

For decades, we’ve treated gun violence as a battle to be won rather than a problem to be solved — and this has gotten us worse than nowhere. In 2021 a record 48,000 Americans were killed by firearms, including suicides, homicides and accidents. So let’s try to bypass the culture wars and try a harm-reduction model familiar from public health efforts to reduce deaths from other dangerous products such as cars and cigarettes.

Harm reduction for guns would start by acknowledging the blunt reality that we’re not going to eliminate guns any more than we have eliminated vehicles or tobacco, not in a country that already has more guns than people. We are destined to live in a sea of guns. And just as some kids will always sneak cigarettes or people will inevitably drive drunk, some criminals will get firearms — but one lesson learned is that if we can’t eliminate a dangerous product, we can reduce the toll by regulating who gets access to it.

That can make a huge difference. Consider that American women age 50 or older commit fewer than 100 gun homicides in a typical year. In contrast, men 49 or younger typically kill more than 500 people each year just with their fists and feet; with guns, they kill more than 7,000 each year. In effect, firearms are safer with middle-aged women than fists are with young men.



We’re not going to restrict guns to women 50 or older, but we can try to keep firearms from people who are under 21 or who have a record of violent misdemeanors, alcohol abuse, domestic violence or some red flag that they may be a threat to themselves or others.

There is one highly successful example of this harm reduction approach already in place: machine guns.

It’s often said that machine guns are banned in the United States, but that’s not exactly right. More than 700,000 of these fully automatic weapons are in the United States outside of the military, entirely legally. Most are owned by federal, state or local agencies, but perhaps several hundred thousand are in private hands. With a background check and permission, members of the public can buy an Uzi submachine gun or a mounted .50-caliber machine gun made before 1986 — even a grenade launcher, howitzer or mortar.

To buy a machine gun made before 1986, you need a background check, a clean record and $200 for a transfer tax — a process that can take several months to complete. Then you must report to the authorities if it is stolen and get approval if you move it to another state. To buy a machine gun made after 1986 is more complicated and onerous.

None of this is terribly onerous, but these hoops — and stiff enforcement of existing laws — are enough to keep machine guns in responsible hands. In a typical year, these registered machine guns are responsible for approximately zero suicides and zero homicides.

So let’s begin with a ray of hope: If we can safely keep 700,000 machine guns in America, we should be able to manage handguns.

Keeping Guns Away From Risky People

In many facets of life, we’re accustomed to screening people to make sure that they are trustworthy. For example, consider the hoops one must jump through in Mississippi to vote or adopt a dog:

How to vote
1. Have your Social Security number or driver’s license 2. Print and complete six-question voter registration form 3. Mail or hand deliver 4. Do this at least 30 days before Election Day 5. Go to polls 6. Produce a photo ID 7. Vote
How to adopt a dog
1. Fill out 64-question application 2. If renting, landlord is contacted 3. In-person meeting with entire family 4. Yard fencing and security assessed 5. Sleepover visit with pet 6. Pay $125 adoption fee 7. Adopt the dog
And now consider what someone in Mississippi must do to buy a firearm. For a private purchase from an individual, nothing is needed at all, except that the buyer not be obviously underage or drunk. For a purchase from a gun store, here’s what’s required:

How to buy a gun
1. Pass a 13-question background check 2. Buy a gun
Note: Question counts exclude basic demographic details and contact information. Sources: Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office and Vote.org (voting); Desoto Animal Rescue (adoption); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (gun purchase)
Why should it be easier to pick up military-style weapons than to adopt a Chihuahua? And why do states that make it difficult to vote, with waiting periods and identification requirements, let almost anyone walk out of a gun shop with a bundle of military-style rifles?

If we want to keep dangerous products from people prone to impulsiveness and poor judgment, one screening tool is obvious: age. We already bar people from buying alcohol or cigarettes before they turn 21, because this saves lives. The same would be true of imposing a minimum age of 21 to buy a firearm, even in private sales.

This may be more politically feasible than some other gun safety measures. Wyoming is one of the most gun-friendly states in America, but it establishes a minimum age of 21 to buy a handgun.

Federal law already bars felons from owning guns, and we should go a step further and bar those convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing guns. Stalking, domestic violence and alcohol abuse are particular warning signs; sadly, only 10 states bar someone from obtaining a gun after conviction of a stalking offense, according to the Giffords Law Center.

To keep ineligible people from buying firearms, we need universal background checks. (One study found that 22 percent of firearms are obtained without a background check.) But the even bigger problem is that there is no comprehensive system to remove guns from people who become ineligible. If someone is convicted of stalking or becomes subject to a domestic violence protection order, that person should be prevented from owning or having access to firearms — but that rarely happens in fact. California has some of the better policies in this area, and its overall smart gun policies may be one reason — despite the recent shootings — its firearms mortality rate is 38 percent below the nation’s overall.

A pillar of harm reduction involving motor vehicles is the requirement of a license to drive a car. So why not a license to buy a gun?

Some states do require a license before one can buy a gun, and researchers find this effective in reducing gun violence.

In Massachusetts, which has one of the lowest gun mortality rates in the country, an applicant who wants to buy a gun must pay $100 for a license, be fingerprinted, undergo a background check and explain why he or she wants a gun. If the permit is granted, as it typically is after a few weeks, the bearer can then go to a gun store and buy the firearm. There is then an obligation to store it safely and report if it is stolen.

In effect, Massachusetts applies to firearms the sort of system that we routinely use in registering vehicles and licensing drivers to save lives from traffic deaths. Gun registration unfortunately evokes among some gun owners alarm about jackbooted thugs coming to confiscate firearms, which is another reason to work to lower the temperature of the gun policy debate.

Learning to Live With Guns
Harm reduction will feel frustrating and unsatisfying to many liberals. To me as well. It means living with a level of guns, and gun deaths, that is extremely high by global standards. But no far-reaching bans on guns will be passed in this Congress or probably any time soon. Meanwhile, just since 2020, an additional 57 million guns have been sold in the United States.

So as a practical matter to save lives, let’s focus on harm reduction.

