# Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 3, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584 "2014-05-03T15:31:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/401 "2014-05-16T15:27:33Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There are many many reasons against the use of this technology. And they would be…? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/402 "2014-05-16T15:37:35Z")
What do you think they are? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/403 "2014-05-16T15:51:44Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > What do you think they are? Right on time with your usual zero-content snark n’ depart, **Drunky**. Everyone needs a hobby, I suppose. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/404 "2014-05-16T16:05:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m totally cool with felons losing the right to arms permanently. > I’m totally cool with the current prohibition on mentally adjudicated folks. > I’m totally cool with no guns on airplanes. > I would support mandating at the state level mental health and criminal records be submitted so they can be available for NICS checks. A blanket “All felons should lose their right to arms permanently” is too damn broad in my opinion. Restrictions for the mentally in some cases-Yes. No guns on airplanes-Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/405 "2014-05-16T17:53:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And they would be…? Potential reasons against the tech: [ul] [li]Unreliability - Failure rates are too high[/li][li]Inadequate for self defense - Only available in a 22lr. Larger calibers are necessary[/li][li]Shared firearms - Currently linked by single bracelet[/li][li]Introducing an additional failure point - Tech could fail, or be hijacked.[/li][li]Giving ground to gun control advocates - Never.[/li][/ul] There’s one thing I want from a firearm. When the trigger is pulled, it goes bang. Every time. I have always answered questions in good faith, would you do the same courtesy? Are you able to address post #[299](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17352910&postcount=299)? Specifically,\* “Are there any areas you think gun laws should be more permissive?”\* ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/406 "2014-05-16T18:26:55Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Cite? > > I disagree, but I can’t cite either… > > What I was addressing was the gun fetishistic claim, that there is no way a 12 year old would stand a chance against an adult intruder. That strikes me as learned helplessness, and a poor way of protecting one’s loved ones. I think you are failing to distinguish between learned helplessness and the hard truth. Lets put aside 12 year old girls because I think we can both agree that arming kids is not the answer to the woes of our society, even if we disagree about the options available to a 12 year old when being attacked by an adult male. There is an old saying: “God made men, Colonel Colt made them equal” > [@](#): > > Conservatives believe that judicial activism was rampant in the Warren Court. That’s their coded attack on Brown v Board of Ed et al. Scalia displayed quite a bit of activism in Bush v Gore and in Heller. The man possesses no meaningful tendency towards judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism is usually when a court does something YOU don’t like. I guarantee you that a lot of conservatives see cases that you consider judicial activism as the inevitable interpretation of the law. Just as some liberals saw Roe v Wade as the inevitable result with the proper interpretation of the law. IMO, a Supreme Court justice’s reverence for judicial restraint is inversely proportional to the number of current justices that share their political philosophy. > [@](#): > > I don’t think any of these claims are exceptional. Well, not anymore. But I don’t think Heller was “payback” for Roe. > [@Bone](#): > > Cite? I’d like to know what numbers 8 and 10 were on that list. > [@Bone](#): > > Potential reasons against the tech: > [ul] > [li]Unreliability - Failure rates are too high[/li][li]Inadequate for self defense - Only available in a 22lr. Larger calibers are necessary[/li][li]Shared firearms - Currently linked by single bracelet[/li][li]Introducing an additional failure point - Tech could fail, or be hijacked.[/li][li]Giving ground to gun control advocates - Never.[/li][/ul] > > There’s one thing I want from a firearm. When the trigger is pulled, it goes bang. Every time. And some people want electronic doodads. If the Court ruled that smart gun laws were unconstitutional, I would go out and try to buy one tomorrow. Sure they might not be as reliable but get a few of them and your reliability rate goes up quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/407 "2014-05-16T18:37:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I have always answered questions in good faith, would you do the same courtesy? Are you able to address post #[299](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17352910&postcount=299)? Specifically,\* “Are there any areas you think gun laws should be more permissive?”\* Any laws that restrict _all_ felons from their 2nd Amendment rights. If someone is a felon for a non-violent crime I don’t see why there should be any restrictions put on them. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/408 "2014-05-19T05:49:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Cite? NYT [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html) quoted upthread gave the stats. Are you saying that negligible things are placed on top 10 lists? > [@Bone](#): > > No one takes any joy in the suffering of others through gun violence, especially gun rights advocates. And while the suffering of a family that goes through these tragedies is awful, it is true that when compared to overall causes of death these rare occurrences are statistically insignificant. That should not be mistaken for indifference or misconstrued to be viewed as actually insignificant to those involved. > [@me](#): > > No, I disagree actually. During the 1880s D.B. Wesson of Smith and Wesson asked his team to develop a childproof gun after he learned of a kid getting hurt during an accident. They invented the grip safety, intended to discourage those under 8. Smith & Wesson stopped developing such technology many years ago. There are a number of patents devoted to gun personalization, but they haven’t exactly taken the gun world on by storm. I perceive indifference at best, hostility at worst. > [@Bone](#): > > How you construe this to mean that people take joy in the suffering of others is more revealing about you than anything else. There are many many reasons against the use of this technology. Taking joy in the suffering of others is not one of them. Joy? No. Indifference? Sure. Characterizing 120 deaths of children per year as “Negligible” or “Statistically insignificant” (a phrase which is _not_ being used in any recognized technical sense) smacks of indifference. In the same sense that I shrug a little at once a decade mountain lion fatalities. I accept those (as well as attempts to curb those incidents) for among other reasons that their prey -deer- are a lot more deadly statistically. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you are failing to distinguish between learned helplessness and the hard truth. Lets put aside 12 year old girls because I think we can both agree that arming kids is not the answer to the woes of our society, even if we disagree about the options available to a 12 year old when being attacked by an adult male. > > There is an old saying: “God made men, Colonel Colt made them equal” Ad copy. Wonderful. :dubious: It seems to me that you are saying that mace won’t work for 12 year olds. Baseball bats won’t work. Telling the intruder that you have 911 on the line and the cops are on their way will never work. Running won’t work. Superior knowledge of home, environment and neighborhood won’t help. There is but one method of self defense and it involves firearms. This is crazy: SOP for cops is to call for backup when they encounter someone dangerous: they don’t just start shooting bullets in all directions. > [@](#): > > I’d like to know what numbers 8 and 10 were on that list. I really wanted to know about numbers 4-8: I wanted to bracket 5 and 6. But I couldn’t locate the primary source. Props to **ExTank** for giving it a shot as well. > [@](#): > > But I don’t think Heller was “payback” for Roe. To be clear, if I said that I was speaking loosely. I’m just saying that before Heller there was no recognized right to self defense connected with the 2nd Amendment in SCOTUS decisions. The court was clearly pushing the envelope as the Supremes are permitted to do. Like I said though, I accept their decision. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/409 "2014-05-19T15:05:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Ad copy. Wonderful. :dubious: Are you taking issue with the notion that a gun levels the playing field between a small man and a large man? A woman and her assailant? > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you are saying that mace won’t work for 12 year olds. Baseball bats won’t work. Telling the intruder that you have 911 on the line and the cops are on their way will never work. Running won’t work. Superior knowledge of home, environment and neighborhood won’t help. There is but one method of self defense and it involves firearms. This is crazy: SOP for cops is to call for backup when they encounter someone dangerous: they don’t just start shooting bullets in all directions. I think you are confusing people who accept guns as A method of self defense for people who accept guns as THE method of self defense. And frankly there are cases when only a gun will do. > [@](#): > > I really wanted to know about numbers 4-8: I wanted to bracket 5 and 6. But I couldn’t locate the primary source. Props to **ExTank** for giving it a shot as well. To be clear, if I said that I was speaking loosely. I’m just saying that before Heller there was no recognized right to self defense connected with the 2nd Amendment in SCOTUS decisions. The court was clearly pushing the envelope as the Supremes are permitted to do. Like I said though, I accept their decision. Sure, I agree. Its how our legal system works. Its called common law. We did not know until Heller that there was a self defense element to the second amendment but now know there is. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/410 "2014-05-19T15:58:50Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > NYT [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html) quoted upthread gave the stats. Are you saying that negligible things are placed on top 10 lists? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with “top 10 lists”. The request for a cite was because it’s not clear what list you are describing. It could be, top 10 things that **Measure for Measure** is worried about. If that’s the case, then yes I would say that it is possible that negligible things are placed on top 10 lists. Hence the request for a cite. After your link to the NY Times, it appears this is what you are referring to: > [@](#): > > Under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures, in fact, gun accidents were the ninth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children ages 1 to 14 in 2010. (The agency reported 62 such killings that year.) If the actual numbers are, in fact, roughly double, however, gun accidents would rise into the top five or six. Which, after re-reading the post string, you did quote this section though I didn’t see a link so I couldn’t follow it back. In any event, this