perplexed by the fear of guns

[Sailboat]

@Stealth_Potato

What he’s trying to get at is that a gun isn’t going to do anything until somebody pulls the trigger, intentionally or otherwise, and that it takes a terrific amount of negligence to 1) allow the gun to point at another person while 2) simultaneously pulling the trigger.

Well, I’m not sure I find such negligence terrifically rare. The most recent person to explain to me personally that guns are not dangerous was pointing the gun at me while doing so, and when I pointed that out, was immensely embarrassed, and promptly opened the chamber to demonstrate it was not loaded – and discovered it WAS loaded. This person had gotten the gun out of storage to show me safe gun-handling procedures and within the opening part of the presentation, pointed a loaded gun directly at me without intending to do so.

I worked with a woman whose husband shot himself in the gut tossing his rifle onto his truck seat. People have accidents, perhaps moreso when they are doing something that has become routine to them. Familiarity can breed contempt for rigid safety procedure.

[Zeriel]

@Kalhoun

Situations a and b…you mean you HOPE you will have the presence of mind to do things correctly and safely. However, this is precisely how accidents happen. That’s why they’re called “accidents.” They happen all the time. Well-meaning, well-trained people with a momentary lapse of reason enduring a broken heart and regret that will never end.

Having been in the situation where I had an unlocked shotgun and heard a loud crashing noise and my wife yelp in obvious pain, nonetheless I locked that thing up first. Training and habit works if properly done and taken seriously.

And hell, I don’t even have any kids in my house–there wasn’t anyone there but me and her for that matter, but I still did the safe thing.

I doubt this is a typical thing, though, which is why I think more mandatory training should be required for firearms ownership. But I made a decision when I got my first gun–my guns were NOT going to accidentally kill someone. So far, so good.

[Kalhoun]

@Zeriel

Having been in the situation where I had an unlocked shotgun and heard a loud crashing noise and my wife yelp in obvious pain, nonetheless I locked that thing up first. Training and habit works if properly done and taken seriously.

And hell, I don’t even have any kids in my house–there wasn’t anyone there but me and her for that matter, but I still did the safe thing.

I doubt this is a typical thing, though, which is why I think more mandatory training should be required for firearms ownership. But I made a decision when I got my first gun–my guns were NOT going to accidentally kill someone. So far, so good.

You can’t guarantee that you’ll respond properly in every scenario. You simply can’t.

[Zeriel]

@Kalhoun

You can’t guarantee that you’ll respond properly in every scenario. You simply can’t.

There are a lot of things one can’t guarantee. That’s never been a good basis for policy.

I can’t guarantee you won’t trip down the stairs with scissors and impale yourself in the temple. Better let the government take 'em away.
Can’t guarantee you won’t decide to run your car up on the sidewalk.
Can’t guarantee you won’t cut your furnace’s oil feed pipe while it’s on, give me those pliers. And the furnace, too, can’t guarantee you’ll clean it and maintain it and it might explode and kill your family.

Guns, in the hands of a well-trained individual, are not an especially risky object compared to other risky objects like cars or swimming pools.

[Kalhoun]

@Zeriel

There are a lot of things one can’t guarantee. That’s never been a good basis for policy.

I can’t guarantee you won’t trip down the stairs with scissors and impale yourself in the temple. Better let the government take 'em away.
Can’t guarantee you won’t decide to run your car up on the sidewalk.
Can’t guarantee you won’t cut your furnace’s oil feed pipe while it’s on, give me those pliers. And the furnace, too, can’t guarantee you’ll clean it and maintain it and it might explode and kill your family.

Guns, in the hands of a well-trained individual, are not an especially risky object compared to other risky objects like cars or swimming pools.

But guns end up in the hands of untrained people all the time. Gun owners lose track of their weapons. A lot.

The Victim Survey (NCVS) estimates
that there were 341,000 incidents of
firearm theft from private citizens annually
from 1987 to 1992. Because
the survey does not ask how many
guns were stolen, the number of guns
stolen probably exceeds the number
of incidents of gun theft.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

I find that pretty scary.

[Polerius]

@Tripler

I’m sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. Yeah, we’ve all heard the cliche “guns don’t kill people. . .”, but it’s not the inanimate object that does the damage. It’s the intent of the person pulling the trigger.