That’s how we manage alcohol, which each year kills more than 140,000 Americans (often from liver disease), three times as many as guns. Prohibition was not sustainable politically or culturally, so instead of banning alcohol, we chose to regulate access to it instead. We license who can sell liquor, we tax alcohol, we limit who can buy it to age 21 and up, we regulate labels, and we crack down on those who drink and drive. All this is imperfect, but there’s consensus that harm reduction works better than prohibition or passivity.

Likewise, smoking kills 480,000 Americans a year, about 10 times as many as guns do, including 41,000 people by secondary smoke. You’re twice as likely to be killed by a smoker as by a gunman.

So we regulate tobacco, restrict advertising, impose heavy cigarette taxes, require warning labels, ban sales to those under 21 and sponsor public education campaigns warning young people against cigarettes: “Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.” All this has cut smoking rates by more than two-thirds since 1965; this graphic demonstrates the progress:

Long arc of smoking-related deaths
Smoking deaths have declined as cigarette warnings, taxes and public health restrictions have reduced tobacco use.

Likewise, we don’t ban cars, but we impose safety requirements and carefully regulate who can use them. Since 1921, this has reduced the fatality rate per 100 million miles driven by about 95 percent.

Alcohol, tobacco and cars are obviously different from firearms and don’t have constitutional protections — but one of the most important distinctions is that we’ve approached them as public health problems to make progress on incrementally. Historically, cars killed more people each year than firearms in the United States. But because we’ve worked to reduce vehicle deaths and haven’t seriously attempted to curb gun violence, firearms now kill more people than cars:

How to Work With Gun Owners
One advantage of the harm reduction model is that done right, it avoids stigmatizing people as gun nuts and makes firearms less a part of a culture war.

I’m writing this essay on the Oregon farm where I grew up. As I write this, my 12-gauge shotgun is a few feet away, and my .22 rifle is in the next room. (Both are safely stored.)

These are the kinds of firearms that Americans traditionally kept at home, for hunting, plinking or target practice, and the risks are manageable. Rifles are known to have been used in 364 homicides in 2019, and shotguns in 200 homicides. Both were less common homicide weapons than knives and other cutting objects (1,476 homicides) or even hands and feet (600 homicides).

In contrast to a traditional hunting weapon, here’s an AR-15-style rifle. The military versions of these weapons were designed for troops so that they can efficiently kill many people in a short time, and they can be equipped with large magazines that are rapidly swapped out. They fire a bullet each time the trigger is depressed.


0:14
It’s sometimes said that the civilian versions, like the AR-15, are fundamentally different because they don’t have a selector for automatic fire. But troops rarely use automatic fire on military versions of these weapons because they then become inaccurate and burn through ammunition too quickly.

In one respect, the civilian version can be more lethal. American troops are not normally allowed to fire at the enemy with hollow-point bullets, which cause horrific injuries, because these might violate the laws of war. But any civilian can walk into a gun store and buy hollow-point bullets for an AR-15; several mass shootings have involved hollow-point rounds.

Now here’s what in some sense is the most lethal weapon of all: a 9-millimeter handgun. It and other semiautomatic pistols have the advantage of being easily concealable and so are more convenient for criminals than assault rifles are. In addition, there has been a big push toward carrying handguns, concealed or openly — and that, of course, means that increasingly a handgun is readily available when someone is frightened or furious.


As this chart shows, handguns have steadily been overtaking long guns in the United States, and that’s one reason guns are killing more people:


Long gun sales used to outpace handgun sales, but that trend reversed around 2014

Here’s a look at what kinds of guns are recovered from crime scenes — overwhelmingly handguns.

Guns recovered at violent crime scenes

Handguns

No caliber recorded

.38 cal.

.45 cal.

9 mm.

.357 cal.

.22 cal.

.25 cal.

.32 cal.

.40 cal.

.380 cal.

Other calibers

Shotguns

Rifles

.22 cal.

12 gauge

Assault-style

7.62

.223

Other calibers

Other calibers

No caliber recorded

No caliber recorded

Source: The Trace, “Missing Pieces” database on stolen and recovered firearms·Data from the Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Seattle and Wichita police departments, 2010 to 2016. Limited to guns recovered from scenes where offenses were noted as homicides or aggravated assaults.
Five of the most common American guns are hunting rifles: the Remington Model 700, the Ruger 77 series, the Winchester Model 70, the Marlin Model 1894 and the Savage Model 11. Yet one study of crime guns recovered by police departments found that only five out of 846,000 were identified as one of these hunting rifles.

Thus we should reassure gun owners that we’re not going to come after their deer rifles or bird guns. That makes it politically easier to build a consensus on steps to keep dangerous people from lethal weapons like 9-millimeter handguns. There’s also evidence that gun owners with a military or police background strongly believe in safety training and other requirements for people carrying handguns; any coalition for gun safety needs to work with such moderate gun owners.

What About Ammunition Checks, Gun Warning Labels, Insurance Requirements?
Public health mostly is not about one big thing but about a million small things. To reduce auto deaths, seatbelts and airbags helped, and so did padded dashboards, crash testing, streetlights, highway dividers, crackdowns on drunken driving and zillions of tiny steps such as those bumps in the highway to help keep dozing drivers from drifting off the road.

Likewise, we need countless other steps to address gun violence, and many of these have been under discussion for decades. One promising approach is background checks to purchase ammunition, and this should be possible without creating burdens for gun owners who have already gone through background checks to buy weapons. California under Gov. Gavin Newsom has led the way in this, and early results are encouraging. People often have tried to buy ammunition when they weren’t allowed to own guns, suggesting that plenty of unauthorized people have firearms and that ammunition controls may impede them.

Red flag laws are also promising, particularly for reducing gun suicides — which get less attention than homicides but are more common. Red flag laws allow the authorities to remove a gun temporarily from those who appear to be a threat to themselves or others. One academic study found that over 10 years, the Indiana red flag law reduced gun suicides by 7.5 percent. There’s less evidence that red flag laws reduce homicides.

Waiting periods and limits on how many guns one can purchase at a time may also help. We also need to crack down on untraceable ghost guns and on firearms made by 3-D printers; ghost guns are already a growing source of weapons for criminals.

