Some facts about guns in the US

[Bells]

Safety and guns... Some call it unconstitutional.

 

[Write4U]

Please. Half the posters here, and a large fraction of the "gun control" advocates in the public sphere. No.

I was merely anticipating a problem, and providing a translation for the typical American education.

Read it as it was written, then: - the meaning of the term "regulated", as used in the Constitution, encompasses "equipped" - part of a well regulated militia, and the specific aspect of "regulation" dealt with explicitly in the 2nd Amendment, was that it be properly armed for its function as a military force. A militia armed with pitchforks and scythes, say, or with one firearm for every two or three members, would not have been considered well regulated - in Western military forces at the time each fighting member was expected to carry a firearm as their primary small arms.

It's not just in that context: If you read, say, a manual for the duties of a midshipman in the British Navy of the time, you will find that part of those duties was seeing to the "regulation" of certain aspects of the ship - including the quantities, sizes, conditions, and manner of stowage of the ropes. A well-regulated ship featured the right kinds and conditions and quantities of rope, and one without enough of the required kinds of rope in good shape was not a well-regulated ship. The midshipman was expected to be able to evaluate this, and know what to do about deficiencies, as part of seeing to it that his ship was well regulated.

This is not arcane, subtle, "interpretation", or anything else dubious. The 2nd Amendment is perfectly straightforward, and written in plain English.

No pistols for regular soldiers, and probably fowling pieces or muskets rather than rifles. But some of the American militia had much better - the American "Kentucky" rifle was the finest strike force military grade weapon on the planet, one of the early steps in what has become a 250 year tradition of innovation in military weapons by the United States (another one, around that time, was a unique hull bracing system that allowed an American frigate to match cannon with a European man-o-war while keeping frigate speed and maneuverability). And the Constitution, according to Fraggle's quote from Judge Stevens, guarantees private citizens the right to keep and bear the finest and most lethal military grade small arms ever seen on the planet.

No, that was Fraggle's Supreme Court judge saying that. I merely pointed to the implications. My own interpretation would be more in line with standard Court scholarship and the ordinary meanings of the language used in light of the circumstances and the contemporary documents, as applied to current and different circumstances - what one calls "reason" - rather than the kind of Ivory Tower idiocy that declares a corporation's money human speech. It seems pretty clear, to me anyway (and no one has posted anything against it here), that the amendment was written to prevent the US government from taking the existing mililtias' (and by "militia" we mean the adult male population of every frontier town) weapons away from them. It was common, at the time, for States to disarm their peasantry - with consequences, for the peasants, traditionally misfortunate. The Scotch-Irish peasantry currently manning the frontiers (against Red nations with military armed and backed by corporate European entities) had both suffered and delivered quite a bit of that kind of misfortune over the previous couple of centuries and immediately prior generations; having escaped it and armed themselves they didn't want it to happen to them ever again.

Mercenaries are not militia. Police are not militia. Bodyguards are not militia. The Mafia is not a militia. Militia bring their own gear, and choose their own command, and fight military battles at their own discretion. Both, each, or neither - what's your point?

Range wars, here we come again......we're making real progress in education of civilized behavior.

 

[James Ayre]

Here are my thoughts automatic weapons of any kind are completely unnecessary, whether it be for personal protection or hunting. This also goes for removable magazine's and magazines over say 5 shots, and 5 shaots is meerly for convenience.

In regard to assault rifles and automatic weaponry, I see the attraction of shooting a powerful weapon, but there is no need for them to be kept on private property, how about allowing these weapons, but under the clause that they must be kept and used exlusivley at licenced firing ranges, this would both ensure accidental injury to someone say "in the woods" and mean that when these weapons arnt being used, they are locked down in a safe location, where someone of a murderous disposition cannot access them.

This would also abide by the militia part of the constitution no as they would be well prepared and, seeing as any reputable shooting range would not allow unsafe or dangerous behaviour, the owners would be trained how to use the weapons safely and efficiently.

And to own any gun, I see no reason why strict checks shouldnt be carried out to assure, mental stability, safe storage of weapons in homes, previous convictions etc etc aswell as gun registry to owner so each specific gun has to be put on a owners licence, such as we have in the UK aswell as Aus Canada etc, it just makes sence.

