The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Americans Own Over 415 Million Firearms,"
"consisting of approximately 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns." There are also estimates of AR-15 ownership and ownership of magazines that hold over 10 rounds (which some state laws classify as "large-capacity").
There's a new survey aimed at determining patterns of gun ownership and defensive gun use, from Prof. William English at the Georgetown University. It's much larger than most other such surveys, with over 54,000 adult American respondents, of whom over 16,700 personally owned guns.
It measures some things that others have already measured—for instance, its estimate of the adult firearms ownership rate, 32%, is on par with other surveys. (Some other surveys also try to estimate what fraction of households contains at least one gun; this one didn't, though in response to my e-mail Prof. English wrote, "the individual gun ownership estimates are very much in line with other recent surveys that asked about ownership at the individual level; and some of these also asked about household ownership (Pew, Gallup), generally finding household rates in the 42-44% range.") But the survey also gives us some data that has rarely been gathered before, including (items reordered):
- "Overall, Americans own in excess of 415 million firearms, consisting of approximately 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns."
- "30.2% of gun owners, about 24.6 million people, have owned an AR-15 or similarly
styled rifle, and up to 44 million such rifles have been owned." - "48.0% of gun owners, about 39 million people, have owned magazines that hold over 10 rounds, and up to 542 million such magazines have been owned."
There's more interesting stuff in the survey, which I hope to report on in later posts. One general note: Surveys of course have various limitations, including that respondents might misreport information (deliberately or inadvertently), yielding either overcounts or undercounts. Still, for questions such as this, a well-designed survey is likely the best source of information. There is no centralized federal registry of gun owners, and few such registration requirements in the states; plus any such registry would likely be highly incomplete. Gun manufacturing, export, and import data can be a useful way to infer the total number of guns, but it has its own limitations. Perhaps because of this, surveys have long been a standard, though admittedly imperfect, way of estimating gun ownership rates and the like.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Americans admit to owning over 415 million firearms. I wouldn't count on people being honest with the survey takers.
That makes this very much a lower case estimate.
"I wouldn't count on people being honest with the survey takers."
Because spooky conspiracies, right?
BABY KILLERS!!!
GOBMINT GONNA TAKE MA WEAPON!!!
FASCIST, COMMIES!!!
GOBMINT DRONES!!!
apedad: A thought experiment: X owns a gun, but he's worried that maybe the paperwork isn't quite right. Maybe he bought it in a private purchase, and he's not sure whether there was a state universal background check requirement with which he might have failed to comply. Maybe he's not sure whether some state's retroactive "assault weapon" registration requirement applies to his gun. Or maybe he knows that he is legally disqualified from owning a gun (e.g., by a criminal conviction, even one very long ago).
Some organization approaches him to take a survey. He has no idea whether the organization might indeed be working with law enforcement. He recalls that there are periodic news stories about how law enforcement uses deceptive tactics -- however legitimate -- to, for instance, catch fugitives by offering them tickets to a football game or some such. He's a rational, non-spooky-conspiracy person, whether or not he speaks with a cartoonish supposed Southern or rural accent. But he still wants to avoid legal trouble.
Might he deny owning a gun, even if he does actually own it?
You’re the one who blogged this.
Now you’re saying But Hey! Maybe the data sucks because of confused, potential criminal!
Ok….
And you're not answering the question, are you?
What's the word I'm looking for? A synonym for a cat? Starts with "p"?
No, what he's saying is 415 million is just the tip of the iceberg.
And yeah some of us like to fly under the radar, I didn't even get counted in the census.
You won’t be missed after replacement
Rot in hell you pissant, pea brained troll, fuck off.
Are you going to wait to be replaced by your betters in the natural causes, you bigoted loser, or are you going to go "the full LaVoy?"
And you're the one who suggested that the only reason someone like Brett Bellmore might suggest that the 415 million figure is low is that he's a conspiracy theorist. Prof. Volokh presented a very rational (non-conspiratorial) explanation of reasons why survey responses might under-report gun ownership.
