Slight hijack. I’ve been a firearms dealer for over 30 years now and I can’t figure out for the life life of me how anyone would find this out.
My Father-in-law from Florida left a handgun (unloaded & encased if you’re worried about it) at our house the last time he ̶i̶n̶t̶r̶u̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶ visited our home. Neither state has any registration laws. And he bought it from a private sale. So even if one tried to trace from the manufacturer to the distributor to the dealers bound book, one would only find who originally bought it from a dealer, not him.
When he assumes room temperature if I were to keep it there is little to no chance anyone would ever know I acquired it from an out of state source. Not that I would want a piece of junk .22.
None of those substantiate sbunny8’s claim; only the KBI site provides numbers, and they’re a glurge of stats about the state of Kansas, without any context. Unless we’re using the Kellerman definition of “…gun violence victims knew their killers.”
It’s interesting to note that the KBI article from 2013 cites total homicides (not just firearm) between 2005 - 2011, and then goes on to cherry-pick specific dates, times, counties, and types of crimes.
It does say this:
So, in a seven-year period, with 830 recorded homicides involving various methodologies, 40 were spouses, 40 were children, and 120 were strangers.
That’s 80 “acquaintances” out of 830. How does that equate to “…most homicide victims are acquainted with their killer?” Are we to assume that in the other 630 homicides (830 - 120 “strangers” = 710, - 80 “acquaintances” already accounted for = 630), the victims were also somehow “acquainted” with their killers?
What’s their (KBI’s) definition of “acquainted?” Is it Kellerman’s?
Kellerman’s definition of “acquainted” basically boiled down to one criminal narcotics gang knowing about another.
The pew site talks about general trends since 1993.
The first vox link says (correctly, from my research of the CDC’s number’s) that suicides account for most gun deaths; my research in previous years bears that out. Approximately 60% (+/- 1%-2% year-to-year) of firearm deaths are suicides. I have not looked at those numbers too closely for about a decade now, and I note that the 2015 CDC data I linked to above has firearm suicides down to about 50% of all suicides; not sure if that’s an anomalous year or a trend.
The second vox link states unequivocally that firearms contributes to domestic violence, as if the firearm was somehow whispering into the ear of an abusive asshole like a naughty devil. Right…moving on.
The third vox link links in turn to another study which, again, cites Kellerman. Kellerman’s studies (his infamous “43 times”) has been thoroughly debunked by even honest gun control proponents for deeply flawed methodology. In essence, his methodology equates to “if you play in traffic, you’re more likely to get run over by a car.” In truth, it most accurately states, “If you engage in criminal behavior, in economically depressed environments, then you’re more likely to be shot and killed.”
Using their tabular selection criteria for 2015 (most recent year for which they show info), they’re showing a total of 15,696 homicides (ALL causes,) and 11,155 firearm homicides (71%, consistent percentage-wise with the CDC’s numbers for the same year, even if total numbers don’t jibe). Filtering for relationships, I’m seeing 846 firearm homicides by “Family,” which I’m rounding up to 7.6% That’s of all firearm homicides.
This is “…a depressing large fraction…” by who’s definition?
If it’s yours and sbunny8’s, then, well, so be it.
From where I stand, it’s not. A slightly different perspective (bigger-picture, IMO): for an estimated 100,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.A., that’s ~0.000846% of gun owners, legal and/or otherwise, killing their family members in 2015.
When I wrote the words “large fraction” was thinking “more than 1/2, probably closer to 2/3”, but I won’t go so far as to say that the phrase is defined that way. We were discussing the question of who is dangerous to whom. I said It’s much more likely that a dangerous person would be more dangerous toward some people and less dangerous toward others. A depressing large fraction of gun fatalities in the US happen within the immediate family of the gun owner. Notice I didn’t say homicides. I was talking total fatalities, including suicide, homicide, or accident. What I’m saying is that, if you own a gun and someone gets fatally shot by that gun, it could either be (a) you shot someone within your immediate family, (b) someone in your immediate family shot you, (c) you or someone within your immediate family shot themselves, (d) you or a family member shot a stranger, or (e) the stranger shot themselves. Do I really need to convince you that (a)+(b)+(c) is more than half? Heck, suicides alone account for 63% of gun fatalities. I doubt very many of those are using borrowed guns that belong to someone outside their family.
As for the “depressing” part, I was talking about the irony that a person who keeps a gun for home protection might be inadvertently making their family less safe. You might be afraid of strangers but you’re more likely to be killed by a family member. If you’re a man, the person who is most likely to shoot you dead is… yourself. If you’re a woman, the person who’s most likely to shoot you dead is… your spouse. And I find that depressing.