Guns in the home should always be in a safe or other such locked container. 1 to stop children accidentaly getting hold of them. 2 so they are harder to steal if someone does break in. But they are still accessable.

I personally along with my fatjer own 4 shotguns (1 doesnt work) mainly for pest control and clay pidgeon shooting, aswell as some game. We are the only ones who know where the keys are to the safe.

Why these rules dont already exist in the US is beyond me, its just common sense.

 

[billvon]

Here are my thoughts automatic weapons of any kind are completely unnecessary, whether it be for personal protection or hunting.

While they are not "necessary" neither is alcohol, tobacco, sugar, skydiving, the Olympics, marriage, movies, pedicures, pets, malls - but in our society you need a very good reason to ban something; you don't need a very good reason to allow it.

And to own any gun, I see no reason why strict checks shouldnt be carried out to assure, mental stability, safe storage of weapons in homes, previous convictions etc etc

Agreed there.

aswell as gun registry to owner so each specific gun has to be put on a owners licence, such as we have in the UK aswell as Aus Canada etc, it just makes sence.

While that sounds like a good idea, it only works with legal weapons - and thus would not make much of a dent in criminal use of them.

Why these rules dont already exist in the US is beyond me, its just common sense.

Most gun owners in the US do follow the basic rules you listed above. We read about the exceptions every day.

 

[James Ayre]

Good point about neccesity, its a hard one to argue with but my point about making organised areas for these weapons to be used, instead of outlawing them completely still allows for there use, but in a safe manor that benefits all.

As to americans not following fairly basic safety steps like locking up weapons, or keeping them away from children, that is explictily why those people should not be allowed them. If they cant even manage to look after them responsibly when they aren't using them, there is little chance they are going to be used safely or responsibly when they do use them.

Even the mexicans are introducing gun registry among the vigilantes that are killing off local drug lords, in a task to eventually link guns to people, and to one day disarm the vigilantes, if mexico can manage that, with an even greater need for personal protection. Surely the US can manage aswell ?

The personal protection point is also a downward spiral, people have guns to protect themselves from others with guns.

Not a problem in the Uk, Canada, Aus, because of stricter ownership laws, regulation, classification etc. If you only allow personal weapons to those who are responsible and of sound mind, you reduce the need for the less well "qualified" to own them aswell, as their risk from others is greatly reduced.

And if people dont need guns for personal protection, robbers, muggers etc are less likely to use guns as they wont be under as much threat, if they get caught or something goes wrong. If you understand my train of thought

 

[billvon]

And if people dont need guns for personal protection, robbers, muggers etc are less likely to use guns as they wont be under as much threat, if they get caught or something goes wrong. If you understand my train of thought

I understand but disagree. Criminals enjoy the power that guns give them; that's why they use them so often. It makes it a lot easier to commit crimes against unarmed victims.

 

[Tiassa]

Self-Defense

Self-Defense

The lede, via Andres Jauregui of Huffington Post:

A 3-year-old Milwaukee boy remained in critical condition Monday after shooting himself with a gun he found in the glove box of his mother's car.​

The investigation continues, but the early suggestion is that no charges will be filed.

Brittany Petersik, the boy's aunt said, told WISN that she and the boy's mother were moving a television inside their house when the shot rang out. She thinks Kevin went back into the car and started playing with the gun.

"He thought it was a toy, like we say. Accidents happen, and this was one of the times that it was a major accident," grandmother Jane Triplett told the station ....

.... Triplett said that her daughter began carrying the weapon after she got carjacked three years ago.​

On the upside, it would seem Kevin Donald's mother hasn't been carjacked since.
____________________

Notes:

Jauregui, Andres. "Wisconsin Boy, 3, Shoots Self In Head With Mom's Gun". The Huffington Post. May 6, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. May 6, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/wisconsin-boy-shoots-self_n_5272468.html

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The latest statistics in the Washington Post indicate that if you have a gun in your home it is twelve times more likely to kill a member of your family than anyone else.

On a positive note, I was surprised by the news that gun deaths in the USA have decreased by roughly 50% over the past 20 years. The fact that they now kill as many of us as cars illustrates the fact that improvements in vehicle, road and driver safety have reduced the rate of road deaths dramatically. For example, the Botts' dots (yes, they were invented by a fellow named Botts ) that wake you up if your car strays into the adjacent lane have saved thousands of lives. Now if all cars could only be manufactured with built-in cellphone jammers...