Yes, Prof. Volokh did post this. And in doing so, the stated explicitly that "Surveys of course have various limitations, including that respondents might misreport information (deliberately or inadvertently), yielding either overcounts or undercounts." So your suggestion that he's now walking back his post is (deliberately or inadvertently) bullshit.
lol, maybe he simply does not answer questions about whether he owns valuables when strangers call him up.
There is simply no way to verify the answers. Attempts to correct for bias are at best educated guesswork.
If the paperwork isn't quite right, a responsible adult would address that.
A gun owner? Maybe not.
You must have an utterly boring, insipid existence. I'd win the bet that you're an incel since birth and it's warped your mind.
Watch it with the references to incels . . . Prof. Volokh doesn't like it when people describe his target audience accurately.
And perhaps there's another gun owner, Y, who (being a gun owner) isn't actually that risk-averse, and indeed is proud to own guns. He recalls reading about these surveys in the past - like Brett here - and feels it's important not just to represent himself in the survey, but to over-represent himself. So he exaggerates in his responses to the survey-taker - claiming to own AR-15s when he doesn't, higher-capacity magazines than he does, using his firearms for "self-defense" more regularly than he does, etc.
We can lob hypotheticals back and forth all day. Put up the data, or shut up.
apedad: A thought experiment
If ever there were two things that didn't belong in the same breath....
Because lots of people routinely lie to survey takers about much less weighty issues.
It’s also why America has the lowest murder rate of all advanced countries. 😉
Do other advanced countries have 100 million "joggers?"
"advanced countries" is the liars way out because the liar can cherry pick whatever country he wants to make his lie appear real.
Brazil, Russia, Mexico, South Africa, and several others fall under your bigoted view.
You may not like limiting the comparison to "advanced countries" but there are legitimate reasons to compare the U.S. to similarly economically "advanced" and politically stable countries. Saying, well, Somalia has a higher murder rate doesn't really address the fact that the U.S. stands out for being the only "advanced" country that has a murder rate comparable to Somalia, Venezuela, etc.
Brazil is not politically stable and, unlike the United States, has large numbers of people living in abject poverty.
Russia is a autocratic kleptocracy with, again, lots of abject poverty and nowhere near the living standards of the United States. (Also, as recently shown, an incredibly weak military as compared to "advanced" countries. A mere 6 Himars and the fighting spirit and competence of Ukrainians appears to have turned the tide.
Mexico, South Africa, are also easily distinguished in important ways from the U.S., Japan, Western Europe, South Korea, etc. You might not like the term "advanced", but there is a group of nations that are different from most other countries in ways that lead to lower crime rates (and, or in consequence of, higher incomes/living standards).
A better argument is that the United States is in the "advanced" group, but it is much more similar to Brazil, Mexico, etc. in terms of wealth/income inequality. And the murder rate may be correlated to wealth and income inequality, rather than simply to wealth overall.
I still think the more than one gun per person has a lot to do with our abnormally high murder rate as compared to other countries with similar political stability and wealth. But the wealth inequality argument probably also plays a part.
Country : Gini Coeffecient : Intentional Homicide Rate
Brazil : 53.4 : 20.9
Russia : 37.5 : 7.3
Mexico : 45.4 : 28.4
South Africa : 63 : 33.5
United States : 41.4 : 6.3
All other "advanced" countries have a Gini coefficient less than 35 and homicide rate of less than 5 and generally less 1.
So, at least on this quick look, there is significant correlation between Gini coefficient (income inequality) and intentional homicide rate.
Of course, that isn't much help for conservatives. If you really want to do something about crime, and you think guns aren't the problem, then you need to come up with plans to ameliorate income and wealth inequality. And because I think that is more realistic than solving the gun problem, and it is a problem, I would be happy to see us all agree that income inequality is one of the most important problems we have because it affects crime and, I believe, our political stability.
