Can we talk civilly about guns?

[Goshin]

I wanted to dig a little deeper into this issue. I did not intend this thread to be about one aspect of guns/gun in culture, as too many of the threads in the gun forum tend to. Rather, I started it here to maintain a higher-level view, more dispassionate approach.

As noted, I agree, a lot of "mass shootings" (using the indicia of multiple targets/victims in the 4-person range) are drug or domestic violence triggered - the proverbial "drive by shootings" or "going postal" events. What facilitates their destructiveness, of course, is the subject of this thread: the gun.

In the musical "West Side Story", the gangs were armed with clubs and knives. The introduction of a firearm is a major turning point in the story. That was then.

Today, most gang members get an early introduction to firearms in maintaining territory. Why is that? Because a bad guy with a gun is far more effective as a disruptor. Put a group of "gang bangers" into a vehicle and you have a potent mobile weapon system. Unfortunately, their usage tends to be indiscriminate.

Similarly, a domestic abuser armed with a gun is much more dangerous - lethal - than the ne'er-do-well in the sleeveless undershirt. The same with the co-worker with a grudge.

What each of these scenarios have in common - and with the mass casualty events - is not motivation, but means. It's the gun that makes the difference between a visit to a hospital or the morgue.

My focus is often, as here, the effect of firearms in the situation, and as a public policy issue. My interest is not discussion of the Second Amendment pro or con. The ubiquity of firearms in the public sphere is the public policy interest at play here.

Which brings me back to the central issue - what are the fundamental characteristics of guns that make them an issue in and of themselves. (A gun is a tool for putting a projectile on a target.)

The most common use of a firearm in our society is as a means of effectuating a suicide, the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S. Guns & Suicide (Harvard public health). "Far more people kill themselves with a firearm each year than are murdered with one." Almost two to one, in many years, but not recently. Indeed, "Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back."

The same is true in many of the public shooting scenarios listed above - the drive-by, the domestic abuser, the disgruntled employee, or the sociopath.

The same CDC you quote estimates Defensive Gun Use (DGU) at 500,000 a year minimum, up to possibly 3 million, the vast majority with no shots fired.

The more law abiding citizens are disarmed, the more emboldened criminals become, and the more crime is likely to rise... including personal crime like rape, assault, home invasion and such.

If guns evaporated tomorrow, the price tag would be another half-million crimes a year minimum... probably more, as criminals would be emboldened by the idea of unarmed victims.

The weaker members of society, women, elderly, sick, would have their ability to defend themselves greatly curtailed. Even a strong man with fighting skills would be overwhelmed if attacked by several thugs.

How many suicides would be prevented by the absence of guns... and how many would just turn to a different method? I saw a hanging once, very grisly thing.

You might reduce gun deaths, but perhaps only gun deaths, and at what price?

 

[NWRatCon]

Nope. This is “what was written”:

You can't even argue honestly. I'm disappointed. Genuinely. Too much fix news, I guess. The standard in "ignoring what's there to create a false narrative."

You cant get an accurate count of illegally owned (aka possessed) guns.

Why is that?

It’s obvious to most that gun ownership rates are higher in rural areas, but “gun crime” is higher in urban areas - making it doubtful (at best) the number of (self-described) gun owners is a even a correlated factor.

Wow, you almost got my point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can't even argue honestly. I'm disappointed. Genuinely. Too much fix news, I guess. The standard in "ignoring what's there to create a false narrative."

BS. I quoted your posted content to which I replied.

Why is that?

Criminals are often liars but…

Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed, carried, or used it during the offense for which they were imprisoned.

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Wow, you almost got my point.

Your point varies from post to post.

 

[NWRatCon]

The same CDC you quote estimates Defensive Gun Use (DGU) at 500,000 a year minimum, up to possibly 3 million, the vast majority with no shots fired.