is what you were responding to from me: > [@](#): > > No one takes any joy in the suffering of others through gun violence, especially gun rights advocates. And while the suffering of a family that goes through these tragedies is awful, it is true that when **compared to overall causes of death** these rare occurrences are statistically insignificant. That should not be mistaken for indifference or misconstrued to be viewed as actually insignificant to those involved. (my bold) First of all, you are using a comparison to unintentional deaths among children as your comparison, where my statement was overall causes of death. Granted that **ExTank** was talking about children, and **AtomicDog** was talking about children, it’s not unreasonable to focus on that. However, it is unknown whether **ExTank** was talking solely about children since any comparison must be made against a targeted population, and **ExTank** did not mention any. I in fact was comparing to overall causes of death, explicitly stating the population I was comparing to. Secondly, I assume the reliance on reclassification by the NYT of causes of death is not what you’re resting your argument on. The CDC accumulates stats and categorizes data. The NYT found examples where it disagreed with the categorization and therefore concludes that the stats being reported for accidental death among children is under reported. Does your argument rely on this or can it stand alone without this supposition? I assume that being ranked ninth is sufficient for your purposes. Thirdly I’m unable to source the claim by the NYT. [Here is the main site](http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html) I could find that has stats compiled by CDC about causes of death. In it, there are tables that highlight causes of death. [Here is one](http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf) that highlights unintentional deaths by age group, the subset of data you seemed to focus on. I see Unintentional Firearm as the cause as #10 for ages 10-14. It’s unclear if you are aggregating all firearm incidents in your comparison, and without a cite I can’t tell. [This PDF from CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/images/cdc-childhoodinjury.pdf) about all childhood deaths age 0-19 only focuses on the top 7 causes, and firearms don’t get their own category (see page 21 and 22 of the document). Fourthly, based on the total of injury deaths (the measure I was using), [there were approximately 180K in 2010 (table 18)](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf). Of that amount, 606 were unintentional firearm deaths. That’s 0.3%. If you take it as a subset of just firearm deaths (which I’m not sure why you would), then it would rise to 1.9% (606/31,672). Like I said, _“And while the suffering of a family that goes through these tragedies is awful, it is true that when compared to overall causes of death these rare occurrences are statistically insignificant. That should not be mistaken for indifference or misconstrued to be viewed as actually insignificant to those involved.”_ I grant that the term “statistically insignificant” doesn’t have a real meaning and I was using this phrase incorrectly. However, the point is, while these events are real and represent real tragedies, as compared to overall causes of death they do not represent a significant amount by any measure. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you are saying that mace won’t work for 12 year olds. Baseball bats won’t work. Telling the intruder that you have 911 on the line and the cops are on their way will never work. Running won’t work. Superior knowledge of home, environment and neighborhood won’t help. There is but one method of self defense and it involves firearms. This is crazy: SOP for cops is to call for backup when they encounter someone dangerous: they don’t just start shooting bullets in all directions. Self defense is a combination of a number of actions. It’s a strawman to say that firearms are the only method of defense. It’s also ludicrous to say that a 12 year old can physically fend off a grown adult. Ignore the fact that it could be a child even. There is no reason for anyone to grapple or engage in a physical contest when it comes to defending your home. People should have the most effective means of self defense available should they want and need it. That would be a firearm. If you’re arguing that anything is more effective as a means of self defense, I’d like to hear your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/411 "2014-05-19T16:39:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Self defense is a combination of a number of actions. It’s a strawman to say that firearms are the only method of defense. It’s also ludicrous to say that a 12 year old can physically fend off a grown adult. Ignore the fact that it could be a child even. There is no reason for anyone to grapple or engage in a physical contest when it comes to defending your home. People should have the most effective means of self defense available should they want and need it. That would be a firearm. If you’re arguing that anything is more effective as a means of self defense, I’d like to hear your argument. Let’s look at when it would be advantageous for a child to have access to a firearm. In the particular case we are currently discussing the parents weren’t home and the intruder came after the girl after she yelled at him. In this particular case having the gun readily available was to her advantage, _but this particular situation is a rarity compared to other situations where children might be in danger._ Should children carry guns to school because strangers might attempt to abduct them? Should children carry guns to playgrounds in case Chester The Molester is lying in wait? What about children in abusive households? These are the real dangers children face every day that far outnumber the story above, and I’m afraid that using rare examples like this one is akin to pointing out an example of someone not using a seatbelt and coming out better than if they had used one as a reason to never buckle up. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/412 "2014-05-20T05:17:48Z")