(And my quick take is backed by more rigorous research:
Inequality—the gap between a society's richest and poorest—predicts murder rates better than any other variable, according to Martin Daly, a professor emeritus of psychology at McMaster University in Ontario, who has studied this connection for decades. It is more tightly tied to murder than straightforward poverty, for example, or drug abuse. And research conducted for the World Bank finds that both between and within countries, about half the variance in murder rates can be accounted for by looking at the most common measure of inequality, which is known as the Gini coefficient. Scientific American, 2018)
"So, at least on this quick look, there is significant correlation between Gini coefficient (income inequality) and intentional homicide rate."
Right. You conveniently forget that "correlation is not causation."
Here's another way to look at it pal. Most murders occur in urban areas run by Democrats. Ergo, by your causation logic, the problem is Democratic run cities, and so we should get rid of Democrats who run the places.
Right? Whose correlation is a better prospect for causation? Any guesses on that??
I do think mine is WAY better than yours, for a whole host of reasons I am sure, as apparently a left wing troll, you will probably cup your hands over your ears and say, " No, No, No!!"
Anyway, you don't deserve my insights, so why doncha go off and learn some real statistics, and THEN come back with your arguments.
Or, otherwise, as our British cousins would say, sod off.
I always tell people about my guns, my gold, my jewelry, and my other valuables. I also open carry the flashiest platinum diamond studded AK you could find at Shot 2022.
Of course to keep criminals away, I post "gun free zone" signs all over my neighborhood.
"consisting of approximately 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns."
For sure a well armed militia.
The Communist Chinese make do with only a couple million regular military types, and another half million reserves.
Of course, they actually do have F-15s. (equivalent)
Americans admit to owning over 415 million firearms.
...and growing every day!
We’re running better than a million new guns a month, and have been since Biden became President.
Gun nuts -- the kind of antisocial, obsolete losers who cheer when a country already saturated reports more guns -- are among my very favorite culture war casualties.
Hitching that political wagon to the losing side of the culture war and the wrong side of history will and should have consequences. Anti-abortion absolutists are positioned for a similar dose of that medicine.
See you down the road apiece, clingers.
These obese losers are not the ones shooting people for the most part. Quit blaming them.
Wow, no wonder Americans feel so much safer than us naive gunless idiots in the rest of the world.
Don't be so hard on yourself, at least you woke up to reality.
Well safer than Anne Frank living in Amsterdam, safer than a Bosnian family living in Srebrinica.
Comparing the US to a country under foreign military occupation and a country in the middle of a civil war seems apt...
us naive gunless idiots
You're downplaying your accomplishments. There are a lot of other things that make you an idiot.
"Your dead kid does not trump my freedom to play with real cool hardware with no impediment whatsoever."
How many "dead kids" or in fact dead anyone are the result of leagal gun owners?
The Uvalde shooter was a legal gun owner. I won't write here how many "dead kids or in fact dead anyone" were killed by this legal gun. Because you obviously need to learn how to read and accept facts that are from outside whatever little information bubble you have ensconced yourself in.
Start with that, anyway.
But how many?
...and you need to support your claim with more that one example. I never said that legal gun owners have never used a weapon to hurt or kill someone, but given the number of legal owners that number is exceedingly small.
There is not a lot of good data on this. So, people on all sides can make claims knowing that it is unlikely that facts will contradict them. Saying that "the number of legal owners" that "hurt or kill someone" is "exceeding small" is also imprecise to the point of being nearly impossible to support or refute.
From what I could find, it does seem to be supported that, nationally, the majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons obtained illegally, but there are caveats to that. One is that possessing or obtaining a gun legally in one state could be illegal in others. Some states do not require background checks for private sales or gifts or inheritance, some do. Some states prohibit only felons from owning guns, a few will prohibit those convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns as well.