I'm fully aware of that report and the various criticisms of the methodology (which were utter crap). A better estimate (with more reliable reporting data) is that there are about 50,000/ year - or nearly equivalence with illegal use of a firearm. But your point is accepted - threatening use of a gun can be effective, I've done it myself. Your assertion, however,

The more law abiding citizens are disarmed, the more emboldened criminals become, and the more crime is likely to rise... including personal crime like rape, assault, home invasion and such.

is utter nonsense, and statistically false. Were it true, the level of crime in non-gun-obsessed societies would be astronomical. In fact, the opposite is true. Indeed, statistically, there is a high correlation between generalized firearm possession and murder rates, both in country by country comparisons, and state by state comparisons.

If guns evaporated tomorrow, the price tag would be another half-million crimes a year minimum... probably more, as criminals would be emboldened by the idea of unarmed victims.

I don't know what fantasy world you draw your information from, but it's not the real one. I prefer discussions based on facts than conjecture.

How many suicides would be prevented by the absence of guns... and how many would just turn to a different method?

Suicide by firearms has a success rate of 85%. Suicide by other methods 3%. I posted that earlier. A little simple math would give you the answer, but a reasonable estimate would be, more than 30,000/year.

You might reduce gun deaths, but perhaps only gun deaths, and at what price?

A safer and more prosperous society?

 

[NWRatCon]

BS. I quoted your posted content to which I replied.

And ignored everything that didn't coincide with your assertion. That's called, "a lie by omission".

Your point varies from post to post.

That's the nature of iterative posting. Each post makes a different point. Your posts here don't seem to follow that pattern. You keep trying to make the same (false) point, over and over, ad nauseum.

 

[Gaius46]

No, it's not bullshit. It's beyond the scope of this thread, but the examples of individuals making a huge impact on their local community are legion. Entire sections of newspapers and annual collections in magazines are devoted to them. You're not correct on this point

I understand that there are many examples. My point however is does it happen often enough and quickly enough that I should prefer doing that over armed self defense in the short term. I’m respectfully submit that it doesn’t.

Sorry for derailing the thread

 

[Gaius46]

Guns do not provide home security. That argument is bullshit. The numbers speak for themselves.

It wholly depends on training and temperment. Those statistics are largely meaningless at the individual level

 

[soylentgreen]

This is getting into the social aspects of guns in society. In the military there is the concept of a "force multiplier": "In military science, force multiplication or a force multiplier is a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it." Wikipedia.

On an individual basis, a firearm is a "force multiplier" - the proverbial "good guy with a gun". For a community, it may have the opposite effect - one person with a gun can disrupt multiple people without them - the armed robber, the domestic abuser, the gang enforcer, the mass shooter.

What you are touching on, tangentially, is the concept of a militia, actually - a group of citizens, with appropriate arms, to protect the community. But you are emphasizing the more important aspect - the nature of any community is the effort its members put into it. Some towns/areas are run down because the individuals within it do not invest effort into upkeep (there may be many reasons for that). Others are well-kept because its members make an effort or investment to make it so - street cleaning, trash collection, etc. A "neighborhood watch" is often far more effective in keeping a community safe than an armed individual.

If you live in a nice neighborhood then that kind of community spirit is all that is needed. But if you live in a criminal shithole then you need more than just a neighborhood watch. Even worse if you live in a country like america where the belief in a "**** you" kind of individualism americans seem to want your idea will not work. And some americans do have that kind of belief in individualism. Which is probably why you live in a shitty neighborhood.

 

[soylentgreen]

Show me cases ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where normal everyday people who have families and jobs routinely make a significant difference in society - routinely enough and big enough that they can quickly and easily change the makeup of their neighborhood and thus use it as a practical plan to deal with their home security needs - and I might grant that you have a point.

Should I start from the position that america is such a ****ed up criminal shithole that you need a gun just to get to school?

Otherwise anywhere else in the world a single person goes to the hardware store and buys some locks and security alarms and a dog. All that is really needed for security unless your an american steeped in paranoia because they are sheeple enough to follow the crap and lies from the pro gun crowd.

But you can’t. Because it isn’t reality.

America is not the worlds reality. Can you look at a map and actually point to anywhere in the world.

