Plan B Forum

There are at least 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. (That is a 2007 figure; the number now is surely higher.) According to the CDC, there were 11,078 gun homicides in 2010. (That figure includes justifiable homicides, which are not murders, and some accidental homicides, but I am feeling charitable.)

Assume that each of those gun homicides was committed with a different firearm. (An absurdly unlikely assumption, but I am feeling charitable.)

That means that of the 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., 269,988,922 of them were not used in the commission of homicides. In other words:

--> At least 99.996% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were not used in the commission of homicides.

--> Only, at most, 0.004% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were used in the commission of homicides.

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 24,000 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were used in the commission of homicides.

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/24,000 risk -- that a firearm will be used in the commission of one of those homicides justify taking firearms away from civilians?

In 2009, there were 55,544 non-fatal injuries in assaults resulting from assaults involving guns, according to the CDC. Add that to the number of gun homicides, and the total is 66,622. Again, because I am still feeling charitable, assume that each of those homicides and non-fatal injuries involved a different firearm.

That means that of the 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., 269,933,378 of them were not involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries. In other words:

--> At least 99.975% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were not involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries.

--> Only, at most, 0.025% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries.

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 4,000 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries.

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/4,000 risk -- that a firearm will be involved in one of those homicides or non-fatal injuries justify taking firearms away from civilians?

According to the CDC, there were 19,392 gun suicides in the U.S. Add that to the number of gun homicides and non-fatal injuries, and the total is 86,014. Yet again, because I am virtually exuding charitableness, assume that each of those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides involved a different firearm.

That means that of the 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., 269,913,986 of them were not involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides. In other words:

--> At least 99.968% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were not involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

--> Only, at most, 0.032% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 3,130 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/3,130 risk -- that a firearm will be involved in one of those homicides, non-fatal injuries, or suicides justify taking firearms away from civilians?

We know that civilians do, in fact, defend themselves with firearms against serious crimes. We do not know the exact numbers -- and demanding exact numbers of the serious crimes which did not occur is just silly -- but we know that it does happen.

Given that fact -- and given the minuscule risk that a firearm will be involved in such a homicide, non-fatal injury, or suicide -- why should individuals be prohibited from deciding for themselves whether possessing a firearm is better than not possessing one?

(Edited to add "in" where I inadvertently left it out.)

I take it you are not a proponent of "Gun Buyback Programs"

On the contrary, buy-back programs are fine with me. They are entirely voluntary. One of the things which a person who owns a firearm is perfectly entitled to do is to sell it to the government.

Andrew could I have your permission to copy paste the above to my facebook page? I would assign credit to your name though I doubt anyone would know who the heck you are.

If you PM me a link directly to your facebook page, then you have my blessing to place there my opening posting in this thread.

(Edited to delete my name, because I have been asked to do so.)

Andrew D wrote:If you PM me a link directly to your facebook page, then you have my blessing to place there my opening posting in this thread, credited -- because I no longer give a shit who knows who I am -- to Andrew G. Dulaney.

Giving you a link to my facebook would be an invasion of my family's privacy (for whatever privacy is on facebook) so I will have to say no. I will simply provide a link to your post to those I wish to see it.

That's good work, Andrew.

As with all your work very insightful thanks even for the stuff I hate because I disagree, not with facts, just because I'm disagreeable (that word just don't look right)...

Is there anyone seriously advocating that no one should be permitted to possess any type of firearm?

I see a fair amount of support for banning certain types of weapons, and/or limiting the sizes of magazines, and/or prohibiting people in certain limited categories from possessing weapons, how is suggesting that there is any sort of serious proposal to ban ALL firearms ownership at all helpful?

Andrew, how do you reconcile those figures and your position with the information from countries where access to guns was limited that shows gun-related deaths decreased, and, in reference to Australia in particular, mass shootings with guns ceased.

How do you tell the Newtown families that because their kids represent a miniscule percentage of gun violence, we aren't going to do anything to stop more gun violence? Or the families of the hundreds killed in Chicago so far this year?

Even in a free society, if we don't respect life, our freedoms are worth very little.

Here's some more "odds" in the same manner as Andrew's:

There are about 265,000,000 registered motor vehicles being operated in the United States. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, there were 32,310 motor vehicle fatalities in 2010.

Assume that each of those fatalities was caused by a different vehicle. (An absurdly unlikely assumption, but I am feeling charitable.)

That means that of the 265,000,000 vehicles being operated in the U.S., 264,967,690 of them were not the cause of a motor vehicle fatality. In other words:

--> At least 99.988% of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were not the cause of a roadway fatality.

--> Only, at most, 0.0124% of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were the cause of a roadway fatality.
way fatality.

--> Fewer than 1 in more than every 8,200 of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were the cause of a roadway fatality.

Etc. etc.

Sue U wrote:Here's some more "odds" in the same manner as Andrew's:

There are about 265,000,000 registered motor vehicles being operated in the United States. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, there were 32,310 motor vehicle fatalities in 2010.

Assume that each of those fatalities was caused by a different vehicle. (An absurdly unlikely assumption, but I am feeling charitable.)

That means that of the 260,000,000 vehicles being operated in the U.S., 259,967,690 of them were not the cause of a motor vehicle fatality. In other words:

--> At least 99.988% of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were not the cause of a roadway fatality.