Another interesting tidbit: the "Wild West" was not so wild. When frontier towns became large enough for the citizens to formally establish municipal governments, one of the first laws enacted in almost all of them was prohibition of carrying a gun within the town limits. The murder rate in Dodge City wasn't really much higher than in San Francisco.

 

[iceaura]

And if people dont need guns for personal protection, robbers, muggers etc are less likely to use guns as they wont be under as much threat, if they get caught or something goes wrong.

Robbers and muggers use guns to compel people to hand over valuables, to prevent detainment by citizens who catch them, and to protect themselves from the police - as well as other criminals. Like any predator they need overwhelming force - not equivalent force.

In places with a tradition of unarmed police and cooperative, nonviolent citizens, robbers and muggers may rely on superior size or intimidation alone. No such tradition exists in the US. That's why even though most people don't carry guns in the US, and guns are not needed for personal protection by most people in the US (just as you stipulate), robbers and muggers use them anyway.

As to americans not following fairly basic safety steps like locking up weapons, or keeping them away from children, that is explictily why those people should not be allowed them.

The idea that the government is in the position of "allowing" people to own firearms is a direct threat to a very large fraction of the American public. We will never get reasonable gun regulation in this country until that kind of reasoning is banished from the discussion - seriously: I don't own a firearm and never have, I regard reasonable gun regulation as an immediate need and long overdue, but I wouldn't vote for gun regulation based on that reasoning, and I would have to think hard about any politician who didn't have a better notion of the role of government than that.

The latest statistics in the Washington Post indicate that if you have a gun in your home it is twelve times more likely to kill a member of your family than anyone else.

In a world in which guns worked perfectly as they are supposed to for self defense, that ratio would be a hundred to one or more instead of twelve to one. The better they work, the fewer the people who get shot on purpose - which leaves only the accidental stuff, and the mentally deranged, both of which disproportionately target family.

Another interesting tidbit: the "Wild West" was not so wild. When frontier towns became large enough for the citizens to formally establish municipal governments, one of the first laws enacted in almost all of them was prohibition of carrying a gun within the town limits.

Not quite. Town residents of course owned guns and could transport their weaponry from one place to another in town, and the town marshall or deputy carried his weapon openly and needed it. The prohibition was enforced against visitors, essentially all of whom owned and openly carried firearms, and convenient safekeeping of their gun by the hotel or sheriff's office was part of the deal.

The idea that someone could be prohibited from possessing a firearm at all, or forced to obtain some kind of government permit to be allowed to own a gun, would have been a joke. And yes, the murder rate was not that bad considering - as noted before, gun ownership rates in themselves do not correlate that well with gun violence.

 

[Tiassa]

¿Fort Smith's Finest?

To Protect and Serve

One would think a police officer would be one we could count among "responsible gun owners". But, you know, that's just too effin' much to ask:

A Fort Smith police officer was arrested and placed on administrative leave Tuesday after Sequoyah County deputies said he fired a gun inside his home and held a gun to a five-year-old child’s head.

Officer Naaman Adcock was placed on administrative leave with pay while authorities conduct an internal investigation. Sequoyah County authorities said they took nine guns from Adcock’s possession after he fired off several rounds into a wall inside his home after he got into a drunken dispute with his wife.

Adcock was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm while intoxicated, reckless conduct with a firearm, felonious pointing a firearm and child endangerment, according to the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Office.

Adcock’s wife Tabatha was also arrested. She faces charges of failure to protect a child, child endangerment, possession of a firearm while intoxicated and reckless conduct with a firearm.

(Baldwin and Lanning)​

Let's review a couple of precious moments from this family album:

• Both children stated Naaman Adcock put a gun to the head of Tabatha Adcock’s son and threatened to shoot him, according to the report.

• Deputies entered the home and noticed several bullet holes in the wall. After further questioning of Tabatha Adcock, they found her story changing often, and when the deputies said Naaman Adcock held a gun to the head of Tabatha Adcock’s 5-year-old son, she said, “Yeah, but it wasn’t loaded!” according to the report.​

While there was some question about Adcock being put on paid administrative leave, subsequent reports note that the Fort Smith Police officer resigned today.