I’m responsible for my family’s safety. If I lived in a bad neighborhood and it was even remotely possible that I could put together an effort to quickly turn my neighborhood into a nice place to live where worrying about people breaking in in the middle of the night was a thing of the past I would do it. It has benefits beyond simple security. But it’s a bullshit romantic notion and doesn’t reflect the real world.

Your argument seems to be it is just to hard.

I guess it is true that being an american means only putting in a half arsed effort.

 

[soylentgreen]

The most common use of a firearm in our society is as a means of effectuating a suicide, the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S. Guns & Suicide (Harvard public health). "Far more people kill themselves with a firearm each year than are murdered with one." Almost two to one, in many years, but not recently. Indeed, "Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back."

The same is true in many of the public shooting scenarios listed above - the drive-by, the domestic abuser, the disgruntled employee, or the sociopath.

This has nothing to do with guns.
A person wanting to kill themselves will regardless of method.
How many guns are out there. How easy they are to access is not the issue with suicide. Why they kill themselves is the problem not how.

Even your comment about which is more effective way to kill yourself is irrelevant. Studies on suicide show that more times than not a suicides fail because they are more a call for help than a deliberate attempt to die.
Suicide is not the same in any realistic way to any of the other shooting scenarios you mention.

 

[noonereal]

It wholly depends on training and temperment. Those statistics are largely meaningless at the individual level

We can't create policy at the individual level plus training and temperament moves the needle little.

 

[NWRatCon]

Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed, carried, or used it during the offense for which they were imprisoned.

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

I appreciate this post, as it is based upon facts. Although, I have to note (about your source) that there is a glaring error, which states "Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source" then later asserts, "Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer." That doesn't compute, unless the statistics are about different questions.

Let's dig into that a bit. Assuming those figures are reasonably accurate, these figures, "obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift." represent 68% of firearms (in this population - which are only those incarcerated). That is astounding, actually. I may have to do some statistical analysis on that point. It does not jibe with other statistics.

But, that gets back to my earlier point I made in passing - the flow of illicit firearms.

The US has a gross excess of firearms - estimated at 1.2 per person, or over 5 per owner. I have been one of those excessive owners, I guess, at one time possessing 5 between rifles, shotgun and pistols (not counting antiques). I inherited most of them, so only one was registered at sale. One of my firearms was stolen (from my brother), so presumably became part of that trade. The others were transferred to family members and are still accounted for. I have a neighbor, though, who averages 8 firearms at a go - as he frequently buys and sells them - almost all unregistered. His handguns, though, are registered and were purchased through FFL retail outlets. He is an avid hunter, and carries a variety of firearms in the field (usually 4 - one scoped rifle of .30ish, one .22 for small game and plinking, one shotgun, and a sidearm). He uses a gun safe secured to the bed of his pickup when in the field.

But, as was pointed out early in this thread, it's been estimated that nearly 60% of the firearms legally possessed are unused after purchase.

That leaves a lot of potential firepower accessible to ne'er-do-wells. That supposition is reflected in statistics. "ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun." Hot Guns (Frontline). "The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."

"According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale." Even more surprising, "ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes."

In short: the more guns in circulation, the more are available illegally.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I appreciate this post, as it is based upon facts. Although, I have to note (about your source) that there is a glaring error, which states "Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source" then later asserts, "Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer." That doesn't compute, unless the statistics are about different questions.

Let's dig into that a bit. Assuming those figures are reasonably accurate, these figures, "obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift." represent 68% of firearms (in this population - which are only those incarcerated). That is astounding, actually. I may have to do some statistical analysis on that point. It does not jibe with other statistics.

But, that gets back to my earlier point I made in passing - the flow of illicit firearms.