Another harm reduction approach is graphic warning labels for guns and ammunition. “Health warning labels on tobacco products constitute the most cost-effective tool for educating smokers and nonsmokers alike about the health risks of tobacco use,” the World Health Organization said, so let’s apply the lessons to firearms. One proposed ammunition label has a photo of a bloody face and states that a gun increases the risk of someone in a home being killed:

ImageA proposed graphic warning label on an ammunition ad reads, “In homes where domestic violence occurs, a gun increases the risk of women being killed by five times.”
Credit...GraphicWarnings.com

Cigarette taxes reduced demand for tobacco, especially among young people, so how about gun taxes, particularly for 9-millimeter Glocks and other deadly handguns? There’s some evidence that gun demand is very price sensitive: A 1 percent increase in handgun prices historically reduced demand by 2 to 3 percent. So let’s raise handgun prices to cover some of the externalities that firearms impose on society.

One study found that each murder costs society about $17.25 million in policing, courts, incarceration, lost productivity and insecurity. If each handgun and AR-15-style weapon had an additional 20 percent sales tax, that would significantly reduce demand and would begin to pay for some of the costs of crime.

Or what about insurance? Automobile owners must buy insurance, and pool owners and trampoline owners may pay higher premiums, so why shouldn’t gun owners pay higher rates for higher risks? And why should the gun industry be protected from many liability suits?

Economists have proposed one clever idea to raise firearms prices that gun manufacturers might applaud: Impose heavy duties on imported guns and simultaneously give domestic manufacturers immunity from antitrust liability so they could collude and set prices. All this would enable American gun manufacturers to engage in monopolistic price gouging that would reduce sales — and deaths.

Given the difference in impact between long guns and handguns, it may also make sense as a harm reduction measure to advise homeowners to trade in their Glocks for shotguns. As vice president in 2013, Joe Biden encouraged homeowners to rely for self-defense on a shotgun rather than an assault weapon, and he said he had advised his wife to respond to an intruder in an old-fashioned way: “Put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.” He was denounced on left and right, but he had a point: We would be far better off if nervous families sought protection from a shotgun rather than from an assault rifle or 9-millimeter handgun.

For similar reasons, maybe we should ease restrictions on pepper spray. Hikers understand that bear spray is more effective than guns to protect against grizzly bears, and perhaps homeowners could learn the same principle about protecting themselves from criminals.

No single approach is all that effective. But gun safety experts think that a politically plausible harm reduction model could over time reduce gun mortality by perhaps one-third. That would be more than 15,000 lives saved a year.

What Liberals Got Wrong About Guns
I think that it’s primarily conservatives who have been on the wrong side of history in resisting gun safety legislation. But I also think those of us on the progressive end of the spectrum have gotten important things wrong on firearms in ways that have frightened gun owners and impeded progress.

First, while the National Rifle Association’s claim that a gun makes households safe is nonsense, it’s also true that some liberals exaggerate the additional risk. Any given car is more likely to kill someone than any given gun.

Second, there was too much focus on the guns themselves and not enough on who used them. It’s not that the N.R.A. was exactly right when it said that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” But the person matters at least as much as the gun, and the person may be somewhat easier to regulate.

“All guns are not the problem,” Thomas Abt writes in “Bleeding Out,” his study of urban violence. “Guns in the hands of the most dangerous people and places are.

Consider concealed-carry permits. In the 1990s, when conservative states increasingly allowed gun owners to carry concealed handguns, there was widespread hand-wringing on the left that this would be a bloody catastrophe.

The New York Times published a Page 1 article in 1995 citing critics warning of “modern-day Dodge City scenarios in which routine fender-bender accidents could escalate into bloody duels among gun-toting motorists.” False alarm, for the most part. Concealed-carry permits didn’t turn communities into Dodge, because those who went through the permit process were often middle-aged adults with no criminal history and pretty good self-control. (That said, it is a problem when the Supreme Court encourages gun proliferation and when some states now issue permits to almost everyone, but the court still allows some room for regulation.)

Third, liberals have focused too much on banning assault weapons rather than on the whole panoply of interventions that may help. What we call assault rifles probably account for fewer than 7 percent of guns used in crimes and only a small share of suicides, and they have repeatedly proved difficult to define. California banned assault weapons, for example, yet manufacturers promptly designed and began selling California-compliant weapons that are almost the same as those that are banned but are technically legal.

In any case, even if it were possible to get a new assault weapon ban through the Senate, the ban wouldn’t affect the possibly 20 million or more such rifles already in circulation. The last assault weapon ban, from 1994 to 2004, didn’t slow the sale of such weapons (because of bad definitions) and may have been counterproductive by turning them in some circles into icons of American manhood. Indeed, there are probably now more assault rifles in private hands in the United States than in the armories of the U.S. military. We liberals have become champion marketers for the firearms manufacturers.

I still believe in tightly restricting AR-15-style weapons and large-capacity magazines, because they play a significant role in mass shootings, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the reality that handguns kill far more people — and of the need for a broad public health strategy based on evidence.

Fourth, we liberals haven’t adequately pursued approaches to reduce firearms violence that have nothing to do with guns. Curbing lead exposure in infants today appears to reduce violent crime 20 years later. Violence interrupters working for initiatives like Cure Violence can sometimes break cycles of revenge shootings. Youth programs like Becoming a Man help as well by producing more mature young men who do better in school and are less inclined to settle an argument by reaching for a .38. Research finds that even better street lighting and conversion of vacant lots into green areas seem to reduce shootings. Counseling and intervention strategies reduce suicides, which constitute a majority of gun deaths.

Fifth, we haven’t been as evidence-driven as we should have been. One problem with gun research today is that it’s frequently pursued by people with strong agendas, either pro-gun or anti-gun. Liberals sometimes leap on poorly designed studies if they support our conclusions, in ways that discredit our side. The liberal impulse has sometimes also been to delegitimize all policing because of a history of racism and abuses; in fact, law enforcement contains multitudes, and some police strategies such as focused deterrence, targeting those most likely to use illegal guns, have reduced violence.