To Protect and Serve: Threatening children for no reason ... you know, responsible self-defense.​

____________________

Notes:

Baldwin, Meredith and Curt Lanning. "Report: Officer Arrested After Holding Gun To 5 Year Old's Head". KFSM. May 27, 2014. 5NewsOnline.com. May 28, 2014. http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/27/authorities-investigate-shots-fired-in-sequoyah-county/

Lanning, Curt. "Fort Smith Police Officer That Had Guns Confiscated Resigns". KFSM. May 28, 2014. 5NewsOnline.com. May 28, 2014. http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/28/fort-smith-police-officer-that-had-guns-confiscated-resigns/

 

[Tiassa]

A Sacrifice in Payson

A Sacrifice in Payson

Frances Burns brings the terrible news from Payson, Arizona, for UPI:

A visit with a neighbor ended in tragedy when two young brothers found a handgun and the 3-year-old shot the younger one, police in Payson, Ariz., said.

The 18-month-old was pronounced dead at Payson Regional Medical Center shortly after the shooting Tuesday afternoon. Police officers responding to calls about a boy who had been shot in the head found the mother in the parking lot of her apartment complex with her son in her arms.

Police Chief Don Engler said the mother had taken her sons to the apartment of a 78-year-old man described as a "family friend." The semi-automatic gun belonged to the neighbor and was not kept in a safe.

Engler said the boys apparently discovered the gun without either their mother or the owner realizing it.

"The children had slipped into another room unobserved by the mother and the 78-year-old occupant of the apartment," Engler said.

The chief said no decision has been made on criminal charges against either adult.​

Sigh.
____________________

Notes:

Burns, Frances. "Arizona 3-year-old shoots and kills younger brother". United Press International. May 28, 2014. UPI.com. May 28, 2014. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014...oots-and-kills-younger-brother/1851401307377/

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

A visit with a neighbor ended in tragedy when two young brothers found a handgun and the 3-year-old shot the younger one, police in Payson, Ariz., said.

People simply have no idea how clever and resourceful their children can be when they're naughty.

These are the same parents who put the TV on top of a dresser in the kid's room so he can't change the channel. Instead he pulls out the drawers and makes a little staircase of them. When he finally gets to the top where he can reach the channel changer, the whole assembly is so unstable that it topples over... often with the TV on his head.

The semi-automatic gun belonged to the neighbor and was not kept in a safe.

Gun nuts don't like to keep their guns locked up because they'll lose precious seconds when a mountain lion crashes through their window.

It should be a law that anyone whose gun is used to kill an innocent victim can be executed on the spot by the victim's family.

The chief said no decision has been made on criminal charges against either adult.

Of course not. They were all obeying the law. There is no law requiring guns to be handled and stored safely!

The law we desperately need is the one that will outlaw the National Rifle Assholes! Why is the entire Congress in their pocket? Gun owners are actually a rather small minority of the U.S. population.

 

[iceaura]

It should be a law that anyone whose gun is used to kill an innocent victim can be executed on the spot by the victim's family.

The latest statistics in the Washington Post indicate that if you have a gun in your home it is twelve times more likely to kill a member of your family than anyone else.

Uh, hello?

Keep threatening people with an arbitrary and authoritarian government in the service of that kind of thinking, and their grip on their guns will tighten.

Gun owners are actually a rather small minority of the U.S. population.

No, they aren't.

 

[sculptor]

The latest statistics in the Washington Post indicate that if you have a gun in your home it is twelve times more likely to kill a member of your family than anyone else.

The washington post seems to have found another "reporter" who makes it up as he/she goes along.

 

[pjdude1219]

Uh, hello?

Keep threatening people with an arbitrary and authoritarian government in the service of that kind of thinking, and their grip on their guns will tighten.

No, they aren't.

well admitedly 30% is not a small minority. it also no where near a majority and the number is trending down. I'm sorry the fact that the percentage of gun owners is going down while guns per capita is rising is an alarming trend. also trying to claim a greater likehood of being killed by your own guns means their working is a good thing is patently false. it doesn't mean crimes are being detered it means people are being resposnible with their guns.

 

[James R]

The right to defend oneself in an inborn natural right. It is not a gift from the government. It is ours because we exist.

That's strikes me as a strange point of view.

It seems to me that a right always involves a recognition by society of an interest of some kind. It follows that nobody has "inborn" rights. Rights are mutually agreed among members of a society, or else they do not exist.

