# A new record! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 2, 2017, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804 "2017-10-02T13:09:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/341 "2017-10-03T16:10:34Z")
Is that all you’ve got for us? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/342 "2017-10-03T16:13:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m of the belief that evaluating decisions on a cost/benefit basis is a good thing. If you make an evaluation without considering potential costs, I think you’re doing it wrong. Cool. How many lives saved do you think we need before something is deemed worthwhile? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/343 "2017-10-03T16:16:30Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The plural of anecdote is not ‘data’. > > I’ll repeat - please point me in the direction of published failure rate for the firearms you use. I mean, you’d never trust the your life or your loved one without an honest accounting for failure rate, right? > > Or are you doing just that? There’s a ton of gun tests in gun magazines. Always noted are rounds fired and failures, if any. Cause of the failure is noted if the cause can be determined. It was pretty universal to have no failures (or at worse, ammo failures) recorded. Do you think gun companies don’t test new models before manufacture? Do you apply the same rigor when you buy a car? As far as the lock under discussion, it’s new tech. It’s already admitted to fail if the finger isn’t clean. It’s for sale despite that glaring flaw in operation. If they’re willing to sell with a known flaw, are there other flaws not revealed? Not having a left handed option is a oversight of a magnitude that it makes me want to know what else was overlooked. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/344 "2017-10-03T16:39:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m of the belief that evaluating decisions on a cost/benefit basis is a good thing. If you make an evaluation without considering potential costs, I think you’re doing it wrong. Do you think it’s reasonable to consider outlawing crank/bump-stock modification hardware, along with the possibility of requiring manufacturers to make such mods more difficult or impossible to jury-rig? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/345 "2017-10-03T16:39:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The issue with all manner of gun control proposals that appear immediately after a shooting tragedy is not their proximity in time to the incident, but rather their irrelevance. The Vegas shooter apparently had many many weapons, and had plenty of time to plan. A proposal for user specific weapons would have done nothing to prevent what happened. But these types of things get floated in the name of _‘we have to do something!’_ If a given proposal wouldn’t have made a difference one way or another, then using a tragedy seems less like trying to address a problem and more like posturing. > > For example, if a proposal was that hotels should have metal detectors, well I’m not sure if I’d be against that or if that would be legal, but at least arguably that could have had an impact on what happened. Why, will the next shooting be from a hotel? For years, we’ve been proposing the most innocuous, make-guns-a-little-safer-around-the-edges-without-interfering-with-anyone’s-‘freedoms’ sorts of proposals, figuring not even the gun addicts could object to them. And this is the crap we get for proposing modest reforms that might do something about _some_ shootings, though maybe not the one that just happened. We propose stuff like that - closing the gun-show loophole and stuff like that - because, you know, the next shooting won’t be the same as the last shooting, but it’s worth trying to stop _some_ shootings in a way that isn’t an imposition on anyone, that one would think everyone could agree on. I guess we’ve been trying too hard not to be an imposition on gun-lovers. Our bad. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/346 "2017-10-03T16:39:57Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > There’s a ton of gun tests in gun magazines. Always noted are rounds fired and failures, if any. Cause of the failure is noted if the cause can be determined. > > It was pretty universal to have no failures (or at worse, ammo failures) recorded. > Do you think gun companies don’t test new models before manufacture? Yeah, I’m sure gun magazines - supported by advertising from gun makers - are a great, reliable source of failure rates. I’m shocked, shocked! that you say its ‘universal to have no failures’. Shocked, I tell you. And in any event - the plural of anecdote is not ‘data’. Are you saying that there’s no published data on failure rates for your favorite toy, that you wouldn’t risk your life or the lives of your family without knowing how reliable they are? > [@](#): > > Do you apply the same rigor when you buy a car? Yes. Actually, far more than you do, apparently. Especially since as a family we use the car a lot. > [@](#): > > As far as the lock under discussion, it’s new tech. It’s already admitted to fail if the finger isn’t clean. It’s for sale despite that glaring flaw in operation. You’re calling this a ‘fail’ or ‘known flaw’ like it doesn’t work under normal operating conditions. I’m trying to figure out why you’d be using -any- gun with wet/dirty fingers; seems unsafe to begin with. But hey, it’s not a perfect solution so clearly we should just give up and admit that as Americans we (and by ‘we’, I mean YOU) are too stupid to figure out how to prevent something that EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY ON EARTH has figured out how to prevent. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/347 "2017-10-03T16:40:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Cool. > > How many lives saved do you think we need before something is deemed worthwhile? How many lives are saved by the use of firearms in self-defense? ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/348 "2017-10-03T16:41:28Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Sorry to disappoint you but I have neither shot anyone nor do I dream of shooting someone. > > A gun is also a tool for defense. So… “defense” isn’t “shooting someone”? Rrrright… Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/349 "2017-10-03T16:43:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It probably wouldn’t prevent thousands of other deaths, but if you have evidence otherwise feel free to present it. My understanding is that the amount of unintentional firearm death in the US has been under 1000 for the last 20ish years at least. An interesting thought, although I presume you mean under 1000 each year rather than for 2 decades. Still, although children’s deaths alone are more — and I’ll suggest they are not the only dead from ‘unintention’ — there’s also unpleasantly painful injuries to treat each year. _Now, a study based on data from 2012 to 2014 suggests that, on average, 5,790 children in the United States receive medical treatment in an emergency room each year for a gun-related injury. About 21% of those injuries are unintentional, similar to the third-grader’s case._ \*From 2012 to 2014, on average, 1,297 children died annually from a gun-related injury in the US, according to the study, published in [the journal Pediatrics](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486) on Monday. \*_[CNN 2017 06 27](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html) \*\* I will also assume,_ feeling generous, that all these hospital injuries are paid for by the State or Federal government; since it would be invidious to take in a dozen kids at an incident and treat them each according to their parent’s insurance. Anyhow, I rarely feel proud of my country, but despite children being murdered or having avoidable accidents every year, very few of them go to the NHS with bullets inside them. Maybe none on average. In fact for all gun homicide from [**Quora**](https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-are-killed-by-guns-a-year-in-Great-Britain) : \*According to Wikipedia it is about 38 homicides per year in the UK due to firearms. \* \*The UK’s rate per 100,000 population is similar to that of Germany. The USA’s is similar to Nicaragua. \* ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/350 "2017-10-03T16:49:07Z")
\*For the past two years, at least one person a week has been shot by a toddler in America – in a horrifying insight into the scale of accidental gun deaths in the country. \*[**Metro UK 2017 01 04**](http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/04/a-toddler-has-now-shot-someone-every-week-for-two-solid-years-in-america-6360264/) Someone should stop that toddler. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/351 "2017-10-03T16:50:17Z")
Geeze, I sleep a little and the thread gets away from me. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m gonna stay out of this digression for the most part. But regardless of what’s constitutionally allowed or recognized, what do you think would happen to this country if: > > a) Every car and truck in the country disappeared tomorrow, or > > b) Subsistence hunting were somehow brought to an equally sudden and inexplicable end? > > My not so WAG is that reality \> state constitutions. I think this is proof that I’ve been unclear. There are professional drivers (ambulance, bus and semi for a short list) I would propose that them driving is equivalent to a professional with a gun (soldiers or police). If “civilian” driving disappeared tomorrow deaths in the country would decline and people life would be less fun (more difficult). If “civilian” gun usage disappeared tomorrow overall deaths would decrease and peoples life would be less fun. There is a group that has to drive to live that don’t fall under the professional driver category those that can’t make it to work without a car due to lack of public transportation, living far from where they work and not being able to afford to move. This group is tiny. A similar sized group are those who need a gun to live subsistence hunters and people who need a gun for immediate self-defense. Both of these groups are also tiny but I would propose that they are larger than the number of people who need a car to work if for no other reason then states have taken active steps to keep the later group alive but I haven’t seen anything efforts to help the former. > [@Ravenman](#): > > If I gave you a choice, either I punch you in the arm or I punch you in the balls; I bet you would choose to be punched in the arm. And if I started punching you in the arm, would you say you are having fun because the arm punches give you comparatively more satisfaction than the nut punches? > > This is the level of silliness you have offered to this thread. Ok, fine I’ll use luxury rather than fun since that will apparently make your panties unbunch. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > In general, I see guns as a useful tool that is very similar to cars in that mostly they are **luxury goods** but occasionally have the benefit of being critical for survival and then occasionally are used recklessly and either kill the operator or innocent people. So now you agree with me I think we can move on. > [@Bone](#): > > There may be lots of folks that have a blind hatred of guns, but I suspect Ravenman isn’t one of them. Even if he is typically on the anti side, I’ve always found his posts to be quite reasonable and thought provoking. I know it’s the Pit, but there you go. > > Guns are not cars. That’s where the comparison should end. I generally stay out of the gun control threads since people like you are much more knowledgeable than I am but in this case, I thought I might be able to add a moderate viewpoint. I’ll take your word on him being reasonable. I agree guns aren’t cars but neither is alcohol marijuana. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be regulated similarly. I think that a useful conversation can be had about their differences and how that should affect their regulations, for instance, I’m not aware of any medical benefits of alcohol while some people think that pot has some so that difference should create a difference in their regulation. Likewise, it is difficult to kill 59 people with a car while unfortunately possible with guns so that should be the basis for the difference in regulations. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/352 "2017-10-03T16:52:05Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Sure, but it’s very brave of him to come out and say what others dare not think. The fool doesn’t understand that some American problems are so great, and so endemic, that they can only be solved by snide rhetorical turds lobbed by a smug foreigner. Be sure to ice that arm. We need you now more than ever. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/353 "2017-10-03T16:59:24Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > So… “defense” isn’t “shooting someone”? > > Rrrright… > > Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk Actually, presenting a gun can have the effect of stopping an attacker without actually shooting. Not always but it does happen. And note I did say I have not shot someone nor do I have the desire to. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/354 "2017-10-03T16:59:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m of the belief that evaluating decisions on a cost/benefit basis is a good thing. If you make an evaluation without considering potential costs, I think you’re doing it wrong. Well, let’s see: the cost of having all these guns around is ~35,000 lives per year, as of 2015. At [$8M per life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States), that’s a cost $280,000,000,000 per year. At 5% inflation (which is way more than we’ve got), an income stream of $280B/year has a present value of $5.6 trillion. (At 2% inflation, which is about where we are, it would be more like $14 trillion. But let’s go with the lower figure.) That’s really a cost stream, of course. The guesstimates I’ve heard suggest that it isn’t clear whether there’s more or less than one privately-owned gun for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (325 million). Suppose that’s a massive underestimate, and there’s actually 500 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. If we could declare them all illegal, and confiscate them all, reimbursing their owners up to $5000 apiece, that would be $2.5 trillion, max. Looks to me like universal confiscation has a pretty good cost/benefit ratio. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/355 "2017-10-03T17:01:29Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Actually, presenting a gun can have the effect of stopping an attacker without actually shooting. > Not always but it does happen I thought that if you were in enough danger to pull a gun, you were in enough danger to shoot the person endangering you? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/356 "2017-10-03T17:07:02Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I thought that if you were in enough danger to pull a gun, you were in enough danger to shoot the person endangering you? To be fair, I think the saying is that you shouldn’t _point_ a gun at someone unless you’re willing to shoot if need be. And ‘presenting’ a gun could just mean pulling up your shirt to show the (formerly) concealed handgun at your waist. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/357 "2017-10-03T17:07:24Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > How many lives are saved by the use of firearms in self-defense? It is difficult to come up with a solid number for that. Nevertheless the numerous studies done consistently point to having a gun increasing your risks of death rather than mitigating them. > [@](#): > > Hemenway, an expert on the public health impact of gun violence and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, recently polled 150 scientists who publish on firearms on their opinions about guns and safety… > > \ > > An overwhelming share of the scientists he polled (84%) said that having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide—which corresponds to scientific evidence on the subject. Most scientists also agreed that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in that home will be a victim of homicide (72%), and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). > > SOURCE: [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/) ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/358 "2017-10-03T17:10:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Well, let’s see: the cost of having all these guns around is ~35,000 lives per year, as of 2015. At [$8M per life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States), that’s a cost $280,000,000,000 per year. > > At 5% inflation (which is way more than we’ve got), an income stream of $280B/year has a present value of $5.6 trillion. (At 2% inflation, which is about where we are, it would be more like $14 trillion. But let’s go with the lower figure.) That’s really a cost stream, of course. > > The guesstimates I’ve heard suggest that it isn’t clear whether there’s more or less than one privately-owned gun for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (325 million). Suppose that’s a massive underestimate, and there’s actually 500 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. > > If we could declare them all illegal, and confiscate them all, reimbursing their owners up to $5000 apiece, that would be $2.5 trillion, max. > > Looks to me like universal confiscation has a pretty good cost/benefit ratio. 😃 About the same number of people die from alcohol related accidents as die from firearm related homicide. We can save 10k lives a year by reinstating Prohibition, right? ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/359 "2017-10-03T17:10:52Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > Well, we’ve had 338 “crazy one off lone wolf attacks” so far this year in the USA. > > [Tracker](https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data) > > Last year there were 477. > > Their definition is three or more people shot in one event. > > These shootings now almost never get on the front page and seldom make even section B of national papers. That’s because most shootings, like most crime in general, goes on between people who know each other. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804/360 "2017-10-03T17:12:04Z")
Home security systems probably save more lives than guns ‘save’ - by making it less likely people try to break in to your home in the first place. Also, I don’t worry about my 7yr old son accidentally discovering my home alarm system and accidentally shooting my 5-year old daughter. So bonus points for that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-record-u-s-a-u-s-a-u-s-a/797804.md?page=19)