I’m unable to find publicly available copies of Journal of Trauma so I’m not currently able to refute the arguments that one is “22 times more likely” to shoot a family member. Furthermore, the fact that more than half of the footnoted articles are by the same author seriously undermines the credibility of the document’s facts. In any case, when I looked at the publicly available 1999 crime report by the FBI, I noticed that the Crime Index in the Uniform Crime Report is based only on police investigation (which is based on number of crimes reported), and not on verdicts. Start at Violent Crime 1999, continue to Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter, and take a good look through it. Again, note the text which says, “The classification of this offense, as for all other Crime Index offenses, is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body.” My point is that this data is no good for proving either way whether homicides were justified or not, as I could speculate that many, if not most weapons-related incidents at least go to a trial of some sort. Thus this argument is based on “guilty until proven innocent” numbers.

I’ve also noticed that quite a few of the Brady Campaign’s articles seem to use inflammatory wording to convince the vastly underinformed U.S. public that their argument is correct. But that’s the subject of a different thread. :)

As for the segments regarding keeping firearms in houses, I wholeheartedly agree that they need to be locked up, especially in homes with children. When I came home with my first pistol it was locked through with the vendor-supplied cable lock (rendering the gun unfireable) until I could get a safe. For me it’s a matter of personal responsibility, and it’s disturbing that some people are surprised that I lock my guns up when they’re not in my direct control. The normal excuse that a locked away firearm is inaccessible in case of a burglary or other midnight fiasco is no longer a valid argument; I’ve seen 4 button drop-open safes that can be opened within a second or two with practice. So yes, the parent or grandparent who leaves their gun or guns out unsecured for 12 year olds to take and use at their discretion should be criminally liable if said kid takes the gun and shoots himself while “playing” with it, or worse, starts shooting up a school. In most cases, these events are preventable, and the result of gross parental negligence.

As for suicide rates, well, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world (nearly twice that of the United States) and it’s nearly impossible to get a firearm there. A popular way of killing oneself in Tokyo: throw yourself in front of the Chuo train line, which runs through the center of the city. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. That said, a sensible person doesn’t leave a gun where the twice-institutionalized bipolar sister can get to it. Again, that’s irresponsible.

On the bulletin boards I frequent, the non-defensive non-suicide related “incidents” either fall into the category of ND (negligent discharge) or “bad shoot” (not legally justified anyway). I don’t think anyone would state that “bad shoots” will never happen (i.e. crimes of passion, excessive use of force, etc) but that a well-educated, well-trained group of people is much less likely to make mistakes. In other words, I think a lot of these could be prevented.

Anyway, I doubt it’s possible, or even reasonable to convince many people that they shouldn’t carry a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones, especially considering response times of most police departments. I have a lot of respect for my local PD, but they’re overworked, and they’re not superheroes. A better idea is to convince people that if they choose to own and/or carry a weapon that they need training and practice as well.

You would be surprised at the kinds of horrible mistakes I see all the time. Here are some common bad habits that must be trained out (and the reasons):

1. Keeping one’s finger on the trigger. You see this all the time on TV and in movies, and it’s very very VERY bad practice. When a person picks up a gun, the natural tendency is for the index finger to settle right on the trigger. In that case, all I need to do is startle that person, which leads to them flinching, which leads to the trigger being pulled, and an ND. Now you’ve got a hole in something you didn’t want a hole in. Stupid and irresponsible, but wholly preventable.

2. Not knowing your target and what’s beyond it. Shooting at noises, shooting into the dark, and keeping your finger on the trigger while sweeping through the house… these are things that get your teenage son shot as he’s sneaking back into the house at 2am. Using flashlights, installing floodlights in their home, and looking before they shot; these would have prevented this type of “bad shoot”.

3. A gun is left somewhere that kids can get to it. I’ve discussed this above; get a safe. Use it.

4. Poor maintenance procedures, or insufficient knowledge of the weapon. If you own a gun, you need to know how to completely clear it, and how to verify if it’s empty. You need to know enough about your gun to realize that even if you drop the magazine out, it still might have a bullet in the chamber. You need to develop good cleaning and disassembly habits, always checking to be sure the chamber is clear before you break your weapon down to clean it. For example, a key step in breaking down a Glock pistol is pointing the gun in a safe direction and pulling the trigger. If the gun has a round in the chamber, it will fire. Seems pretty obvious that you should triple check to make sure there’s no round in the chamber, right? But you would be surprised how common this type of ND is. Most are nonlethal, but some aren’t.

I would argue that ALL preventable deaths by firearms are a direct result of insufficient training or bad habits. But rather than try to pass legislation restricting what your rifle can look like or how many rounds your gun can hold, I think it’s much more effective to require proper training. Not surprisingly, most states that issue concealed weapons permits require several hours of training, and a test before issuing said permit. You need training and practice to drive a car safely, and you need training and practice to use a gun safely. See where I’m going with this?