The US has a gross excess of firearms - estimated at 1.2 per person, or over 5 per owner. I have been one of those excessive owners, I guess, at one time possessing 5 between rifles, shotgun and pistols (not counting antiques). I inherited most of them, so only one was registered at sale. One of my firearms was stolen (from my brother), so presumably became part of that trade. The others were transferred to family members and are still accounted for. I have a neighbor, though, who averages 8 firearms at a go - as he frequently buys and sells them - almost all unregistered. His handguns, though, are registered and were purchased through FFL retail outlets. He is an avid hunter, and carries a variety of firearms in the field (usually 4 - one scoped rifle of .30ish, one .22 for small game and plinking, one shotgun, and a sidearm). He uses a gun safe secured to the bed of his pickup when in the field.

But, as was pointed out early in this thread, it's been estimated that nearly 60% of the firearms legally possessed are unused after purchase.

That leaves a lot of potential firepower accessible to ne'er-do-wells. That supposition is reflected in statistics. "ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun." Hot Guns (Frontline). "The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."

"According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale." Even more surprising, "ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes."

In short: the more guns in circulation, the more are available illegally.

 

[Gaius46]

Should I start from the position that america is such a ****ed up criminal shithole that you need a gun just to get to school?

Otherwise anywhere else in the world a single person goes to the hardware store and buys some locks and security alarms and a dog. All that is really needed for security unless your an american steeped in paranoia because they are sheeple enough to follow the crap and lies from the pro gun crowd.



America is not the worlds reality. Can you look at a map and actually point to anywhere in the world.



Your argument seems to be it is just to hard.

I guess it is true that being an american means only putting in a half arsed effort.

Our host has pointed out that this isn’t the topic of this thread and I will respect that and drop this line of discussion. Suffice to say that there isn’t a single word you wrote that I agree with. If you like we can continue this discussion elsewhere.

 

[NWRatCon]

If you live in a nice neighborhood then that kind of community spirit is all that is needed. But if you live in a criminal shithole then you need more than just a neighborhood watch. Even worse if you live in a country like america where the belief in a "**** you" kind of individualism americans seem to want your idea will not work. And some americans do have that kind of belief in individualism. Which is probably why you live in a shitty neighborhood.

They, not me. I live in a nice, middle class, blue collar kinda neighborhood. We keep tabs on each other.

 

[NWRatCon]

This has nothing to do with guns.
A person wanting to kill themselves will regardless of method.
How many guns are out there. How easy they are to access is not the issue with suicide. Why they kill themselves is the problem not how.

Even your comment about which is more effective way to kill yourself is irrelevant. Studies on suicide show that more times than not a suicides fail because they are more a call for help than a deliberate attempt to die.
Suicide is not the same in any realistic way to any of the other shooting scenarios you mention.

Here, I completely disagree, and again, based upon facts, not conjecture. If you think you have sources to disprove my assertions, please provide them. I've worked with professionals in the field, and to a person they have opined that an attempted suicide could have been thwarted if only the victim had not had access to a gun. 85% vs 3% is a pretty profound disparity.

Your statement, "A person wanting to kill themselves will regardless of method." Is mostly untrue.

 

[bomberfox]

Compromise is basically impossible. America wants to be a fully armed society. It will just have to live with the consequences.

 

[bomberfox]

Basically if you try to bring up gun control, NRA types just bog you down with hundreds of snippet technicalities more often than in a trekkie convention. Get one thing wrong and its lol at the lib.

 

[NWRatCon]

When I was an EMT, pre-Army, we had a patient who was an attempted suicide by shotgun. He tried to "eat" the barrel. What he didn't appreciate was the air that is ejected ahead of the pellets, which blew his head back.

The result was horrific. Everything from his upper jaw to his forehead was obliterated, leaving only his ears intact, but his airway was patent, and he survived. He went through 9 months of reconstructive surgery to create the semblance of a face - then jumped from the roof of the hospital and plunged 12 stories to his death.

So, some suicides persist, but it is not the norm.

 

[NWRatCon]

Basically if you try to bring up gun control, NRA types just bog you down with hundreds of snippet technicalities more often than in a trekkie convention. Get one thing wrong and its lol at the lib.

While that made me LOL, I just don't let them. My point in starting this thread here is to get to substance, not bumper stickers, and it has mostly succeeded.