Eddie Izzard said it best:

@Eddie Izzard

And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don’t kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps.

[Kyla]

@Zeriel

Guns, in the hands of a well-trained individual, are not an especially risky object compared to other risky objects like cars or swimming pools.

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about a policy that ensured (or attempted to ensure) that guns were only available to well-trained individuals?

[Kalhoun]

@Kyla

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about a policy that ensured (or attempted to ensure) that guns were only available to well-trained individuals?

I’m interested in the response to this, as well. And who decides how much training, and what training, and what frequency of refreshers, is enough?

[Zeriel]

@Kyla

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about a policy that ensured (or attempted to ensure) that guns were only available to well-trained individuals?

Me? I’ve said it in other threads, but in my ideal world, briefly:

To get a long rifle or shotgun license (longer than 18" barrel length, which is a reasonable cutoff for what’s ‘concealable’), in other words the most common hunting and recreational shooting weapons, you’d have to:
Demonstrate reasonably accurate marksmanship at an appropriate range for the weapon in question.
Demonstrate, with a provided rifle and manual, that you can read said manual and correctly assemble, disassemble, and make safe the weapon
Pass a written test on safe storage practices and responsible firearm use
Provide proof of ownership of any jurisdictionally-required safes, locks, etc.

To get a handgun or short-barrel rifle/shotgun license (typical for home defense/personal defense weapons) you would have to do all of the above PLUS:
Pass a “tactical course” (basically, a combination of a shooting range and a maze with goals and moving targets, some of which you’re not supposed to shoot at) with your chosen weapon that included the following skills singly and in concert: moving and firing, hitting targets accurately, making shoot/don’t shoot decisions based on target identification, and storing the weapon safely (in your holster) between portions of the course and before/after. This test shall be scored that unsafe behaviors (missing a target you elected to engage, making an incorrect “shoot” decision on a “don’t shoot” target) are instant fails.

In other threads some of us have discussed and came short of finding a workable way of adding a psychological test component. There are at least some gun owners who have expressed that this solution would be workable with solid assurances that it would be shall-issue (to anyone who can pass), have reasonable options for the disabled, and that the lists of firearms and licensed operators wouldn’t be used to harass law-abiding gun owners or confiscate weapons.

[Kalhoun]

@Zeriel

Me? I’ve said it in other threads, but in my ideal world, briefly:

To get a long rifle or shotgun license (longer than 18" barrel length, which is a reasonable cutoff for what’s ‘concealable’), in other words the most common hunting and recreational shooting weapons, you’d have to:
Demonstrate reasonably accurate marksmanship at an appropriate range for the weapon in question.
Demonstrate, with a provided rifle and manual, that you can read said manual and correctly assemble, disassemble, and make safe the weapon
Pass a written test on safe storage practices and responsible firearm use
Provide proof of ownership of any jurisdictionally-required safes, locks, etc.

To get a handgun or short-barrel rifle/shotgun license (typical for home defense/personal defense weapons) you would have to do all of the above PLUS:
Pass a “tactical course” (basically, a combination of a shooting range and a maze with goals and moving targets, some of which you’re not supposed to shoot at) with your chosen weapon that included the following skills singly and in concert: moving and firing, hitting targets accurately, making shoot/don’t shoot decisions based on target identification, and storing the weapon safely (in your holster) between portions of the course and before/after. This test shall be scored that unsafe behaviors (missing a target you elected to engage, making an incorrect “shoot” decision on a “don’t shoot” target) are instant fails.

In other threads some of us have discussed and came short of finding a workable way of adding a psychological test component. There are at least some gun owners who have expressed that this solution would be workable with solid assurances that it would be shall-issue (to anyone who can pass), have reasonable options for the disabled, and that the lists of firearms and licensed operators wouldn’t be used to harass law-abiding gun owners or confiscate weapons.

LOL! Good luck wit dat!!

[devilsknew]

@Argent_Towers

But you don’t seem like one of the people who are irrationally afraid of guns. You seem to at least have a reasoning behind it. I know some people who if you tell them you own a gun, they act like you’re a child molester. “OhmyGOD…he has a GUN!!!” The vast majority are female. (Most of the big anti-gun activists in America also seem to be female. Brady, Hillary, McCarthy, Feinstein - it’s a real girl’s club.)