So let’s learn lessons, for gun violence is at levels that are unconscionable. Just since I graduated from high school in 1977, more Americans appear to have died from guns (more than 1.5 million), including suicides, homicides and accidents, than perished in all the wars in United States history, going back to the Revolutionary War (about 1.4 million).

We can do better, and this is not hopeless. North Carolina is not a liberal state, but it requires a license to buy a handgun. If we avoid overheated rhetoric that antagonizes gun owners, some progress is possible, particularly at the state level.

Gun safety regulation can make a difference. Conservatives often think New York is an example of failed gun policy, but New York State has a firearms death rate less than one-quarter that of gun-friendly states like Alaska, Wyoming, Louisiana and Mississippi. Gun safety works, just not as well as we would like.

Harm reduction isn’t glamorous but is the kind of long slog that reduced auto fatalities and smoking deaths. If gun policy can only become boring, that may help defuse the culture war over guns that for decades has paralyzed America from adopting effective firearms policies.

The latest shootings were tragically, infuriatingly predictable. So let’s ask politicians not just for lowered flags and moving speeches but also for a better way to honor the dead: an evidence-based slog that saves lives.

[get it to x]

I don’t know a single person that used a weapon for defensive purposes but know plenty that have used a weapon for offensive or was the victim of offensive gun violence.

Pauline Kael and you have a lot in common. She said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

A Georgetown University professor commissioned this 2021 study:

FTA

"Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million."

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-large ... is-common/

I am speaking of personal acquaintances.

Sorry, misquote. This is intended for get it to x, not TLD.

Per my bolded "notations" above, I would remark that without seeing the study design, and particularly any mechanism for validation of respondent assertion, that any conclusions drwawn would be of dubious value.

Do you have the name of the study and the principal investigator as well as name the of publisher (and validating journal or publication)?

This is from the link I posted. The entire study results updated to 2022.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4109494

FTA

"This survey employs five common devices to encourage more truthful responses. First, it uses an indirect “teaser” question to pre-screen respondents in order to select those who own firearms. The initial question prompt presents the survey as concerned with “recreational opportunities and related public policies” and asks respondents if they own any of the following items, presented in a random order: Bicycle, Canoe or Kayak, Firearm, Rock, Climbing Equipment, None of the Above. Only those who select “Firearm” are then presented the full survey. We also ask demographic questions at the outset, which allows us to assess the representativeness of the sample, including those who do not indicate firearms
ownership.

Second, the survey was carefully phrased so as to not suggest animus towards gun
owners or ignorance of firearms-related terminology.

Third, the survey assures respondentsof anonymity.

Fourth, in order to ensure that respondents are reading the survey questions
carefully, and then responding with considered answers thereto, a “disqualifying” question
(sometimes referred to as a “screening” question) was embedded a little over half of the way
through the survey instructing respondents to select a particular answer for that question,
which only those who read the question in its entirety would understand. Anyone registering
an incorrect answer to this question was disqualified from the survey and their responses to
any of the survey questions were neither considered nor tallied.

Finally, while responses were required for basic demographic questions, if questions of a
sensitive nature were left blank, the software would first call attention to the blank response
and prompt the respondent to enter a response. However, if a respondent persisted in not
responding and again tried to progress, rather than kick them out of the survey, they would
be allowed to progress to the next section in the interest of obtaining the maximum amount
of information that they were willing to share. Respondents were not made aware of this
possibility in advance, and in practice such “opting out” of a particular question was seldom
done (less than 1% of responses for the average question). This is the reason that small
variations are sometimes observed in the total number of respondents for certain question

One issue jumps out:
"Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of thirty (3.2%) occurred at work."

That's 91.4%. Where are the rest?

No corroboration, even another survey, for the number of incidents of "use", or should I say, "brandishing" of weapon for defensive purposes.

"Although it did not ask detailed questions concerning defensive use of firearms and the types
of firearms owned, this recent Pew survey serves as a helpful benchmark for corroborating
the general ownership estimates of the present survey."

In general, given Centiment is a "non-probability" survey and subject to issues re non-response, I have trouble with these conclusions. Further, the issue of a small but significant percentage of bogus respondents (I think this is a polite way of saying "troll") also impacts results and inferences.

"A new study by Pew Research Center finds that online polls conducted with widely-used opt-in sources contain small but measurable shares of bogus respondents (about 4% to 7%, depending on the source). Critically, these bogus respondents are not just answering at random, but rather they tend to select positive answer choices – introducing a small, systematic bias into estimates like presidential approval."

"While some challenges to polls are ever-present (e.g., respondents not answering carefully or giving socially desirable answers), the risk that bad actors could compromise a public opinion poll is, in some respects, a new one. It is a consequence of the field’s migration toward online convenience samples of people who sign themselves up to get money or other rewards by taking surveys. This introduces the risk that some people will answer not with their own views but instead with answers they believe are likely to please the poll’s sponsor. It also raises the possibility that people who do not belong in a U.S. poll (e.g., people in another country) will try to misrepresent themselves to complete surveys and accrue money or other rewards."

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/202 ... spondents/

So even with your 4-7% of bogus respondents the number is large. Lets give you a 20% bogus/bias rate. That's still well over 1 million, even assuming all the bogus responses inure towards the gun owner/use incident side. Is it possible some non gun owning progressive took the survey and indicated they never used their weapon? Or a non gun owning conservative indicating ownership/use incident? Of course, but with over 50,000 respondents you can lower your margin of error to a predictable level. I'm going to assume you know the Law of Large Numbers.

[MDlaxfan76]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

[get it to x]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

[Farfromgeneva]

The “stats” on lives saved haven’t been truly presented just “defensive use” but whatever the framing of this is absurd. Just a weak argument. Counterfactual is the term. We know about the loss of lives. Period. I could speculate on how much a** I would’ve gotten if I hadn’t gotten married and how Natalie Portman and Alexandra Daddario would be sitting on my lap but reality is even single that only happens in my dreams.

It’s also wild old disrespectful and dismissive of the people who died unnecessarily from guns. Notwithstanding the originally Ricky Bobby “with all due respect to the victims” that started this “line of inquiry”.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0444-0/pdf

This is true when comparing by country and when comparing deaths by gun by state.

More guns per capita are a strong predictor of more gun deaths per capita.