I feel I have way too much material to respond to without losing track of the bigger picture. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you taking issue with the notion that a gun levels the playing field between a small man and a large man? A woman and her assailant? My take is that guns by no means level the playing field: they give an edge to the person lying in ambush. That could be the homeowner or the crook. > [@](#): > > I think you are confusing people who accept guns as A method of self defense for people who accept guns as THE method of self defense. I’m asserting that I am the former and you are the latter. I’ve had discussions with gun enthusiasts who are in the former group though. > [@Bone](#): > > Which, after re-reading the post string, you did quote this section though I didn’t see a link so I couldn’t follow it back. Yeah, you gave me a one word request for a cite and I wasn’t sure what you were asking for. (I’ve quoted that article I think 3 times now in this thread. No worries: I think we’re on the same page now. > [@](#): > > Thirdly I’m unable to source the claim by the NYT. Well that makes 3 of us. I think I can apply their methodology though, if you will bear with me. Consider injury deaths of those 10-14. Unintentional firearm are listed as #10 (26 deaths in 2010). Among unintentional deaths it’s listed as number 7. Inflate that by 2x to take into account underreporting and it ranks about #6: say it’s tied with unintentional suffocation at 48 deaths. That’s what we can bracket. Set aside firearm suicide, firearm homicide and suicide via suffocation. Here’s the list that you, me and **Damuri** were interested in, adapted to the 10-14 age group: [ul] [1] Unintentional Motor Vehical Traffic 452 deaths [2] Unintentional Drowning 117 [3] Unintentional Suffocation 48 –\> About the same as adjusted figures for unintentional firearms [4] Unintentional Fire/Burn 46 [5] Unintentional Other Land Transport 42 [6] Unintentional Poisoning 40 [/ul] This bag is not a toy: suffocation. Kids learn about fire safety. Go carts are regulated. Child safety caps exist, though frankly I can’t see how they would apply to the 10-14 set. I wouldn’t call any of these negligible and all receive attention and regulation from the authorities. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulated pool, toys and all-terrain vehicles. They are expressely prohibited from regulating guns and indeed IIRC a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand. What I’m saying is that relative to other risks, unintentional firearm deaths appear to be underweighted by the authorities. You don’t find people poo-pooing childhood poisoning deaths, though they represent smaller risks than (adjusted) firearm deaths. > [@](#): > > Self defense is a combination of a number of actions. It’s a strawman to say that firearms are the only method of defense. It’s also ludicrous to say that a 12 year old can physically fend off a grown adult. They do it all the time. A seven year old runs to a teacher and tells her that there’s a creep hanging out at the edge of the playground. Adult fended off. And for the third? time, it’s not unusual for robbers to flee when they discovered, especially when told that the cops are on their way. In your anecdote, it wasn’t clear to me whether the perp was intent on robbery or whether he knew that there was a kid inside when he kicked the back door down. Don’t get me wrong: the child was certainly at risk. But you and Damuri seem to be defending the sorts of propositions that you just IDd as a straw man. It’s these sorts of interactions that lead me to doubt the gun enthusiast’s risk assessment practices. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Let’s look at when it would be advantageous for a child to have access to a firearm. In the particular case we are currently discussing the parents weren’t home and the intruder came after the girl after she yelled at him. In this particular case having the gun readily available was to her advantage, _but this particular situation is a rarity compared to other situations where children might be in danger._ Should children carry guns to school because strangers might attempt to abduct them? Should children carry guns to playgrounds in case Chester The Molester is lying in wait? What about children in abusive households? These are the real dangers children face every day that far outnumber the story above, and I’m afraid that using rare examples like this one is akin to pointing out an example of someone not using a seatbelt and coming out better than if they had used one as a reason to never buckle up. Yes to all that. Earlier you asked what are the sort of private sector methods for reducing gun fatality and injury. My take is that gunnuts have been exposed to hours of NRA propaganda and that they couldn’t do proper risk assessment if their life depended on it, which of course it does. **Bone** : The proper figure really isn’t unintentional gun death/total death. If you want to compare risks you have to put exposure in the denominator. By way of analogy, the number of people who die from drinking paint thinner is miniscule. But that doesn’t imply that I should habitually add turpentine to my beer. In the above context you would want to calculate 10-14 gun accident deaths as a fraction of households with a) 10-14 year olds and b) guns inside. That gives you a rough idea of the risks of owning guns. Even better would be to break down homes with locked and unlocked guns. Also single guns and arsenals: 6% of all gun households