@devilsknew

Although I can’t find a cite… I can’t blame them, just regarding the nature, it would seem they are more likely to be killed by a gun in a crime of passion. Most crimes of passion have a woman as a player… regardless of instrument of death. There is certainly a gender bias. Soccer GUn Mom was one of them.

Cite from WAGV:

@WAGV

Guns and Domestic Violence:

* American women who are killed by their intimate partners are more likely to be killed with guns than by all other methods combined. (Rothman E. F., Hemenway D, Miller M, and Azael D. Batterers' Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, 2005. 60 (1): p. 62- 68.)
   
* A recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners. (J.C. Campbell, Webster J, Koziol-McLain, CR, et al. 2003. Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study. American Journal of Public Health. 93 (7).)
   
* Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by intimate partners as they are to be murdered by strangers using any type of weapon. (Tjaden P., Thoennes N. Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: 2000. NCJ 18781.) (Rothman E. F., Hemenway D, Miller M, and Azael D. Batterers' Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, 2005. 60 (1): p. 62- 68.)
   
* Firearms- especially handguns- were the most common weapon used by males to murder females in 2003. (When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2003 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/ Single Offender Incidents. September 2005. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2005.pdf.)
   
* In homicides where males used firearms to kill females, handguns were clearly the weapon of choice over rifles and shotguns. In 2003, 77 percent of female firearm homicide victims were killed with handguns. (When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2003 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/ Single Offender Incidents. September 2005. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2005.pdf.)
   
* Approximately 700 American women are shot and killed by intimate partners each year. (Homicide trends in the U.S Intimate homicide and Homicides by relationships and weapon type. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2002.)
   
* The cost of domestic violence is nearly $67 billion per year, roughly 15% of total U.S crime costs. (Miller T, Cohen M, Wiersema B. Victim costs and consequences: a new look. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; 1996.NCJ 155282)
   
* In 2002, background checks noting domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders kept 22,000 abusers from purchasing firearms. (Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2002, BOJS; Disarming Domestic Violence Abusers, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, September 2003.)

[Zeriel]

@Kalhoun

LOL! Good luck wit dat!!

I got a fair number of gun-wielding NRA-card-carrying types everywhere I go to agree to it, so there you go. You can laugh if you like, I’ll be writing my senators. =P

[Stealth_Potato]

@Kalhoun

LOL! Good luck wit dat!!

Well, I have no particularly strong objection to the substantial part of this idea either; in principle I see nothing wrong with wanting gun owners to be competent and responsible. If it were a given that such a system would always be “shall-issue” and would never be used for confiscation or as a stepping stone to more restrictive measures, I would have no problem with it. But I’m skeptical that it’s even remotely possible to make such an assurance.

The existence and popular credibility of the strident “disarm everybody!” advocates is enough to ensure my opposition to any such measure, even if in better circumstances it would be reasonable.

[Tripler]

@Kalhoun

You have not proven that any of the people in these scenarios wanted someone to die, and yet innocent lives were taken because the tool worked as designed. Pretty scary, if you ask me.

That wasn’t my purpose. Besides, I think in your second scenario, as loosely as you painted the picture, I have to assume the father wanted to kill the intruder. My purpose was to illustrate to you that intent and the ‘human element’ are not seperate–and I think I did that pretty clearly, you just don’t want to hear it.

The tools worked as designed because they took input from a human–mistaken/misguided input. It wasn’t the machine’s fault, it was the human. Your proverbial children may not intend to get burned, but they want to see the pot. They want to play with a car, and ‘accidentally’ put it into gear.

Intent comes with every human action, even if it’s not the desired intent.

Tripler
Nuff 'said. I’m kinda busy today

[Kalhoun]

@Tripler

That wasn’t my purpose. Besides, I think in your second scenario, as loosely as you painted the picture, I have to assume the father wanted to kill the intruder. My purpose was to illustrate to you that intent and the ‘human element’ are not seperate–and I think I did that pretty clearly, you just don’t want to hear it.

