This may sound dumb, but the watch that goes along with this gun, it would look like any old watch, right? Because I imagine there are some cases where you don’t want a potential assailant to know you’re armed.
Well, it doesn’t look exactly like a timex but it doesn’t scream “hey look, I’m carrying a gun” judge for yourself.
I sincerely believed I was awesome for remembering that figure from an Economist article that I had read (dead tree). But searching their online archives gives different figures: The Economist, Mar 15th 2014
Surveys suggest that the proportion of American households that own guns has declined from about 50% in the early 1980s to about 35% now. (These figures are subject to sampling error: when men answer the phone they are more likely than women to say there is a gun in the house. But repeated surveys tell a consistent story.) …
Mr Cook estimates that about 5% of owners own most of the guns.
Since there are hundreds of millions of guns in America (the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss research project, puts the number at 89 per 100 people, placing the country comfortably ahead of second-place Yemen, with 55), this means that some gun collectors need a lot of storage space. In the old days they might have displayed their guns in a glass-fronted cabinet, but worries about children and theft have made this less popular. Now the fashion is for big safes. Philip Cook is a rifle-owning economics professor at Duke University. His claim is close to mine, but not the same (which I find disappointing).
Check Math: Number of guns is 262 - 310 million (Cite: the Economist)
Households: 115 million
6% of 115: 6.9 million arsenal households
5% * .35% * 115: 2.01 million arsenal households
300*.75 = 225
300*.5 = 150+
225/6.9 = 43 guns per arsenal household
150/2.01 = 75+ guns per arsenal household
Comment:
-
I do recall that I wasn’t sure whether 6% referred to the share of households or the share of gun owners. I really should have checked the citation, as I clearly muffled the story. I am irked at myself. What I remember is an article stating that most Americans don’t own guns and of those that do, most own only one gun. What remains is small number of households that own lots of firearms. Did I read it somewhere else?
-
At any rate yeah, extrapolating the opinion of Philip Cook, a rifle owning economist at Duke University, gives 75+ guns per arsenal household. My qualitative claim remains, though one may doubt the opinion of Mr. Cook.
Economist (sub req): Locked and loaded
The Liberty Fatboy gun safe holds 64 long guns.
I recommend 2.
I’ve poked around a little more. Since 2004 gun purchases have soared while the share of households with firearms has declined. Cite: http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/7b_130b43_a5e62c1_oP.png.thumb
I have a 2004 study of gun ownership. Only ten years out of date. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full
When outliers representing the top 3% of gun owners (those owning >25 guns) were removed, the average number of working firearms per owner was 5.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 5.4). So back then 3% of gun owners possessed more than 25 guns. The remaining 97% had an average of 5 guns.
The Pareto Principle suggests that 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers. Courageous extrapolation of those stats suggests that over 80% of the lifetime gun market is based on only 3% of the customer base. Admittedly a share of that 25+/30 = .8333 > .80 is not newly manufactured. At any rate since 2004 this concentration appears to have intensified.
More math, same 2004 study:
The actual number of guns reported in our survey varied depending on how the question was asked and who answered the question. Individual firearm owners (n = 702) reported owning an average of 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 7.9, median 3) working firearms. On further examination, it seemed that individuals who owned ⩾4 firearms (with an average of 12 firearms per person) were greatly affecting the mean. When outliers representing the top 3% of gun owners (those owning >25 guns) were removed, the average number of working firearms per owner was 5.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 5.4). On the basis of estimates of 26% of adults in the US owning at least one firearm, we estimated that 57 million adults owned 283 million firearms (95% CI 260 to 305 million). Ignore sampling error for now.
The total number of firearm owners own an average of 6.6 guns. Take out 3% and they own an average of 5.0 guns. Those 3% own 25+ guns per household. How many guns do the average household in that 3% own?