own 75% of the nation’s guns. There are patterns to be explored. If the NRA was like [Consumer Reports](http://www.consumerreports.org) or the [Berkeley Wellness Letter](http://www.berkeleywellness.com/), 2 pro-consumer organizations, then such a study would have been done. That’s basically my private sector solution: support a gun study group that isn’t culturally averse to scholarly investigation and rational practice. Most NRA members wouldn’t support such an organization of course. But they wouldn’t have to. Readers of Consumer Reports benefit the wider market by encouraging shifts in manufacturing resources towards better design. Using the [Pareto rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_rule) as a rough guideline, there very may be a small number of bad practices that could use a brighter public spotlight. In the meantime I’ll ID NRA supporters as crackpots and crackpot enablers. It’s accurate and part of the plan. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/413 "2014-05-20T05:24:36Z")
“Also single guns and arsenals: IIRC, 6% of all households own 75% of the nation’s guns.” ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/414 "2014-05-20T06:11:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > My take is that guns by no means level the playing field: they give an edge to the person lying in ambush. That could be the homeowner or the crook. This is an odd way of looking at it. Do you apply this rationale to the police as well? Do they only give advantage to the police when they are lying in ambush? > [@](#): > > Here’s the list that you, me and **Damuri** were interested in, adapted to the 10-14 age group: > > [ul] > [1] Unintentional Motor Vehical Traffic 452 deaths > [2] Unintentional Drowning 117 > [3] Unintentional Suffocation 48 –\> About the same as adjusted figures for unintentional firearms > [4] Unintentional Fire/Burn 46 > [5] Unintentional Other Land Transport 42 > [6] Unintentional Poisoning 40 > [/ul] Even if I accept the adjusted figure (which I don’t), are you saying that 48 deaths, however tragic, is sufficient to infringe on a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right? I think your answer is yes and mine is no. > [@](#): > > This bag is not a toy: suffocation. Kids learn about fire safety. Go carts are regulated. Child safety caps exist, though frankly I can’t see how they would apply to the 10-14 set. I wouldn’t call any of these negligible and all receive attention and regulation from the authorities. None of these are constitutionally protected. If you want to draw an analogy you’d at least have to compare it to something that rises to that level. Writing books or voting perhaps. > [@](#): > > The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulated pool, toys and all-terrain vehicles. They are expressely prohibited from regulating guns and indeed IIRC a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand. While it’s true that firearms do not fall under the purview of the Consumer PRoduct Safety Commission, that is primarily because that duty falls under the jurisdiction of the BATFE. It’s not some conspiracy to have the safety of guns unchecked. In addition, your statement that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand is factually incorrect. You may be thinking of the [PLCAA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act)that exempted manufacturers from suits of negligence in using their products. This does not however eliminate liability from defective products. Guns as a whole are safer more now than ever. They do what they are intended to do and don’t do what they are not intended to do. Of course they are inherently dangerous products but that they are used to commit crimes or used in unintentional deaths does not mean they have manufacturing defects. > [@](#): > > They do it all the time. A seven year old runs to a teacher and tells her that there’s a creep hanging out at the edge of the playground. Adult fended off. You did this previously, and here again so I’m not sure if it’s intentional. You were responding to my post that said: _" It’s also ludicrous to say that a 12 year old can physically fend off a grown adult."_ Running to a teacher to tell them something is not physically fending off a grown adult. Physically fending someone off requires, you know, physically doing it. Your contention is that a 12 year old child could do this to an adult if the child had proper training. While there may be prodigies out there that can do this, to say that as a matter of course is absurd. > [@](#): > > **Bone** : The proper figure really isn’t unintentional gun death/total death. If you want to compare risks you have to put exposure in the denominator. By way of analogy, the number of people who die from drinking paint thinner is miniscule. But that doesn’t imply that I should habitually add turpentine to my beer. Again, you have taken my clear statement as a comparison to overall deaths and somehow misconstrued that to be a comparison of your choosing. That’s fine if that’s the point you want to make, but it is in no way a disagreement with what I’ve stated. > [@](#): > > In the above context you would want to calculate 10-14 gun accident deaths as a fraction of households with a) 10-14 year olds and b) guns inside. That gives you a rough idea of the risks of owning guns. Even better would be to break down homes with locked and unlocked guns. Also single guns and arsenals: 6% of all gun households own 75% of the nation’s guns. There are patterns to be explored. Unfortunately we can only use the data we have. And that data says that unintentional firearm deaths of children is a rare occurrence. Given the prevalence of guns in the country, that says more about the relative safe practices of gun owners than anything else. We can always strive for improvement - but any additional measures in the form of reduction of freedoms and curtailing of rights needs to be weighed against the alleged benefits. I listed the stats above. 