The tools worked as designed because they took input from a human–mistaken/misguided input. It wasn’t the machine’s fault, it was the human. Your proverbial children may not intend to get burned, but they want to see the pot. They want to play with a car, and ‘accidentally’ put it into gear.

Intent comes with every human action, even if it’s not the desired intent.

Tripler
Nuff 'said. I’m kinda busy today

But in the second scenario, the father didn’t want THAT person to die. You’re right. It’s never the gun’s fault. Duh. That hardly makes a difference if fallible humans are the ones engaging the gun in deadly actions, whether they really wanted to or not.

[Gyrate]

@Zeriel

Me? I’ve said it in other threads, but in my ideal world, briefly:

To get a long rifle or shotgun license (longer than 18" barrel length, which is a reasonable cutoff for what’s ‘concealable’), in other words the most common hunting and recreational shooting weapons, you’d have to:
Demonstrate reasonably accurate marksmanship at an appropriate range for the weapon in question.
Demonstrate, with a provided rifle and manual, that you can read said manual and correctly assemble, disassemble, and make safe the weapon
Pass a written test on safe storage practices and responsible firearm use
Provide proof of ownership of any jurisdictionally-required safes, locks, etc.

To get a handgun or short-barrel rifle/shotgun license (typical for home defense/personal defense weapons) you would have to do all of the above PLUS:
Pass a “tactical course” (basically, a combination of a shooting range and a maze with goals and moving targets, some of which you’re not supposed to shoot at) with your chosen weapon that included the following skills singly and in concert: moving and firing, hitting targets accurately, making shoot/don’t shoot decisions based on target identification, and storing the weapon safely (in your holster) between portions of the course and before/after. This test shall be scored that unsafe behaviors (missing a target you elected to engage, making an incorrect “shoot” decision on a “don’t shoot” target) are instant fails.

In other threads some of us have discussed and came short of finding a workable way of adding a psychological test component. There are at least some gun owners who have expressed that this solution would be workable with solid assurances that it would be shall-issue (to anyone who can pass), have reasonable options for the disabled, and that the lists of firearms and licensed operators wouldn’t be used to harass law-abiding gun owners or confiscate weapons.

Perfectly happy with that (in fact, I’m not sure a psychological component is practicable apart from what might turn up on background checks). Test and license 'em like cars.

So if the NRA types are also happy with that, who are all the “no licensing, no waiting, just give me my damn gun” types we keep hearing about? Are the media making them up?

[Kalhoun]

@Gyrate

Perfectly happy with that (in fact, I’m not sure a psychological component is practicable apart from what might turn up on background checks). Test and license 'em like cars.

So if the NRA types are also happy with that, who are all the “no licensing, no waiting, just give me my damn gun” types we keep hearing about? Are the media making them up?

I’d be ok with these efforts, but knowing HOW to operate a gun has little to do with knowing WHEN to operate it, and how to actually secure it. And it’s no guarantee the person isn’t or won’t become a raging headcase. Anyone can pass a test. Proper operation of a firearm was never the issue.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Kalhoun

LOL! Good luck wit dat!!

That’s largely what’s required to obtain a firearms licence in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, you know (minus the assembly/disassembly of the gun aspect)

You have to do a safety course (which includes arms legislation, gun safety, handling, and basic marksmanship), have an approved gun safe, and (generally) either be a member of a recognised shooting club or have access to a lot of land (NZ, however, does not have this requirement for longarms AFAIK).

True, there’s no IPSC-style courses required for a handgun licence, but in Australia getting a handgun licence takes at least a year(!) and you’re required to shoot at your club a certain number of times per year as a condition of maintaining your licence.

It’s also worth mentioning that handgun ownership in Australia, the UK, and NZ is restricted to target shooters, collectors, and (in Australia only, AFAIK) farmers. Contrary to popular belief, handguns are not completely banned in Britain, either.

[Zeriel]

@Kalhoun

I’d be ok with these efforts, but knowing HOW to operate a gun has little to do with knowing WHEN to operate it, and how to actually secure it.

I pretty much specifically said that part of the test would be testing on shoot/no-shoot decisionmaking and whether one is smart enough to keep it in the holster when they’re not confident in their abilities with regard to that situation.