You don't like guns, then don't buy one. It's that simple.

The problem is that we live in a society, not just on private property. When I go out in public, I'd really prefer it if I didn't have to share the space with nutters who can easily obtain a gun and use it to kill me.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Gun owners are actually a rather small minority of the U.S. population

No, they aren't.

I think you're confused by the average number of guns owned by Americans. We have the highest ratio in the world, 89 per 100 residents. But this does not mean that 89% of the population own one gun each. Lots of people have five or more, and despite my reluctance to be anywhere near a gun owner, somehow I still manage to personally know two people who each own more than fifty.

If the average gun owner has merely five of the fucking goddamned things, they comprise only about 18% of the population.

The washington post seems to have found another "reporter" who makes it up as he/she goes along.

No. This statistic is relatively consistent. The most conservative I've seen anywhere is five to one: For every actual act of lethal self-defense against a human or wild animal with the ability and intention to harm the gun owner, there are three suicides, and two killings due to carelessness, accident, confusion, anger, or a stolen gun ending up in the hands of a criminal who kills someone in the course of committing a crime. (And yes, it's obviously possible to commit suicide without a gun, but it takes more time for planning and execution, during which you have a chance to come to your senses.)

Anyway, no matter how you break it down, the number of actual self-defense shootings is pathetically small compared to the number of unnecessary tragedies made possible by our country's virtually unregulated gun ownership.

And... when you start looking more closely at the so-called "self-defense" shootings, they become even more pathetic. Many of the large carnivores that can kill a human are endangered species. If you see one in your back yard, the responsible thing to do is call the local Animal Control department so they can haul him away to a new home in the wilderness, rather than running outside with a gun and reducing the species' gene pool. If you like to live out in the boondocks where predators are a fact of life, then why the hell don't you have a couple of monster dogs bred for the purpose of running them off? In Africa, farmers use Anatolians to protect their livestock from lions!

George Zimmerman, America's poster child for why guns should be illegal, insisted that he killed a frightened, unarmed teenager--whom he was stalking!--in self-defense. Obviously that excuse ain't worth shit--except in a courtroom in the Unreconstructed Confederacy.

 

[iceaura]

I think you're confused by the average number of guns owned by Americans.

No, I'm not. I'm informed by having grown up in small town and rural communities in which almost everyone owned a firearm. Essentially all of my neighbors for most of my non-citydwelling life have been gunowners. (And those high gun prevalence communities were quite a bit less violent, especially gun violent, than the low gun prevalence inner city slums I've also lived in).

If the average gun owner has merely five of the fucking goddamned things, they comprise only about 18% of the population.

You appear to be confused about the difference between individuals and households - a great many households with four or five "residents" have only one or two firearms, but that's still four or five people "with a gun".

Anyway, no matter how you break it down, the number of actual self-defense shootings is pathetically small compared to the number of unnecessary tragedies made possible by our country's virtually unregulated gun ownership.

You keep bringing that up as if it meant something. Self defense with a gun almost never involves actually shooting anybody. Of course accidents and suicides are going to outnumber self defense shootings - barring outright civil warfare, that's as it should be. The ratio is actually a bit low, arguing that guns are not working as well as their proponents claim - too many bad guys are actually getting shot.

If you like to live out in the boondocks where predators are a fact of life, then why the hell don't you have a couple of monster dogs bred for the purpose of running them off?

Dogs like that are dangerous to the neighbors and livestock etc

despite my reluctance to be anywhere near a gun owner, somehow I still manage to personally know two people who each own more than fifty.

You live too near money - move to a poor neighborhood, especially in a fair sized city, and you will be surrounded by gun-free people and households, nice and safe.

 

[Cowboy]

George Zimmerman, America's poster child for why guns should be illegal, insisted that he killed a frightened, unarmed teenager--whom he was stalking!--in self-defense. Obviously that excuse ain't worth shit--except in a courtroom in the Unreconstructed Confederacy.

Your poster boy for gun control was found not guilty by a jury of his peers in a trial that even anti-gun leftist Alan Dershowitz seemed to think was politically-motivated bullshit.

 

[sculptor]

guns don't kill people
it's those pesky little bullets which leave all those holes out of which the blood flows.
.............
just another tool
in the hands of a fool
all tools are dangerous