So, once again a series of really nasty, mass shootings has opened up the debate on guns, a debate based on a very simple division of opinion, namely, whether a gun makes you more or less safe.
Obviously, the pro-gun people promote the idea of a gun as being a very effective way to protect yourself, the anti-gun people arguing the reverse.
Now it turns out that research on this issue definitively shows that access to a gun creates a risk to health. But since when do most people make decisions based on what some article published in a medical journal wants them to believe?
So, here we go again with the same old, same old which means that the gun-control crowd has to figure out a narrative which will convince gun-owning Americans that they need to re-think how they feel about their guns.
And by the way, since roughly 40% of Americans own a gun, and 60% believe that a gun represents safety and self-protection more than it represents a risk, there are a lot of non-gun owners out there who also buy the idea that having a gun around protects you and makes you safe.
So, what do we do to figure out an effective response to the idea that guns are ‘good’ things to keep around?
Well, the first thing we have to do is figure out why gun owners’ own guns. And for this information, the gun-control gang turns to their friends in public health who run what they refer to as ‘nationally representative’ surveys to figure out what’s on the brain of the people who need to be taught that they don’t need to own guns.
Unfortunately, the so-called experts who design these surveys, know as much about guns as I know about nuclear fission, and the idea that well-meaning advocates for gun control would use the so-called research of this public health bunch to develop any narrative which would capture the attention of gun owners is a major reason why gun-control laws don’t result in any change at all.
I can’t remember the last survey of gun owners by public health researchers which didn’t ask respondents why they own a gun? And when the survey is published, invariably the researchers trumpet the idea that they have discovered a fundamental shift in the mentality of gun owners who used to own guns for hunting and outdoor sport, but now own guns for armed, self-defense.
Of course, you could learn the same thing by simply reviewing the annual report issued by the ATF on gun manufacture, which breaks down the number of handguns and long guns produced every year. In 2020, the gun industry produced 6.5 million handguns and 3.1 million rifles and shotguns. Think any of those handguns were used to pop a cap into Bambi’s rear end?
But the issue isn’t whether gun owners are stocking up on self-defense guns rather than sporting arms; the real issue, which not one, single public health survey has ever asked, is how many of these folks who went out recently and bought a self-defense gun were already gun owners and decided to switch from guns used for sport to guns used for self-defense?
Notwithstanding all the exultant crowing by the gun industry PR folks like the NSSF about all these newbies have been streaming into gun shops to buy their first gun, how come not one, single public health researcher has ever taken the trouble to ask a gun dealer (like me) to estimate the number of customers who come into their shop to buy a handgun as their first gun?
Here’s my answer to that question. Ready? Almost none.
That’s right. I stopped doing retail in 2015, but between 2002 and when I shut down my retail sales, I probably sold 2,800 handguns. And since my gun shop, like just about all gun shops, sold guns to the folks who lived in my town and the surrounding towns, I knew just about all my customers, and they were either folks who already owned guns or had been raised in a household where guns were around.
The point is that when and if the gun-control community (of which I happen to be a long-time member) finally sits down and tries to figure out a narrative that will resonate to the other side, as opposed to figuring what to say to each other, they better be prepared to talk to people for whom guns have always been part of their lives, as well as the lives of their parents and probably further back on the family tree.
Until and unless Gun-control Nation understands and accepts the essential commonality of gun ownership, we will simply continue to sit here arguing about this law and that law and going nowhere fast.
Apr 17, 2023 @ 11:16:03
I cannot count the number of times I’ve seen the Kellerman study referenced. Always that “guns are a hazard to your health”. Of course so is the ice cream in the refrigerator or the expensive bourbon above the fridge. Or driving. Or having stairs in the house.
