Gun policy analysis thread.

[Chip]

I can't say why you don't believe me, other than the over the top descriptive language you use lends itself to a picture of you having a less than stable view on guns and their uses? Perhaps you are hoplophobic?

Hoplaphobic doesn't seem to be in the dictionary. NRA-speak?

Less than stable? I've been around guns since I was a kid, but I never liked them much. I hunted for many years, with my wife, and still have a .270 and a .22 pistol for giving the coup de grace to deer that get hit on the highway by drunks in speeding pickups and cattle trucks. No phobia that I can discern.

But I never bought or kept a gun for threatening or shooting other people.

I was also a range cop patrolling grazing allotments on horseback, dealing with gun-packing cowboys, sheepherders, and ranchers, for years, and never carried a gun. I did prevent several shootings over trespass and boundary disputes. I was also threatened many times for posting violations and assessing fines. But it seemed to me that carrying a handgun was more dangerous and psychologically damaging than going unarmed and trusting my wits and good judgement.

Weren't you the one who posted that the US military has a very small carbon footprint?

[Lloyd]

hoplophobia
noun
The fear of guns.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I've never carried a fire arm hike on the Appalachian Trail or other trails in the park. I have had close encounters with black bear and hogs, but never had a problem. Had a small fox follow me once. Current wisdom is that bear mace is more effective than a gun. Also a bear horn and loud whistle are effective, but I have never had to use any of these devices. I just walked on.

The January 6 Trumpian used bear mace and it appeared to be an effective way to attack others.

[Chip]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

[scottt]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.

[scottt]

I've never carried a fire arm hike on the Appalachian Trail or other trails in the park. I have had close encounters with black bear and hogs, but never had a problem. Had a small fox follow me once. Current wisdom is that bear mace is more effective than a gun. Also a bear horn and loud whistle are effective, but I have never had to use any of these devices. I just walked on.

The January 6 Trumpian used bear mace and it appeared to be an effective way to attack others.

I would probably opt for bear mace when bears are the major concern.

The use of mace and pepper spray offensively should have higher penalties. Anything that causes breathing issues is concerning.

[Lloyd]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.

I'm not north shore.
Based on the current laws, sure.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

Thanks for the info on bears, we have them in the area.


I find it interesting you call it a sick lust for guns. Reveals a lot about you. Could you give me an example of exaggerating threats? A threat to life is pretty bad on its own, isn't it?

[Chuck Naill]

I wrote a booK!!

[Chip]

Five books, actually.

[Lloyd]

Five books, actually.

The Pentateuch? Impressive!

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

Thanks for the info on bears, we have them in the area.


I find it interesting you call it a sick lust for guns. Reveals a lot about you. Could you give me an example of exaggerating threats? A threat to life is pretty bad on its own, isn't it?

What do you think are the chances that you will die from an assault? Death is serious, of course. The hyperbole is in exaggerating the likelihood that it will happen and that gun ownership significantly reduces the likelihood of injury to you or others. As a broad trend of greater and wider gun ownership has spread through America (or at least an increase of hundreds of millions of weapons among the citizenry), have murder and assault declined with a strong correlation?

[Chip]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.

Here's a very clear chart of gun ownership and gun deaths by state.



Here's another more recent chart:

[scottt]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.

I'm not north shore.
Based on the current laws, sure.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Apologies, I had assumed. Whereabouts are you?

[Chip]

Further note on bears: Besides learning how to read sign and avoiding areas used by bears, being able to tell the species of the bear is also vital.

The best reponse to a grizzly attack is to guard your face and head with your arms, curl in a ball, and go limp. Try not to make noises, gasp, etc.

With a black bear, you're better off to yell, scream, resist (punch the bear on the nose, hit it with a stick, etc.)

I've chased black bears out of a camp or away from a horse herd several times. Wouldn't try it with a griz.

[Lloyd]

Further note on bears: Besides learning how to read sign and avoiding areas used by bears, being able to tell the species of the bear is also vital.

The best reponse to a grizzly attack is to guard your face and head with your arms, curl in a ball, and go limp. Try not to make noises, gasp, etc.

With a black bear, you're better off to yell, scream, resist (punch the bear on the nose, hit it with a stick, etc.)

I've chased black bears out of a camp or away from a horse herd several times. Wouldn't try it with a griz.

I need to bookmark this so, when I'm being attacked, I can pull out my phone and look it up...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.

I'm not north shore.
Based on the current laws, sure.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Apologies, I had assumed. Whereabouts are you?

Around where rte 3 & Rte 495 meet.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.

Here's a very clear chart of gun ownership and gun deaths by state.



Here's another more recent chart:

The correlation coefficient of the first plot is too near zero to draw any conclusions. The second one (if accurate) IS shocking. Not the relationship (outliers aren't useful) but in the sheer number of guns per capita in the USA. I wonder which gets used more in the USA, guns or fountain pens...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

Thanks for the info on bears, we have them in the area.


I find it interesting you call it a sick lust for guns. Reveals a lot about you. Could you give me an example of exaggerating threats? A threat to life is pretty bad on its own, isn't it?

What do you think are the chances that you will die from an assault? Death is serious, of course. The hyperbole is in exaggerating the likelihood that it will happen and that gun ownership significantly reduces the likelihood of injury to you or others. As a broad trend of greater and wider gun ownership has spread through America (or at least an increase of hundreds of millions of weapons among the citizenry), have murder and assault declined with a strong correlation?

Great question. It depends on the intent of the assaulter, minus whatever defense you can provide, so to speak. If they are armed and I am unarmed, for the most part the ball is in their court. If both are armed, multiple variables come into play, and the best case is that the defender has a better chance of surviving. If the assaulter is unarmed and the defender is armed, chances of defense increase. I'm probably expressing it badly, but having a gun gives you a chance you did not previously have, and I will take whatever advantage I can in that situation. Wouldn't you? I certainly would not want to hope the person who chose to violate the law and assault me stops out of the goodness in their heart.

As for correlations, I think there is too much going on right now to make a determination. The past couple of years with the pandemic, summer of peaceful protests, reform of prosecution guidelines (no bail/revolving door), defunding of police and lack of confidence in police, especially with Uvalde, the number of purchases have skyrocketed. Some say more guns have caused more crime, others say the crimes caused many citizens to realize they can't count on government/police, with the resulting increase in personal ownership.

What are your thoughts?

[scottt]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.

Here's a very clear chart of gun ownership and gun deaths by state.



Here's another more recent chart:

The correlation coefficient of the first plot is too near zero to draw any conclusions. The second one (if accurate) IS shocking. Not the relationship (outliers aren't useful) but in the sheer number of guns per capita in the USA. I wonder which gets used more in the USA, guns or fountain pens...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That is one of the things people in the discussion have to realize, that America has a strong gun culture, and for many it is a part of their heritage. That makes it different from the other countries, so the comparisons are not as straight-forward as it might seem.