But hey, guns are used "defensively" so they must be "saving lives" right?
So more guns should mean more lives saved?

I write this as the owner of 5 guns, though no handguns and no assault weapons.

I have to bring this up yet again.. how do YOU define what is or isn't an assault weapon? I understand the stated objection of some folks involves banning these weapons 100%. That will never happen MD in a million years in this country. What needs to happen is the process for purchasing these weapons needs to be more thorough and exhaustive. Twenty one is the minimum age to purchase the weapon. A one day safety and range course. This would be a go or no go course. You can't prove your qualified you don't get a permit to purchase. If you already own one of these weapons you have to take the course. You wait as long as it takes to process your application. This includes proof you have a gun safe to secure weapon and ammo when not in use. You can never ban these weapons because as I have pointed out there are no definitive guidelines for what an assault weapon is.

[Kismet]

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0444-0/pdf

This is true when comparing by country and when comparing deaths by gun by state.

More guns per capita are a strong predictor of more gun deaths per capita.

But hey, guns are used "defensively" so they must be "saving lives" right?
So more guns should mean more lives saved?

I write this as the owner of 5 guns, though no handguns and no assault weapons.

I have to bring this up yet again.. how do YOU define what is or isn't an assault weapon? I understand the stated objection of some folks involves banning these weapons 100%. That will never happen MD in a million years in this country. What needs to happen is the process for purchasing these weapons needs to be more thorough and exhaustive. Twenty one is the minimum age to purchase the weapon. A one day safety and range course. This would be a go or no go course. You can't prove your qualified you don't get a permit to purchase. If you already own one of these weapons you have to take the course. You wait as long as it takes to process your application. This includes proof you have a gun safe to secure weapon and ammo when not in use. You can never ban these weapons because as I have pointed out there are no definitive guidelines for what an assault weapon is.

You're very likely correct. But they are not going to do ANY of the very good suggestions you enumerate. Sadly, all we are going to get is more thoughts and prayers for victims of this plethora of gun violence.

and to think the "revolution" has not really started in earnest yet.

The title of this thread is a complete oxymoron.

[Farfromgeneva]

Somebody’s in the South Park rabbit hole this am…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N_qqAU43O ... FIAQ%3D%3D

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0444-0/pdf

This is true when comparing by country and when comparing deaths by gun by state.

More guns per capita are a strong predictor of more gun deaths per capita.

But hey, guns are used "defensively" so they must be "saving lives" right?
So more guns should mean more lives saved?

I write this as the owner of 5 guns, though no handguns and no assault weapons.

I have to bring this up yet again.. how do YOU define what is or isn't an assault weapon? I understand the stated objection of some folks involves banning these weapons 100%. That will never happen MD in a million years in this country. What needs to happen is the process for purchasing these weapons needs to be more thorough and exhaustive. Twenty one is the minimum age to purchase the weapon. A one day safety and range course. This would be a go or no go course. You can't prove your qualified you don't get a permit to purchase. If you already own one of these weapons you have to take the course. You wait as long as it takes to process your application. This includes proof you have a gun safe to secure weapon and ammo when not in use. You can never ban these weapons because as I have pointed out there are no definitive guidelines for what an assault weapon is.

You're very likely correct. But they are not going to do ANY of the very good suggestions you enumerate. Sadly, all we are going to get is more thoughts and prayers for victims of this plethora of gun violence.

and to think the "revolution" has not really started in earnest yet.

The title of this thread is a complete oxymoron.

The bigger question should be.. why are more and more people inclined to commit theses horrific crimes? I have read that an increasing # of these murders involve angry people with lethal weapons that have a score to settle. I'm somewhat torn here. I understand why so many people love their for the sake of discussion AR 15 type weapons. As a young infantry soldier I loved putting rounds down range. I'm almost an old man now, my fascination with shooting is almost non existent anymore. I have to remember the devastating impact these weapons have on the human body. The 5.56 round was designed to kill people. I understand how fun plinking can be. I have a pellet gun I use occasionally for fun. I own an M1 Carbine my brother gave me from his collection. It is the same type of weapon my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. It is in every sense of the word an assault weapon. IMO, and this is a radical change of opinion for me, if you wanna go plinking, you don't need an assault rifle. I will always respect the right of anyone to own these weapons if they so desire. It is just the wrong weapon for the job for most people if home defense is your desired goal.

[MDlaxfan76]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

[get it to x]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

Your entire premise neglects to consider the criminal in the equation. The waitress doesn't want to carry the gun. It's probably a little scary to her, or any other person who is at a physical disadvantage with the criminal. The gun is an equalizer. I'd be fine with some gun laws that don't change the self defense aspect, but we should have very harsh sentences for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, say 25 years with no parole.

[cradleandshoot]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

Because what you would rather see is not based in the reality that waitress/ waiter lives with everyday. How does every restaurant provide a safe ride home to every vulnerable employee?? Does riding the subway home at 12am alone meet your guidelines for a safe ride home? Often times I wonder MD about any experience you have in the real world. What does that waitress or waiter do? Is there a phone number to secure a safe ride??? Where do thousands of restaurant workers find that safe ride home app? I know how it worked for my mom. She worked every night as the Chief Operator for Rochester Telephone office on Fitzhugh St. Her safe ride home was my dad and sometimes myself waiting to pick her out up at front of the door. Old fashioned chit there MD but it worked for my parents for 35 years. The world ain't the same as it was just 30 years ago when my mom was still working. The fact that any waitress/waiter/ restaurant employee has to fear for their life just getting home from tells volumes for the pathetic course our country is heading on.
This is anecdotal but par for the course for way too many criminals today. I don't have the link but recently a just released criminal stole a car, found a gun and robbed a jewelery store within hours of being released from prison. He was given an appearance ticket and sent on his way..Didn't the SOB steal another damn car, find another damn gun and commit another armed robbery at a fancy high end jewelery store in Pittsford, NY. I guess they finally decided there was no safe way home with this knucklehead. In a drastic measure by the local courts they actually made him post bail I believe he is now walking the streets on 2000 dollars bail. Last we heard he is waiting to steal another car, find another gun and rob another jewelery store. We can only hope he doesn't run into a waitress/waiter walking home from work at 12 am.