0.97 5 4.85
0.03 58.333 1.75
6.6
I get 58.3 guns for the average household in the 3% arsenalist subsection. But given the small sample size, the confidence interval is presumably rather wide. Still, it’s another piece of evidence suggesting the plausibility of my claims.
Do you disagree that guns give an advantage to the party lying in ambush? I assume not. More generally, they give advantage to the party with the initiative, which is why cops pull out their weapons with some frequency (and fire them much less, at least in NYC).
There’s a lot packed into that question and I’m not sure how to address it. I can say however that I have a lot more respect for somebody who makes an honest attempt at cost benefit analysis than for someone who sweeps inconvenient facts under the carpet. I support the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. I don’t deny that this hurts livestock herders economically and I don’t characterize their concerns as trivial. As a citizen, I’m saying I favor wolves in the lower 48 on cost/benefit grounds. Update the facts and I might change my opinion.
Similarly, I don’t call for zero emissions policies or even minimal emissions policies, though yes this will cost statistical lives. Public safety is an intrinsic good, but it isn’t the only intrinsic good. In the proper context, one should be honest about such tradeoffs.
IIRC, I don’t believe I was discussing public policy though. I’m more interested in rational private risk assessment, which is connected to a weighting of the most probable consequences of weaponry.
Actually I was operating off of information which was perhaps 25 years out of date. I poked around the internet and discovered that a wave of lawsuits put some shitty gun manufacturers out of business during the 1990s. To my knowledge, it wasn’t the BATFE that did this though. Am I wrong?
-
Well actually that’s my point: there is more than one way of defusing a confrontation and most confrontations are resolved without private violence.
-
I poked around the internet a bit and found some anecdotes and general advice regarding child safety. But I’m reluctant to assemble another 3 paragraphs on the subject, at least in this post. I prefer to put such efforts into core concerns and I’m not clear what they are here.
====
I’ve skipped a lot. Feel free to repeat questions if desired.
When all these povs on gun rights collide, the effect is to further polarize an already contentious matter.
Some few gun rights people think that any ‘restrictions’ on gun ownership or use are anathema. Most gun rights people apparently believe that keeping people from having guns who are not qualified to have guns is a good thing for public safety and the own personal safety.
Regrettably, wanting to own a gun that won’t be hijacked by a kid or a robber is now tied to the proposition that in one state where the legislation has not been constitutionally challenged (yet) , gun dealers would not be allowed to sell guns not meeting that requirement. From a practical pov, that is hardly an imminent danger to the right to go buy privately or in another state, but I see the point being made that such a law might be too much of a leap right now.
Absent this tie-in, the New Jersey problem, does everyone agree that an individual should be able to buy a ‘smart gun’ if they are qualified to own a gun at all?
Many parents have expressed to me they would not have a gun in the house, seeing all the stories about how aggressive kids are about finding and playing with the guns there for self protection.
I know a guy in Florida who is a ‘gun nut’ who, when asked if he would have his arsenal in his home if his grandkids came to visit, said he would put them under lock and key if they visited, and would get rid of them if they came to stay for a longer period. Smart man. He, of course, would love to buy a ‘smart gun’.
In other words, when can people drop their polarized attitudes and work together to try to do some things that make sense?
You will never get rid of the fringes, but…
There was no broad opposition to smart guns (a lot of people questioned their reliability but noone objected to their sale) until places like NJ passed smart gun laws.
Whenever I propose national licensing and registration (even if its only for handguns), my fellow gun nuts remind me of the slippery slope. Despite the fact that we have had at least one federal gun registry for the last 80 years without even an attempt at confiscation. History has taught them that gun grabbers aren’t really interested in gun control, they are interested in banning guns altogether so the gun nuts aren’t inclined to go along with anything the gun grabbers want.
I suspect that guns are a tertiary issue for 80% of pro-gun control folks and are at least a secondary issue for 80% of most gun rights folks.