606 unintentional firearm deaths out of 180K unintentional deaths. > [@](#): > > If the NRA was like [Consumer Reports](http://www.consumerreports.org) or the [Berkeley Wellness Letter](http://www.berkeleywellness.com/), 2 pro-consumer organizations, then such a study would have been done. That’s basically my private sector solution: support a gun study group that isn’t culturally averse to scholarly investigation and rational practice. If the results were favorable to firearm ownership than they would be attacked non-stop by gun control advocates, and vice versa. Look at how studies on defensive gun uses are attacked. In the last several decades there have been a dozen studies that all point to very high numbers. The result is a questioning of every study. Now, they could be flawed, sure. But they are directionally consistent. My point isn’t to argue DGU, but to illustrate that studies would be fruitless. > [@](#): > > In the meantime I’ll ID NRA supporters as crackpots and crackpot enablers. It’s accurate and part of the plan. Good thing I’m not an NRA member. They are too moderate. I’ll return the favor and identify gun control advocates as fascists in the making. Is that helpful? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/415 "2014-05-20T15:38:31Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > My take is that guns by no means level the playing field: they give an edge to the person lying in ambush. Then why do cops bother taking out their guns when chasing criminals? > [@](#): > > I’m asserting that I am the former and you are the latter. Well I suppose tehre are circumstances where I think guns are the only viable means of self defense and i think there is a larger universe of sitaution where they are the best means of self defense but I don’t discount that there are other means of self defense. I guess i don’t know what sort of point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that we don’t need guns because there are other methods of self defense? > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t call any of these negligible and all receive attention and regulation from the authorities. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulated pool, toys and all-terrain vehicles. They are expressely prohibited from regulating guns and indeed IIRC a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand. Are you under the impression that guns and gun safety is not regulated? And you can sue a gun manufacturer, you just can’t sue a gun manufacturer when a gun is used in a crime, just like you can’t sue GM because a drunk driver plowed into somebody. > [@](#): > > They do it all the time. A seven year old runs to a teacher and tells her that there’s a creep hanging out at the edge of the playground. Adult fended off. You are using a weird ddefinition of fending off. We are talking about physiacl attacks, you are talking about creepy guys henging out at the playground. > [@](#): > > And for the third? time, it’s not unusual for robbers to flee when they discovered, especially when told that the cops are on their way. And it is not unusual for criminals to kill people either. What’s your point? Don’t have a gun because the criminal might just run away? > [@](#): > > It’s these sorts of interactions that lead me to doubt the gun enthusiast’s risk assessment practices. In any risk assessment of guns, you have to assess the risk of owning a gun versus the risk of not owning a gun. you seem to be magnifying the risk of owning a gun while almost ignoring the risk of not owning a gun. > [@](#): > > 6% of all gun households own 75% of the nation’s guns. Where are you getting this number? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/416 "2014-05-20T17:17:20Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > “Also single guns and arsenals: IIRC, 6% of all households own 75% of the nation’s guns.” From this citation here: [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp](http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) We find that there are about 47-53 million households with a gun, and about 300 million guns. Erring on the side of the claim, let’s say we have 53 million households with a gun. 6% of 53 million is 3,180,000 households. 75% of guns is 225,000,000 Therefore, the average number of guns per household would be 225,000,000 / 3,180,000 = 70.75 guns per household for this 6%. Um…forgive me if I find the claim to be highly questionable. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/417 "2014-05-20T18:29:32Z")
That just means the rest of you are bringing down the average. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/418 "2014-05-21T01:54:28Z")
No, it’s a claim which is very easy to cast doubt upon. In my nearly 4 decades of being around firearms and people who use and collect them, I’ve never met or known of a private citizen who owned more than 40 firearms - and half of his were antiques which were very difficult to even find ammunition for. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/419 "2014-05-21T03:51:23Z")
That was a woosh :). I agree the claim is suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/420 "2014-05-21T14:49:44Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > No, it’s a claim which is very easy to cast doubt upon. In my nearly 4 decades of being around firearms and people who use and collect them, I’ve never met or known of a private citizen who owned more than 40 firearms - and half of his were antiques which were very difficult to even find ammunition for. I know a few gun owners who don’t realize they are collectors but they are collectors nonetheless. Noone really needs more than 15 or 20 guns, anythnig beyond that is a hobby.😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584.md?page=22)