Regarding the actual murders-with-guns issue, one person killing another person with a gun in a non-defensive situation is a crime regardless of whether or not the gun was legally purchased. At least, murder was a prosecutable crime last time I checked. Criminals aren’t really known for following the rules, you know. So the cliché’d argument goes, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” But that’s really just a side issue here.

Patrick,

I’ll try to address each point in turn.

One of the main problems with that article isn’t that the figure “43 to 1″ should be interpreted as “6 to 1″ or “2 to 1″, but rather that the number on the left is criminal AND negligent homicides, and the one on the right is justifiable homicides. Reducing the number of negligent homicides would significantly lower that ratio. Another major problem I can see is that the study only mentions homicides, and not incidents where one or both parties were shot but not killed, or incidents where a firearm was displayed and not used (the latter of which I’m not too keen on, as I believe a weapon should only be displayed if it will be used). Ignoring the latter, regardless of what you might see on TV and in movies, most gunshots are not immediately fatal. A gunshot will be fatal if it destroys major nerve tissue (brain and/or spinal injury), disables vital organs (heart, lungs), or causes massive blood loss. A gunshot to a lung is not immediately fatal; assuming the person gets medical attention quickly, a collapsed lung is treatable. The same is true with blood loss, assuming a major blood vessel is not severed. That’s not to say the person who got shot won’t be in a lot of pain, or unable to move. But “finishing off” a criminal while he’s on the ground isn’t a legal option for the victim of a rape or robbery, and if the victim doesn’t call for an ambulance immediately a lawsuit would be inevitable. Finally, I would argue that the sample size is far too small to be representative of the United States. Read the bottom of your Wikipedia link for a more thorough list of objections; they all hold water.

As for the issue of whether or not legislating greater training requirements helps, I can’t provide any formal studies either way. For every state, the requirements for a concealed carry permit do not necessarily extend to each and every gun owner; they certainly don’t extend to long guns (i.e. hunting rifles and shotguns) and those who choose to only keep a handgun in their own homes. This means that even if you were to do a study of NDs per state and look at legislation for carry permits in each state, you wouldn’t be getting the whole picture. I can only suppose that people with better training and better habits are safer around guns, and that’s my personal opinion. But I think a lot of people, both gun owners and otherwise, would agree that it’s common sense.

Your other paragraphs dealt with murders involving legally purchased firearms. It seems that your argument is that should firearms be completely outlawed, your average Joe who suffers from road rage won’t have a gun to unleash his fury with, and will be forced to resort to a lesser instrument, such as a tire iron, or simply his fists. I will admit that a gun is a weapon, designed to injure and kill, and when wielded by a determined will it can do both very effectively. But it might give Joe some pause if he thinks the other guy (let’s call him Bill) might also be carrying a gun. Perhaps in his heated rage the thought won’t cross his mind. But the possibility is there, both for the thought and the action; the other guy can legally defend himself with equal force if necessary.

On the other hand, if guns are completely outlawed, there’s still a distinct possibility Joe might still have a gun. (I’ll discuss why in the next paragraph.) Hey, if he doesn’t, great, one less road rage fatality. But if Joe has a gun, then by definition he’s a criminal of some sort. In this scenario there’s no potential check on Joe’s rage. Joe can go Rambo on Bill without fear, because he can be confident Bill is unarmed.

So how did Joe get a gun? Well, this is America, and before the hypothetical gun ban went through, there were quite a few guns already out there. Let’s say there were 192 million, to quote a gun-control website. Then the ban was passed, and not all of the guns were turned in. Furthermore, some people were illicitly manufacturing ammunition and selling it on a new black market. (With a supply of metal, gunpowder, and primers it’s trivial to make ammo off a home press.) And there were still guns and ammo pouring in from Mexico. The point I’m trying to make is that even if you were to completely ban all guns in America, it would be a logistical and fiscal nightmare to get even half of those guns off the street. Even if you managed to get rid of them all, there’s a large border with Mexico, a large border with Canada, and a lot of ships coming in and out. You can bet that someone with enough desire to do so could smuggle weapons in, just like drugs. And thus your neighborhood thugs would still be armed with illegal firearms, just as they are today. You’d wind up with an imbalance of power, a disparity of force: criminals with guns, and law-abiding folks with tire irons. To add insult to injury, we’d be paying taxes to try to stop them.

In the UK it’s not as big of a deal, seeing as there weren’t a lot of handguns to start with, and it’s a pretty small country with no land borders. But even years after the UK’s ban on handguns, there are still gun related deaths there. I guess there must still be some weapons tucked away, or some leaking through the border.

Anyway, I’ll state again my argument for clarity: I think that better training for individuals who own guns would be both more practical and more effective than trying to ban all guns in the US. Completely preventing firearms murders is perhaps an unreasonable goal, but we can reduce the bulk of them.