What the anti gunners avoid telling us is that this is what Kellerman et al actually said:
Adjusted odds ratios for homicide from multivariate logistic regression
Illicit drug use in household 5.7
Home rented 4.4
Previous fight in home 4.4
Lived alone 3.7
Gun(s) kept in home 2.7
Previous arrest in household 2.5
So guns in the home barely made the top five and that is relative risk, not absolute. So that is my single biggest problem with the gun control crowd: not being honest but bending the truth. The real message from Kellerman is that if you are a drunk or illicit drug user, have anger management issues, poor (I suspect renting is a proxy for something else such as being poor or perhaps unsettled),are alone and depressed, or do stupid things with stupid people that land you on the defendant’s docket, DON’T KEEP GUNS AROUND! The chances of needing them are slim and the chances of ringing getting upside down with a gun is higher if you checked the boxes #1 through #6 along with #5.
Many of us have had guns around for decades, perhaps half a century. Sure, there are risks even without those other risk factors. But guns don’t sneak up on us and shoot us. Hunting accidents and range accidents are rare. If you check the chamber by looking down the barrel, clean the gun while legally drunk, or do other dumb things with guns, you are doomed.
Apr 17, 2023 @ 12:33:03
What is more important, making you safe or making you ‘feel’ safe?
It seems to me that the ‘gun-control gang’ and friends focus too much on ‘feeling safe.’ I would just like to point out this: strategies intended to keep you safe, if based on feeling, can result in less safety. It is because of this I believe these gun-control groups and others are more focused on feelings rather than actually making you safe.
The Second Amendment right protects the rights of all people even minorities and many of which are residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials. Just this weekend in Chicago 13 people were killed and another 31 were wounded. Chicago city mayor urged residents to ‘feel’ safe in the city despite some reports of rampant crime. Give me a break. These officials are not entitled to deference.
And since when do you need to be a so-called expert on guns? Our law makers make gun laws annually and the majority don’t know what a shroud is.
There are over 20,000 gun laws on the book, now don’t you ‘feel’ safe?
Apr 17, 2023 @ 13:07:58
You make a good point. The folks most at risk of having to use a gun in self defense are usually the ones denied the right by prohibitive licensing laws. NYC for example. But a lot of crime reduction has less to do with having a gun or putting people in jail but rather fixing what is broken in society. And instead we get feel-good gun laws.
Apr 17, 2023 @ 13:52:53
We have little gun violence here in Portugal. All the US has to do is copy these regulations:
The Firearms and Ammunition Act in Portugal sets out several conditions under which firearms may be owned, bought, and sold. Here are some of the key conditions:
Age: An individual must be at least 18 years old to apply for a firearms license.
License: A valid firearms license issued by the General Directorate for Internal Administration is required to own a firearm in Portugal.
Criminal Record: Applicants must have a clean criminal record and cannot have been convicted of certain crimes, such as those involving violence, drug trafficking, or terrorism.
Medical Fitness: Applicants must provide evidence of medical fitness to handle firearms.
Training and Competence: Applicants must provide evidence of training and competence in handling firearms.
Types of Firearms: Certain types of firearms are prohibited for civilian ownership in Portugal, such as automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
Purpose of Ownership: Firearms may only be used for specific purposes, such as hunting, sport shooting, or self-defense.
Safe Storage: Firearms must be stored safely and securely to prevent unauthorized access.
Sale and Transfer: Firearms may only be bought and sold through licensed firearms dealers, who are subject to strict regulations and must keep detailed records of all transactions.
These are some of the key conditions under which firearms may be owned, bought, and sold in Portugal. It is important to consult the Firearms and Ammunition Act for a complete understanding of all the regulations and requirements.
Apr 17, 2023 @ 14:24:03
Portugal has close to 80% more police officers than the U.S. With the defund the police movement in the United States, good luck with that.
Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun with the U.S. being one of those countries.
I believe you may be comparing apples and oranges.
Apr 17, 2023 @ 15:30:02
Time to move to Portugal!
Apr 18, 2023 @ 08:13:15
Pete’s ability to own guns is entirely subject to governmental whim.
That’s something to crow about?
The Smith &Wesson .44 Magnum was specifically designed, marketed and sold for those wanting a handgun for hunting. Mike never sold any of them in his shop.