[MDlaxfan76]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

Your entire premise neglects to consider the criminal in the equation. The waitress doesn't want to carry the gun. It's probably a little scary to her, or any other person who is at a physical disadvantage with the criminal. The gun is an equalizer. I'd be fine with some gun laws that don't change the self defense aspect, but we should have very harsh sentences for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, say 25 years with no parole.

Yes, the issue is that criminals (and nutcases) have guns, easily, in the USA...we're awash in weapons because of our gun culture. That waitress does not have the same danger issues in those other countries, though there's always some degree of danger...but the answer there isn't to carry a gun...pepper spray is sufficient.

I don't ignore this at all.

I agree with you on harsh penalties for crimes committed with guns.

But I also want to dramatically reduce the number of guns in circulation, requiring registration of ALL weapons, else substantial penalties, and restrict when and where and how they can be used. For instance, some types of weapons should never be used away from a well-regulated gun range; indeed, that's where they should be stored.

Some guns can be used in specified ways, for specified purposes, eg hunting, but must be stored properly and usage should only by those well trained and licensed and where appropriate for such use. (I have never had to take a gun safety course, grandfathered from my childhood; I'm super safe when hunting and handling in transit...to the extent one can be with such a danger...but I know lots of people who are way less careful in their gun handling, putting themselves and others in danger...and there are no rules, requirements, restrictions, training etc as to how I store my guns at home. I could have a loaded gun by my bed, in my closet, next to my door, whatever...and is one always going to be sober, not depressed, no angry, not scared and thus potentially make a tragic mistake in a momentary lapse? )

I want gun manufacturers and each owner of a gun to be liable for how that gun is used, if used improperly. Put the economics squarely on those who profit and those who are negligent or worse. A manufacturer selling high capacity weapons with glorifying gun culture marketing should be liable for the use of the gun away from the highly regulated gun range...and an owner who fails to follow storage regulations should be liable for the use of a stolen gun, much less the sale or gift of the gun to someone not properly registered. What those liability levels are we could niggle on, but there should be economic incentives, at least, to modifying behavior.

If someone feels the need to have a gun for self-defense, let's start by admitting that really should never have to be the case, it's a failure of regulation and law enforcement.

But ok, it's a reality that there are some definable situations that could exist...then such availability for such potential use should require one heck of a lot of training, ongoing throughout the time in which that weapon is registered for such. Annual reviews required on handling and storage. Mental stability open to review as well.

Back to the criminals, yes, severe penalties.

The topic thread is "Sensible Gun Safety".

cradle,
I'm not going to separately respond to you as the above addresses amply, but I'm not ignoring you.
I picked my wife up at night when she had long hours, so that she wouldn't have to walk 6 blocks in transitional area of Boston. Was it truly necessary, probably not, but maybe...she did get her purse snatched one night, but that was right in front of me...I took off chasing him, but lost ground in my hard shoes and he in his sneakers, but a couple of guys going into their townhouse blew a police whistle as he ran past and the thief dropped the bag...police were there in less than 2 mins...so, yeah, having someone escort you can help, though no guarantee...if he'd had a gun, and held us up, it wouldn't have mattered if I had one too...he'd have been ready I wouldn't...

The point is that your example of waitresses is way less of an issue in countries in which it's much harder to obtain a gun.

[Kismet]

School taxes are going up in Newport News VA

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/us/n ... board.html

Newport News School Was Warned 3 Times That 6-Year-Old Had a Gun, Lawyer Says
Another child saw the gun at recess, a teacher warned that the boy had a gun in his pocket and an administrator dismissed the threat, according to the lawyer for a teacher who was shot.

"NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — In the hours before a 6-year-old boy shot his first-grade teacher in Virginia this month, school leaders were warned three times that the boy might have a gun, a lawyer for the teacher said on Wednesday, including by a student who tearfully recounted seeing the gun at recess.

In announcing the teacher’s intent to file a lawsuit against the Newport News School District, the lawyer, Diane Toscano, laid out a series of escalating warnings that happened on Jan. 6, when the police say a 6-year-old boy took his mother’s gun from home, brought it to Richneck Elementary School and fired at his teacher, Abigail Zwerner, in a shooting that has shaken parents and teachers and led to a motion to fire the superintendent.

By about 12:30 p.m. on the day of the shooting, a teacher had searched the boy’s backpack, believing that he might have a gun, Ms. Toscano said. No gun was found, but the teacher reported to the school administration that she believed the boy had put the gun in his pocket before going outside for recess. Instead of searching the boy, Ms. Toscano said, an administrator dismissed the threat, saying that the 6-year-old “has little pockets.”

Around 1 p.m. — an hour before the shooting — another teacher reported that a student had come to the teacher crying, saying that the boy had shown him the gun at recess and threatened to shoot the student if he told anyone, Ms. Toscano said.

What did administrators do?” Ms. Toscano said at a news conference on Wednesday discussing plans to file the lawsuit. “Did administrators call the police? No. Did administrators lockdown the school? No. Did administrators evacuate the building? No. Did they confront the student? No.”

A third teacher also asked for permission to search the boy, Ms. Toscano said, but was told to wait, because the school day was almost over.

Shortly before 2 p.m., the police say, the boy pointed the gun at Ms. Zwerner and shot her in front of his classmates in their first-grade classroom.

A school board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday night to consider the job of the superintendent."

BTW there is no law in VA about securing a firearm in your home.

[RedFromMI]

There are a very large number of machine guns in private hands with extremely strict rules for registration and the number of mass shootings per year involving them is basically zero.

When the NFA was passed in the 1930s we basically got rid of sawed off shotguns in common possession by redefining them as destructive devices. But you must have the political will to take action.

[get it to x]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

Your entire premise neglects to consider the criminal in the equation. The waitress doesn't want to carry the gun. It's probably a little scary to her, or any other person who is at a physical disadvantage with the criminal. The gun is an equalizer. I'd be fine with some gun laws that don't change the self defense aspect, but we should have very harsh sentences for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, say 25 years with no parole.

