jpinard
2887
I just wish people had to take rigorous classes and had to maintain licences for all fire-arms just like we do cars. Just look at the number of kids that accidentally kill themselves with guns vs. the same stat for cars. With people in this country only getting crazier and more paranoid… I just see nothing getting better. :(
Not worth it buddy.
Apparently owning multiple firearms is tantamount to planning an insurrection, or going on a crime spree.
Approximately 1/3 of households own guns. That puts it at approximately 8-10 guns, on average, per gun-owning household. I highly suspect that the median number is a lot lower than that. For the most part, it’s one adult owning per household.
http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/Subject+Index/
Are you taking the position that the majority of those guns are fired (e.g., while hunting or in sport) with any regularity? Are the majority of those gun owners well-trained in the use of firearms?
Of course, as discussed in this thread, statistics on gun ownership, use patterns, and levels of training aren’t really all that available.
As to my nefarious use of the word stockpiling, I’m using it to mean ownership without actual regular use, in case of future need. That is, I’m saying most gun owners have a gun for some indefinite future need (e.g., self-defense) without using the gun regularly. I used the term in response to Lemon’s statement that guns are primarily utilitarian (or entertainment) and are very much like cars.
Yes I would expect that the more interest someone has in guns the more that person would use guns and the more guns they’d own. Unless you think that there is a large percentage of people who are buying guns to collect.
No. I’m saying there are a large percentage of people who buy a gun primarily for self-defense, don’t use it regularly, and aren’t well-trained. That is, a gun is very unlike a car in that it is often bought, and stored, for an indefinite future need. Many people buy guns the way they would buy a fire extinguisher.
Are those the same people that own multiple guns? I would suspect they aren’t the people to have the range of guns you postulated above as an average.
EDIT: From my own experience, I live in a big city with a car and I rarely use it. Hasn’t left it’s parking spot in a couple of weeks.
Martinez
2893
I do know a few people that have a firearm, and never use it. They keep it locked away, and it rarely sees the light of day. Really, as long as it’s locked away, what danger does it pose to me. If someone was stockpiling volatile explosives or zombie virus next door, that’s a different story.
I myself have just under a dozen firearms. Some I fire more than others, less now due to the availability and cost of ammo. Still, you can train without ammo. Laser trainers are becoming very popular now. Nothing can simulate throwing rounds down range, but you do what you can do. You can still train tactics, dry fire, draw, etc.
Second… a mandate that requires training? I thought of this… do I really want some armed gang-banger with mad 1337 gun skillz? I mean really? I’m hoping, that if I’m ever looking at the business end of a boomstick, that he has the marksmanship of an Empire stormtrooper.
When someone nicks it. Or when they get it out to clean it, drop it and it goes off. Or there’s a fire and the amo is a hazard. Or…
And there’s a slight difference between teaching people to handle guns safely (and it’s pretty basic, I’ve had it - obviously not while I was in the UK…), and accuracy (I mean, I was a fairly good shot, but some of the others at that range…ha!).
ShivaX
2895
Er… you can’t clean it if it’s loaded.
Or there’s a fire and the amo is a hazard. Or…
Mythbusters actually did that one, isn’t dangerous at all.
As far as accuracy… how do you get to be a better shot without shooting?
There was another large shooting spree in Chicago. None of the cable news channels covered it very much. I guess when the shootings are gang related there is no reason to hype it up.
ShivaX - And yet those incidents happen routinely. Because people make mistakes handling lethal weapons.
And with all due respect to mythbusters, what they determined was that ammunition does not penetrate metal, or have immediately lethal effects. If stored improperly…quite capable of wounding people!
It’s potentially slightly dangerous—SAAMI, the American counterpart of CIP, which regulates cartridge pressures and sizes, did some tests—but even ammunition stored just in cardboard boxes is very, very unlikely to penetrate either drywall or fire gear. Of 28,000 rounds in their first fire test, none penetrated drywall at 30 feet and only about ten penetrated drywall at 15 feet. Either way, I keep most of mine in my safe, and I have a little thin-walled lockbox to keep most of the rest organized, and that effectively eliminates any residual risk of injury in a fire.
If by ‘routinely’ you mean ‘very, very rarely’, then yes. You’re talking about anecdotes, which are gleefully played up by The data do not support the proposition that people routinely shoot themselves while cleaning guns. Firearms accidents requiring an emergency room visit are about as common as dog bites requiring an emergency room visit. Not that exhaustively-sourced facts will sway you from your crusade or anything, but maybe someone wearing a smaller set of ideological blinders will find them useful.
Nope, Fishbreath. Accidental firearm discharges are common in America. Deaths are rare, but injuries are far, far more frequent.
You are looking at one site of figures, exclusively. I’m sure you find those blinders very useful, in your crusade to make sure criminals have access to firearms. (And oh right, a rabidly pro-gun site, no different from using MADD on drunk driving stats…)
Er… I’m actually in favor of gun control, but the numbers for accidental injuries are way down there in the noise level. I did a couple searches to refute a point someone made a few days ago, and I was somewhat surprised to find that even the anti-gun sites had to resort to statistical trickery to make the accidental death and injury rates sound bad. And if you look at the US statistics, those accidental deaths and injuries have declined precipitously since the mid-90s.
From the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 73,505 people were treated in US emergency rooms for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010, and that includes all the intentional shootings too; in my mind, this makes the 16,000 from actual accidents cited by Fishbreath’s link seem pretty realistic. By contrast, 20,783 people went to the emergency room in 2011 because they had consumed too much of a 5-Hour Energy drink.
We have about 750-800 firearm related deaths in Canada every year, 75-80% of them are suicides. There is no good data available for injury that I can find but I’ve seen estimates that for every death there are 2.6 non-fatal injuries, meaning we are getting about 2200 firearm related injuries, so probably 1/3rd or less of the US rate. Since stricter gun control was passed here in 1991, firearm homicides and suicides have significantly declined (though it should be noted that the homicide rate was declining since the 70s).
Only about 3% of firearm related deaths in Canada are accidental, so maybe 60 or 70 injuries a year. Compared to the suicide issue, accidental shootings seem like quite a minor problem.
Article with a bunch of random stats all jumbled together:
Oh, I wasn’t including suicides. Which push things WAY up.
(The thing is, firearm accidental injuries are basically non-replacement, they don’t change to other forms if you restrict firearms…)
RichVR
2904
I am a gun owner. I am also 100% behind any reasonable gun control laws. People should have background checks. Guns should be registered. All gun show loopholes should be closed. It’s only reasonable that guns should be treated at least the same as cars. Licenses, gun ID numbers in a database. It’s a rational way to deal with them.
Sarkus
2905
I don’t disagree but I don’t like it when people compare guns to cars. Mainly because it ignores the constitutional differences. There is no right to drive a car and thus government can impose whatever restrictions on them it likes. However, the Second Amendment makes guns a completely different situation, and thus its not an “apples to apples” comparison.
ShivaX
2906
http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html
Dog bite statistics
An estimated 4.7 million dog bites occur in the U.S. each year
Nearly 800,000 dog bites require medical care2
Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered
So if we make dogs illegal (especially unneutered males), we’ll prevent over 20 times more serious injuries than by banning guns. Pretty much ALL injuries are non-replacement. If you make dogs illegal people wont suddenly get mauled by cats. If you make unhealthy foods illegal people wont die from eating healthy food. Only this isn’t about preventing injuries.