The NRA disagrees. On May 1-2 New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg offered to repeal the gun law if: [INDENT]“If, in fact, the NRA will make a public commitment to not stand in the way of the manufacture, distribution or sale of any gun that is limited by technology to the use of only its owner,” Weinberg said, “then I will ask the New Jersey legislature to amend the law.” [/INDENT] AFAIK, the NRA responded with silence. Compromise requires courage; controversy brings in cash.
Probably a quaternary issue for me. Back in the day when we had swing voters though, NRA members were known to swing: there were some single issue voters. Polling has been consistently for gun control for the past 30 years, but the intensity of the opposition makes the difference. In general, I don’t see that as a bad thing frankly: if a small number who feel vehemently about a given issue can get majorities to go along, that’s just an aspect of political compromise.
Frankly in the wake of Heller this no-compromise stance deserves ridicule. I’m not asserting 100% certainty: few things in politics are like that. I’m a supporter of gun control, and I think such legislation should be penned by gun owners. But if their ideas are grounded on crackpottery or opposition to science, I’m going to call them out on it.
ETA, from upthread: “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?”
My point was to advocate rational risk assessment, something NRA publications and propaganda consistently undermine. A private sector solution.
Let’s see - the law is already on the books so I have to assume when Weinberg says “not stand in the way” that means no lawsuits, protests, advocacy, etc. If the NRA rolls over on that, then she will “ask” for the law to be amended. And you think that is a fair compromise and merits a response? No way in hell.
Gun control advocates are not trustworthy. They will take any opportunity to restrict or ban guns. You talk of compromise - do you realize there have been dozens of compromises in the past and every single one has both resulted in a curtailing of people’s rights as well as a call for more and more compromise?
If there are two people, and person A’s goal is to kill person B, and person B’s goal is to not be killed - there can be no compromise between them. A cannot kill B just a little bit. Iran wants to eliminate Israel. There is no way to compromise between them - they can’t just eliminate some of Israel.
The goal of gun control advocates is to ban guns. What will Weinberg give in exchange for this compromise, a request to the legislature which would result in nothing? And in return NJ’s ban on virtually all handguns goes uncontested. That’s…not a balanced compromise. This is another reason I think gun control advocates are dishonest. If they really intended on a compromise, they would propose real concessions.
So you want a group of people to craft legislation as long as you agree with it. That’s for show only then.
The thing is, people value different things differently. For some, the risk of gun ownership is not worth the benefit. I would never question another person’s risk assessment in that regard. They consider and choose not to own any firearms. I have no problem with that. For others, the calculus tips the other way. The problem arises when the first group assumes their assessment is the rational one, not just for themselves - but for everyone else as well. They think that any deviation from their own must be irrational. Then they try to use the force of law to impose that on everyone else.
So if the NRA stops trying to stop smart guns, then they will “try” to get rid of the smart gun law? Does that apply to all smart gun laws in every state? And how hard do they have to try??
Thats probably true for most gun grabbers that have really given it much thought.
Cite?
So you’re pro-choice?
Ladies and gentlemen, I present Exhibit A regarding the learned helplessness of the American gunnut:
It was a public statement. When somebody offers a compromise, those acting with a modicum of courage open up negotiations.
The NRA is pretty happy with NJ’s gun law though: they are the nation’s biggest supporters. They could get it repealed, but it’s far too useful as a tool for vacuuming up cash from their base of rubes. We know this because the NRA made no counter-offer: they love the NJ law.
Que? For a group of people who go on and on about the Constitution, gunnuts sure have a low opinion of routine political deliberation.
I agree with all of that actually. But all citizens can benefit from solid scientific information about the benefits and costs of gun ownership. ** Bone **puts his finger on a highly salient point though: the objective risks and subjective benefits of owning or not owning a firearm will vary across the population. My reading of the gun violence scholarship indicates that researchers haven’t really come to grips with this (AFAIK). Emphasis is directed on the average effects of firearm ownership and for those with an expansive interpretation of the second Amendment, that won’t cut it. Which is why more research and discussion would help. The NRA isn’t interested though: their publications are laughable exercises in special pleading, cheerleading and spurious implication.