 

[NWRatCon]

Compromise is basically impossible. America wants to be a fully armed society. It will just have to live with the consequences.

I think we'll get some. Certainly not all that's needed, but I wanted to spend more time on the facts, data and issues.

I have come by my views over a lifetime. I understand both sides, and occupy both. Part of my legal practice was in restoration of gun rights, and I've lost friends to firearm suicide and homicide. We're at an interesting crossroads, politically, as the majority hold vastly different views than our representatives.

 

[Goshin]

I'm fully aware of that report and the various criticisms of the methodology (which were utter crap). A better estimate (with more reliable reporting data) is that there are about 50,000/ year - or nearly equivalence with illegal use of a firearm. But your point is accepted - threatening use of a gun can be effective, I've done it myself. Your assertion, however,

is utter nonsense, and statistically false. Were it true, the level of crime in non-gun-obsessed societies would be astronomical. In fact, the opposite is true. Indeed, statistically, there is a high correlation between generalized firearm possession and murder rates, both in country by country comparisons, and state by state comparisons.

I don't know what fantasy world you draw your information from, but it's not the real one. I prefer discussions based on facts than conjecture.

Suicide by firearms has a success rate of 85%. Suicide by other methods 3%. I posted that earlier. A little simple math would give you the answer, but a reasonable estimate would be, more than 30,000/year.

A safer and more prosperous society?

And yet there are many cities where lawful gun ownership ranges from difficult to impossible, which have very high crime rates.


I dispute your alternate "statistics" but I'm not going to get into that... it inevitably leads to a Link-War which goes nowhere, so heck with it.

And in any case, disarming the criminal element in America is a pipe dream. 400 million guns, most never registered. Even with the most draconian efforts you'd be lucky to get half. You'd only succeed in disarming the law abiding and leaving them defenseless.

If that. There are plenty of people in this country who will fight that much-ballyhooed civil war before allowing themselves to be disarmed.

 

[NWRatCon]

Appropriately enough, this was published today:

Why suicide prevention advocates are joining the U.S. gun policy debate (Yahoo).​

“What guns do is: They make suicide attempts lethal. It's like, if you have a gun in your house, you've increased the risk that someone in the home will die from suicide by about threefold,” Dr. David Hemenway, a Harvard professor and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told Yahoo News.

Hemenway co-conducted a Harvard Public Health study in 2008 that found a higher rate of suicide in states with more guns. He said that most people who attempt suicide act on impulse or in moments of panic, and that it is important that they not have firearms nearby. For those whose acute feelings ease, he said about 90% do not go on to die by suicide.

This correlation between the availability of guns and more suicide deaths is a “powerful” link, the study found. “Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths — about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts — is that so many could be prevented. Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms,” its summary stated.

A more recent study that Hemenway co-authored in 2022 about who owned the guns used in a suicide said that “one way to reduce firearm suicide is to keep household guns away from a person at risk for suicide.”

 

[NWRatCon]

And yet there are many cities where lawful gun ownership ranges from difficult to impossible, which have very high crime rates.

The myriad factors that create those conditions are all worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, devoid of context, the statement is almost meaningless. Did you know that most guns used in gun crimes in Chicago come from Indiana? That goes to my previous post. Local gun laws, while demonstrably effective, are undermined by neighbouring state laxity.

Sadly, the rest of that post is devoid of substance, barely relevant to the topic, and needn't be commented on further.

 

[NWRatCon]

Senators reach bipartisan compromise on gun violence bill (AP)​

"Lawmakers released the 80-page bill nine days after agreeing to a framework for the plan and 29 years after Congress last enacted major firearms curbs. It cleared an initial procedural hurdle by 64-34, with 14 Republicans joining all 48 Democrats and two allied independents in voting yes. That strongly supported a prediction by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of approval later this week. Passage by the Democratic-led House could follow quickly."
....
The legislation would toughen background checks for the youngest firearms buyers, require more sellers to conduct background checks and beef up penalties on gun traffickers. It also would disburse money to states and communities to improve school safety and mental health initiatives."