Yes, the issue is that criminals (and nutcases) have guns, easily, in the USA...we're awash in weapons because of our gun culture. That waitress does not have the same danger issues in those other countries, though there's always some degree of danger...but the answer there isn't to carry a gun...pepper spray is sufficient.

I don't ignore this at all.

I agree with you on harsh penalties for crimes committed with guns.

But I also want to dramatically reduce the number of guns in circulation, requiring registration of ALL weapons, else substantial penalties, and restrict when and where and how they can be used. For instance, some types of weapons should never be used away from a well-regulated gun range; indeed, that's where they should be stored.

Some guns can be used in specified ways, for specified purposes, eg hunting, but must be stored properly and usage should only by those well trained and licensed and where appropriate for such use. (I have never had to take a gun safety course, grandfathered from my childhood; I'm super safe when hunting and handling in transit...to the extent one can be with such a danger...but I know lots of people who are way less careful in their gun handling, putting themselves and others in danger...and there are no rules, requirements, restrictions, training etc as to how I store my guns at home. I could have a loaded gun by my bed, in my closet, next to my door, whatever...and is one always going to be sober, not depressed, no angry, not scared and thus potentially make a tragic mistake in a momentary lapse? )

I want gun manufacturers and each owner of a gun to be liable for how that gun is used, if used improperly. Put the economics squarely on those who profit and those who are negligent or worse. A manufacturer selling high capacity weapons with glorifying gun culture marketing should be liable for the use of the gun away from the highly regulated gun range...and an owner who fails to follow storage regulations should be liable for the use of a stolen gun, much less the sale or gift of the gun to someone not properly registered. What those liability levels are we could niggle on, but there should be economic incentives, at least, to modifying behavior.

If someone feels the need to have a gun for self-defense, let's start by admitting that really should never have to be the case, it's a failure of regulation and law enforcement.

But ok, it's a reality that there are some definable situations that could exist...then such availability for such potential use should require one heck of a lot of training, ongoing throughout the time in which that weapon is registered for such. Annual reviews required on handling and storage. Mental stability open to review as well.

Back to the criminals, yes, severe penalties.

The topic thread is "Sensible Gun Safety".

cradle,
I'm not going to separately respond to you as the above addresses amply, but I'm not ignoring you.
I picked my wife up at night when she had long hours, so that she wouldn't have to walk 6 blocks in transitional area of Boston. Was it truly necessary, probably not, but maybe...she did get her purse snatched one night, but that was right in front of me...I took off chasing him, but lost ground in my hard shoes and he in his sneakers, but a couple of guys going into their townhouse blew a police whistle as he ran past and the thief dropped the bag...police were there in less than 2 mins...so, yeah, having someone escort you can help, though no guarantee...if he'd had a gun, and held us up, it wouldn't have mattered if I had one too...he'd have been ready I wouldn't...

The point is that your example of waitresses is way less of an issue in countries in which it's much harder to obtain a gun.

So give your wife some pepper spray and drop her off at Mondawmin Mall in West Baltimore.

[cradleandshoot]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

Your entire premise neglects to consider the criminal in the equation. The waitress doesn't want to carry the gun. It's probably a little scary to her, or any other person who is at a physical disadvantage with the criminal. The gun is an equalizer. I'd be fine with some gun laws that don't change the self defense aspect, but we should have very harsh sentences for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, say 25 years with no parole.

Yes, the issue is that criminals (and nutcases) have guns, easily, in the USA...we're awash in weapons because of our gun culture. That waitress does not have the same danger issues in those other countries, though there's always some degree of danger...but the answer there isn't to carry a gun...pepper spray is sufficient.

I don't ignore this at all.

I agree with you on harsh penalties for crimes committed with guns.

But I also want to dramatically reduce the number of guns in circulation, requiring registration of ALL weapons, else substantial penalties, and restrict when and where and how they can be used. For instance, some types of weapons should never be used away from a well-regulated gun range; indeed, that's where they should be stored.

Some guns can be used in specified ways, for specified purposes, eg hunting, but must be stored properly and usage should only by those well trained and licensed and where appropriate for such use. (I have never had to take a gun safety course, grandfathered from my childhood; I'm super safe when hunting and handling in transit...to the extent one can be with such a danger...but I know lots of people who are way less careful in their gun handling, putting themselves and others in danger...and there are no rules, requirements, restrictions, training etc as to how I store my guns at home. I could have a loaded gun by my bed, in my closet, next to my door, whatever...and is one always going to be sober, not depressed, no angry, not scared and thus potentially make a tragic mistake in a momentary lapse? )

I want gun manufacturers and each owner of a gun to be liable for how that gun is used, if used improperly. Put the economics squarely on those who profit and those who are negligent or worse. A manufacturer selling high capacity weapons with glorifying gun culture marketing should be liable for the use of the gun away from the highly regulated gun range...and an owner who fails to follow storage regulations should be liable for the use of a stolen gun, much less the sale or gift of the gun to someone not properly registered. What those liability levels are we could niggle on, but there should be economic incentives, at least, to modifying behavior.

If someone feels the need to have a gun for self-defense, let's start by admitting that really should never have to be the case, it's a failure of regulation and law enforcement.

But ok, it's a reality that there are some definable situations that could exist...then such availability for such potential use should require one heck of a lot of training, ongoing throughout the time in which that weapon is registered for such. Annual reviews required on handling and storage. Mental stability open to review as well.

Back to the criminals, yes, severe penalties.

The topic thread is "Sensible Gun Safety".

cradle,
I'm not going to separately respond to you as the above addresses amply, but I'm not ignoring you.
I picked my wife up at night when she had long hours, so that she wouldn't have to walk 6 blocks in transitional area of Boston. Was it truly necessary, probably not, but maybe...she did get her purse snatched one night, but that was right in front of me...I took off chasing him, but lost ground in my hard shoes and he in his sneakers, but a couple of guys going into their townhouse blew a police whistle as he ran past and the thief dropped the bag...police were there in less than 2 mins...so, yeah, having someone escort you can help, though no guarantee...if he'd had a gun, and held us up, it wouldn't have mattered if I had one too...he'd have been ready I wouldn't...