--> Only, at most, 0.0124% of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were the cause of a roadway fatality.
way fatality.

--> Fewer than 1 in more than every 8,200 of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were the cause of a roadway fatality.

Etc. etc.

Ban the private ownership of automobiles; there is no constitutional prohibition to prevent it. No one needs to own a car. If there were no privately owned cars a public transport system would arise to take their place.

liberty wrote:Ban the private ownership of automobiles; there is no constitutional prohibition to prevent it. No one needs to own a car. If there were no privately owned cars a public transport system would arise to take their place.

And the government could, if it wanted, ban the manufacture, importation and sale of motor vehicles without any constitutional challenge (shut up about the Commerce Clause, Andrew). Motor vehicles used for inter-state commerce are regulated by the federal government. If the federal government wanted all interstate shipping converted to rail, it could most probably ban the use of trucks without any constitutional impediment.

But interstate trucking is not banned, it is merely regulated. And it is regulated largely for the purpose of ensuring the safety of trucks on nation's highways. Absent the lunacy of the Second Amendment, this would be the appropriate approach to guns, too.

And it should be the approach, with the Second Amendment present. We regulate speech, we regulate privacy, we regulate abortion, we regulate interstate travel, we regulate all sorts of fundamental freedoms --- why are guns different?

Actually, the use of guns in suicides is good reason to keep them available.

Suicide is the ultimate expression of personal freedom. Guns make it quick and efficient, and probably painless (for the individual). Many other means of suicide are not as neat or definitive.

I think Andrew's posting is in response to the obvious, massive - but not admitted - desire of many Libs to somehow take guns away from those they don't approve of. Why else would we be hearing this constant chorus of "Why won't the politicians DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN?!!!!!"

Do what, exactly? The answer is obvious, but unspoken.

How do you tell the Newtown families that because their kids represent a miniscule percentage of gun violence, we aren't going to do anything to stop more gun violence?

One or more armed guard might have stopped much of the violence. As it was, only when armed opposition (aka cops) approached did the gunman take his own life. Cops can't get there fast enough no matter the weapon or magazine size (and I am not opposed to limiting magazine sizes (10 seems about right) although I am opposed to banning "scary looking" guns as most have a less scary but just as lethal counterpart)

Or the families of the hundreds killed in Chicago so far this year?

I am guessing gang violence is much of the cause of death in Chicago this year. In which case, let them take care of offing each other. But I am sorry for the collateral damage.

Absent the lunacy of the Second Amendment

Well, now you seem to again be implying that the Second Amendment guarantees some sort of unrestricted right for everyone to possess any firearm...(this of course is what was wrong with your poll question)

It puzzles me why you do this. I know that you well know the Supreme Court has said exactly the opposite.

Perhaps the "lunacy" you see is that the 2nd Amendment will not permit regulation to the point you would like to see, which would be the complete banning of privately owned firearms of all types.

If that's what you're getting at, I'm afraid you're doomed to be disappointed. I don't believe I've ever seen a poll where support for repealing the 2nd Amendment ever broke 20%, and you'd have to get support up into the 70% plus range to create the critical mass of political pressure necessary to navigate the hurdles of the Constitutional amendment process.

The notion of repealing the 2nd Amendment remains what I correctly characterized it as before; a fringe view, completely and totally outside the political mainstream. Higher percentages of people believe GWB was behind 9/11, or that Obama was born in Kenya, or that aliens have been abducting people, than support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

or that aliens have been abducting people

You mean they haven't? So I don't need the gun I bought to keep me safe from aliens (from space or illegal from other countries)?

Scooter wrote:Is there anyone seriously advocating that no one should be permitted to possess any type of firearm?

Polling data indicate that about 1/2 of Americans support banning all civilian semi-automatic handguns -- i.e., banning about 3/4 of the civilian handguns in the U.S. And about 1/4 of Americans support banning all civilian handguns. And about 1/6 of Americans support banning all civilian guns.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller, self-defense is the "central component" of the right to keep and bear arms, "handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home" and that "the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon."

But DC "totally ban[ned] handgun possession in the home." And Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, "effectively bann[ed] handgun possession by almost all private citizens".

Were it not for the Supreme Court's present construction of the Second Amendment, various jurisdictions would ban all or virtually all handguns, which means banning the firearms used most often for self-defense. And the Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald were both 5 to 4, so they could easily be overturned in the not-too-distant future.

And, yes, serious people have argued for banning all or most guns. For example, former New York mayor Ed Koch:

Interviewer: "So to be clear, you Ed Koch are calling for all civilians to not be able to have weapons -- to be banned from owning weapons."
Koch: "If I had my way, I would pass such a law, except to allow hunting and target practice, and you lay out safety precautions for that, or if you need a gun because the police commissioner thinks your life is in danger .... Subject to those modifications, I don't believe we should have millions of guns out there in the hands of people who are not part of law enforcement."

Noam Scheiber has argued in The New Republic for banning all guns. Jonathan Safran Foer has argued in The Washington Post for banning all guns. Rabbi Michael Lerner has argued in Huffington Post for banning all guns. Etc.

Aside from the fact that most of what you have posted has nothing to do with banning all guns, what you have shown is that no one in a position to do anything about it has made such a proposal. Thank you.