And it’s no guarantee the person isn’t or won’t become a raging headcase. Anyone can pass a test. Proper operation of a firearm was never the issue.

I’d feel a lot better about this line of reasoning if someone could tell me how it’s different when it’s “firearm” as opposed to “car” or “motorcycle” or “fireworks” or “demolition equipment”.

[trupa]

Hi, remember me? i;m the OP…:o First I really apologize about the drive-by thread posting (is that a bad simile in this thread?) A bit of a real life domestic crisis erupted the morning after I posted, and I had to convince home-care not to force my mom into a nursing home quite yet. When I came back, I had to wade through 5 pages of posts.

Second, this has been incredibly useful to me. I’m not the most gifted fellow when it comes to understanding other people’s feelings. There have been a lot of valuable insights in-between the usual debate posts. Thanks a lot to those who have contributed, especially those of you who have written about your own fear.

Early on, the issue of the “design intent to kill” as a source of fear was brought up, and someone made the point about other such items like bombers, battleships, and swords. I’m fairly sure the ladies I mentioned would not have had the same reactions if I had handed them a late Tokugawa era katana. Many subsequent posters have gone a long way in explaining why: media reports of guns “just going off”, as **BrandonR **explained, coupled with a lack of knowledge of the mechanisms and the actual steps and forces involved, not to mention a truly loud bang, like **emmaliminal **said. After reflecting a little on this, I think that part of it also comes from the fact that, unlike any other weapon, even bows, guns supply their own energy. To a person unfamiliar with them, it’s hard to predict when it will fire. I thought Agent Towers expressed it really well:

People who have no experience with guns tend to assume that “a loaded gun” is just ready to “go off” at the slightest touch.

Bullshit. They don’t know about the different parts of the gun - they don’t know what the hell “slide” means in the context of a handgun. They don’t realize that it’s held in place by an extremely stout spring and that to pull it back requires arm strength, and grip strength

(Yep; my wife, who lifts weights regularly, has a very hard time pulling the slide back on my pistols.)

Maybe this can create a subconscious impression that there is some sort of independent force or entity within the gun that could almost make it go off by itself. If I knew nothing, really nothing about chainsaws, not how they start, stop or what makes them go, and If I had heard about several people being killed because their chainsaws all of a sudden “kicked up” I would probably be very scared around them too.

One of the posts I found most useful, and that resonated most with me, was by CatFight:

Someone compared it to being afraid of heights, and I think that makes the most sense. Ever stood by a cliff and felt dizzy? You know, logically, that you’re far enough from it for anything to happen and no one’s likely to push you (just as you know a gun won’t spring up and shoot you for no reason), but you can’t help but wonder ‘What if?’ What if you trip, have a seizure, or misjudge the distance? It may not be a close call to an outside observer, but it is to the person who’s got the fear, if only in their mind.

I’m afraid of heights, and I’ve had to make big efforts to make such internal commentaries go away. I can’t stand within 6 feet of the edge of a cliff, I have to sit or crawl. This will really help me have empathy for people who have the fear reaction.

One fear I can totally understand, at least in part, is the fear of gun owners. I’m somewhat of a safety nazi, but I’ve seen some really dubious handling a time or two. I can understand the fear or nervousness of being aware a total stranger is armed. Half Man Half Wit (hillarious user name!) makes a very good comparison about having a stranger know your online banking password. I’m not immediately sure why I find this more scary than walking around in a high CCW adoption state; probably, on further thought, because CCW holders undergo some sort of legal screening in most states. Still, I’m going to be thinking about that one.

And finally, moonstarssun, you have all my sympathies. Sounds like growing up with a stepfather like that could give one phobias about teddy bears, if they were associated with him. You seem to have gone a long way in your healing process.

So I guess the next question that poses itself is how to help people, like the ones in the OP, who want to try shooting, but have such a strong fear response. I thought I was taking it pretty gradually, with a non-shooting introduction first that started with a toy. One thing that I could probably do better is to explain more about how the gun works, and how it can’t go off if bumped or dropped (mine have mechanisms specifically to prevent this) . I already emphasize the 4 rules of redundant safety. What else would you suggest?