Me: “My point was to advocate rational risk assessment, something NRA publications and propaganda consistently undermine. A private sector solution.”
Damuri Ajashi: Cite?
Every issue of every NRA publication has this sort of mockery of rational or even neuro-typical inquiry. Just check out their every-issue roundup of gun anecdotes: they never consider the possibility that the gun was superfluous to a resolution of the situation for example. It’s assumed and implied that Bad Things Happen Without the Bangstick. Their product reviews routinely give industry cat glove treatment: the September issue of American Rifleman has a glowing review of a $300 cooler. Just like basically every other review. $300! Those who can’t see this are pretty deep into the tank.
If these laws are so fucking good for the NRA, then why doesn’t NJ just get rid of it?
So how does that undermine a private sector solutions? Or are you just saying that people who drink the NRA Kool Aid are looking at the world through a distorted prism? Because it seems to me that extremists on both sides are guilty of THAT.
You’re going to have to explain this a bit further. It seems like you are using words in a non-standard way. In what way is this learned helplessness?
Two things:
[ol]
[li]You assume that what was offered was a compromise.[/li][li]You assume that a person or group who believes in their position would compromise.[/li][/ol]
Person A: I want to kill you.
Person B: I don’t want to be killed.
Person A: How about I just cut off your arm?
Person B: No.
Person A: How about a leg?
Person B: … (no response necessary)
Person A: Why won’t you compromise?!
If you exercise some critical thinking here, you’d see that the above is at best unsupported and more likely absurd. Please cite the 5 statements of fact.
If you acknowledge that the NRA are a collection of whack-a-doodle extremists then my work is done. After all, I don’t have a problem with a gun lobby; I have a problem with a science-hostile gun lobby that enables crackpottery.
Bone:
Basically the no compromise policy and the vast over-reliance on guns as a self-defense tool are manifestations of learned helplessness. You couldn’t imagine a tween handling a confrontation with an adult for example. And you think that that gun owners are an oppressed minority.
But look at the past 40 years of gun law. The assault weapons ban was largely symbolic: it curbed visually scarey looking guns while limiting the maximum allowed ammunition capacity. That doesn’t strike me as overly burdensome: heck, I generally like it when my political opponents win on the symbolics and lose on the substance. Of course that ban is no longer with us, but that’s the worst law since the 1970s, right?
Heller said that local legislators could no longer ban handguns, no matter how popular such a law is. Concealed carry grew by leaps and bounds during the 1990s. Today in Georgia you can carry pistols into drinking establishments. After an elementary school was shot up about as many states tightened gun laws as loosened them. Cite from the Economist. Now I’m not complaining mind you. I’m saying that whatever reason, your perceptions are distorted, sufficient to reach for the mock-hammer. Of course you aren’t alone in this regard which is why I try direct my laughter at the NRA.
(5 statements of fact: I’m not sure what is being asked here.)
You are still assuming that a compromise was offered.
You are the one that said a 12 year old child could fend off an adult, but when pressed you meant they could run away. Unfortunately for you we were actually talking about, you know, fending off an adult. If you insist that a tween child can physically defend themselves from an adult with any regularity that’s laughable. I’m not aware of studies that test your hypothesis but if you have any examples that’s be great. All the tweens that suffer from child abuse from adults would like to know.
No where have I stated that gun owners are an oppressed minority. In this country, it does appear that gun owners are in the minority though, but not so much that it is a debate point. Something like 300 million people and 80 million gun owners.
No, not even close. Unless you are talking only federal laws. State laws have just as much impact to residents of that state so excluding those is misleading.