The point is that your example of waitresses is way less of an issue in countries in which it's much harder to obtain a gun.

So give your wife some pepper spray and drop her off at Mondawmin Mall in West Baltimore.

In a bit of irony the same steps my mom walked down every evening are now directly across the street from Rochester City Hall. Security around there today is no issue at all. When I ask people who own AR-15 type weapons for home security I always ask if they know what the maximum effective range of their weapon is. Most of them love their weapon, but they don't know how far that bullet can travel. The maximum effective range of an AR-15 type weapons is 300 meters, that is longer than 3 footballs fields and farther than most of us can identify a target. So if you shoot at someone 20 feet from you where is that bullet going to wind up?

[MDlaxfan76]

The more serious issue would be that someone like me, under the situation I described, would say 'yes' to this question. Once in my life. 50 years ago. Idiot that I was or am!

Moreover, have I ever heard a sound in the house and then, carrying a shotgun, made noises about being armed? Yup...that would count too, though I've never actually needed to confront a real intruder...usually it's just one of the downstairs doors has blown open...

So, I'm extremely skeptical of how often a homeowner has actually needed a gun to repel an intruder...versus "brandishing a weapon, I "protected" my home"...

And of course there's the example of the a-hole couple brandishing their weapons on their porch as peaceful BLM protestors went down the public street in their neighborhood...

Why don't you give us the stats percentage of how often a homeowner, confronting an actual intruder, actually ended up on the wrong end of that exchange?

and of course, the suicides...

Do you discount the value of guns for personal protection? Tell that to the 110 lb waitress on her way home after midnight. Or the rural family when the nearest deputy is 20 miles away. What would you do against a home invasion? They aren’t some impossibility. You want stats, look them up yourself. You posited the question about getting killed by your own gun. IMHO probably quite small in relation to lives saved. Let me know when you find out.

I haven't seen any stat from you about 'lives saved' just a survey that suggests people brandish their guns when they get concerned.

And the issue is that the criminal, when there actually is one, is very likely to be armed in a USA awash in weapons. Not so in other countries.

What matters is that we have many multiples of guns per civilian in our country than any other first world country and likewise many multiples of gun deaths. Very strong correlation. Same at the state level here in the US, strong correlation. We don't have greater mental health issues, more poverty, etc. Just way, way more guns.

I'm a gun owner and believe that we can have some types of guns safely, used safely, if we get serious about who has these guns, how they are stored, when and where they are used, etc.

With regard to the waitress, I'd rather see her have a safe ride home than carry a gun, scared of a criminal with a gun...what do waitresses in Great Britain do? France? Germany? Sweden? Japan? New Zealand? Canada?....

Your entire premise neglects to consider the criminal in the equation. The waitress doesn't want to carry the gun. It's probably a little scary to her, or any other person who is at a physical disadvantage with the criminal. The gun is an equalizer. I'd be fine with some gun laws that don't change the self defense aspect, but we should have very harsh sentences for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, say 25 years with no parole.

Yes, the issue is that criminals (and nutcases) have guns, easily, in the USA...we're awash in weapons because of our gun culture. That waitress does not have the same danger issues in those other countries, though there's always some degree of danger...but the answer there isn't to carry a gun...pepper spray is sufficient.

I don't ignore this at all.

I agree with you on harsh penalties for crimes committed with guns.

But I also want to dramatically reduce the number of guns in circulation, requiring registration of ALL weapons, else substantial penalties, and restrict when and where and how they can be used. For instance, some types of weapons should never be used away from a well-regulated gun range; indeed, that's where they should be stored.

Some guns can be used in specified ways, for specified purposes, eg hunting, but must be stored properly and usage should only by those well trained and licensed and where appropriate for such use. (I have never had to take a gun safety course, grandfathered from my childhood; I'm super safe when hunting and handling in transit...to the extent one can be with such a danger...but I know lots of people who are way less careful in their gun handling, putting themselves and others in danger...and there are no rules, requirements, restrictions, training etc as to how I store my guns at home. I could have a loaded gun by my bed, in my closet, next to my door, whatever...and is one always going to be sober, not depressed, no angry, not scared and thus potentially make a tragic mistake in a momentary lapse? )

I want gun manufacturers and each owner of a gun to be liable for how that gun is used, if used improperly. Put the economics squarely on those who profit and those who are negligent or worse. A manufacturer selling high capacity weapons with glorifying gun culture marketing should be liable for the use of the gun away from the highly regulated gun range...and an owner who fails to follow storage regulations should be liable for the use of a stolen gun, much less the sale or gift of the gun to someone not properly registered. What those liability levels are we could niggle on, but there should be economic incentives, at least, to modifying behavior.

If someone feels the need to have a gun for self-defense, let's start by admitting that really should never have to be the case, it's a failure of regulation and law enforcement.

But ok, it's a reality that there are some definable situations that could exist...then such availability for such potential use should require one heck of a lot of training, ongoing throughout the time in which that weapon is registered for such. Annual reviews required on handling and storage. Mental stability open to review as well.

Back to the criminals, yes, severe penalties.

The topic thread is "Sensible Gun Safety".

cradle,
I'm not going to separately respond to you as the above addresses amply, but I'm not ignoring you.
I picked my wife up at night when she had long hours, so that she wouldn't have to walk 6 blocks in transitional area of Boston. Was it truly necessary, probably not, but maybe...she did get her purse snatched one night, but that was right in front of me...I took off chasing him, but lost ground in my hard shoes and he in his sneakers, but a couple of guys going into their townhouse blew a police whistle as he ran past and the thief dropped the bag...police were there in less than 2 mins...so, yeah, having someone escort you can help, though no guarantee...if he'd had a gun, and held us up, it wouldn't have mattered if I had one too...he'd have been ready I wouldn't...

The point is that your example of waitresses is way less of an issue in countries in which it's much harder to obtain a gun.

So give your wife some pepper spray and drop her off at Mondawmin Mall in West Baltimore.

Like I said, I picked up my wife. Every bit as challenging a walk as 6 blocks from Mondawmin today would be.
In today's era, Uber is a beautiful alternative if there's nobody to do that pick up.

But are you really going to ignore everything else?