[ul]
[li]I know for a fact that one of the goals of gun control advocates in CA is to**ban **all semi automatic rifleswith detachable magazines. This was proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg as SB 374.[/li][li]One of the goals of the state legislature of New Jersey is to**ban **magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.[/li][li]One of the City of Sunnyvale’s goals is similar,the **ban **they passed is now in front of the 9th circuit.[/li][li]California also wants to**ban **the sale of ammo online or by mail. That was overturned at the state level, but still persists locally in many major cities in the state, including LA.[/li][li]California’s goal to **ban **a weapon that has never been used in any crimeand is primarily for hobbyists has also been successful.[/li][li]California has also successfully **banned **firearms based on their color. Pena v. Cid is awaiting disposition.[/li][li]The City of Chicago’s goal was to require live fire training to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun, then **ban **all firing ranges in the city.[/li][/ul]
Some of these represent laws that were challenged and overturned. Some still exist. There are more. CA still has an assault weapon ban. NY just passed the SAFE law which also bans assault weapons. Vermont wants to confiscate the assault rifles there. CA has confiscated rifles here.
Off the top of my head, I am prohibited from (in my state of CA):
[ul]
[li]owning a fully automatic weapon[/li][li]purchasing or possessing a suppressor.[/li][li]purchasing or manufacturing a magazine with greater than 10 round capacity[/li][li]carrying a concealed firearm of any kind, and a concealed knife of anything greater than 3 inches. (ironically the penalty for the knife is a felony and the penalty for the firearm is a wobbler but could be a misdemeanor)[/li][li]Can not mail order ammunition in various counties[/li][li]Can not own or purchase a .50 BMG rifle[/li][li]Unable to purchase an XD-45 .45 ACP in bi-tone (two colors, black and green), however the exact same model in black *or *in green are legal.[/li][li]Cannot purchase any handgun the state of CA has not approved[/li][li]Cannot purchase any new handgun manufactured that does not have non-existent microstamping technology[/li][li]Cannot purchase or possess any rifle with an overall length less than 26" or a barrel length less than 16"[/li][li]Cannot purchase more than one pistol in any 30 day period, even though I may already own several[/li][li]The DROS fee for purchasing a pistol must be paid again when purchasing a long gun, even if purchased at the same time[/li][li]Cannot purchase imported antique M1 Garand semi auto rifles from South Korea[/li][/ul]
I think you may be unaware as to the level of existing restrictions.
[ol]
[li]The NRA is pretty happy with NJ’s gun law though:[/li][li]they are the nation’s biggest supporters. [/li][li]They could get it repealed, but it’s far too useful as a tool for vacuuming up cash from their base of rubes. [/li][li]We know this because the NRA made no counter-offer: they love the NJ law.[/li][/ol]
I miscounted. It’s 4. Cite?
Well, I think the guys that run the NRA are more extremist than me but I don’t think every NRA member is a whackadoodle extremist. So now that we have gotten rid of the CDC ban, you don’t have a problem with the NRA anymore?
But I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to drink while you are carrying in Georgia.
You can’t ban handguns but you can still regulate them. Heller seemed to open the door for registration and licensing of handguns.
It doesn’t seem to matter how much regulation we have. There is an element in the gun control crowd that will always want more. I don’t worry about them because they will never get more than about what we have now. At least at the federal level. Frankly, I would think you would WANT federal pre-emption of all gun laws because it would certainly result in relaxation of rules in California while providing uniformity of rules across the country.
Would it really bother you that much to get your handguns registered if you could pick whichever one you wanted and your “shall issue” CCW was good in all 50 states and there was virtually no restriction on any semi-automatic long gun?
No one is making this offer.
Well, any discussion of any of the proposals being presented here in the pit is all fantasy. I mean we have assumed away the second amendment and heller. We assume there the political ability to get any of these things done. I thought we were just talking about things we thought might be useful in the abstract and what sort of tradeoff we think might make sense.
In theory, I think that my fantasy is achievable if it is presented by someone with more credibility on gun rights.