It should also be noted, though, that even if most criminals get their guns illegally, the large number of guns in circulation certainly makes it easier for them to get guns. If fewer people possess guns legally, there are fewer opportunities for criminals to obtain them.
That's some logic. I guess not owning cars legally will cut down on car jackings and auto theft.
Punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is not an answer.
re: "If fewer people possess guns legally, there are fewer opportunities for criminals to obtain them."
If that hypothesis were true, then we should see a dearth of weapons in criminal hands in jurisdictions with the strictest weapons control laws. Instead, we see that criminals have no trouble getting illegal weapons in any jurisdiction. Given that we can't even keep illegal drugs out of prisons, it's no surprise that free societies can't manage prohibition anywhere else either.
Is there a jurisdiction with strict weapons control laws that isn't within easy traveling distance to a jurisdiction where weapons can be easily obtained?
Given that we can't even keep illegal drugs out of prisons, it's no surprise that free societies can't manage prohibition anywhere else either.
Skipped that part?
What do you mean, there isn't good data?
The DoJ (BJS) records exactly that data. More than 90% of violent firearm crimes are performed by people that did not legally own the gun they used. The exact number varies by year, of course, but it's pretty consistent.
This tracks with criminal surveys and interviews about possession, even for those not convicted of violent gun crimes.
What do you mean, there isn't good data?
He means there isn't any good data that he won't hand-wave away because it doesn't support his position (or outright contradicts it).
DOJ has figures on source of crime guns, and other interesting data. It's a bit old, but probably close to current numbers.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
"Saying that "the number of legal owners" that "hurt or kill someone" is "exceeding small" is also imprecise to the point of being nearly impossible to support or refute."
That statement itself is a bit imprecise, sure, because "exceedingly small" isn't rigorously defined.
What we can say with some confidence is that if you take violent crime committed with a gun, subtract the instances committed by illegal owners, the remainder if divided among legal gun owners would represent an "exceedingly small" rate of crime commission.
Estimates, based on cleared murders, are that about 94% of gun murders are committed with illegally owned guns. That leaves 6% of gun murders you can attribute to the legal owners. So we can say with a high degree of reliability that the firearms murder rate among legal gun owners is "exceedingly small", if by that you mean lower than the rate of all firearms murders any European country.
And your paranoia about guns does not Trump my right to keep and bear arms, in order to protect my right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To protect my right to protect my life and those of my loved ones, from the violent criminals streaming over our now nonexistent borders, or released without bail from many of our more progressive cities.
According to the data presented above, about 68% of adults DON’T own a weapon.
Perhaps you’re the paranoid one.
But you have enough paranoia to make up the difference.
What percentage of those adults are worthless apartment living liberals in cities like New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland?
Voting should be limited to people who own single family houses or farms, not apartments or condos.
Half-educated, roundly bigoted, superstitious, vote-suppressing hayseeds residing in our can't-keep-up backwaters are among my favorite culture war casualties -- and the target audience of this white, male blog, and the core constituency of the Republican Party.
The future can't get here fast enough for the liberal-libertarian mainstream. Clingers hardest hit.
Half-educated, roundly bigoted, superstitious, vote-suppressing hayseeds
Projecting what you are is standard for the lieberal proggie
You can just mute him. Your responses to him are exceedingly lame.
To steal a comment from Arthur, these are the people the Conspirators ally themselves with.
Which is why the Conspirators are not the type of faculty members strong law schools will want to ally themselves with.
Wait, these people in the survey are killing children?
Maybe they're all pro-abortion.
Orbital Mechanic: Say it's 1915, and someone is arguing in favor of banning alcohol, or even heavily regulating it (e.g., by banning distilled beverages, which are much higher in alcohol than beer and wine). Others oppose this, claiming that Prohibition would on balance do more harm than good (including, as part of the harm, interference with individual freedom).
Would it have been fair to characterize their argument as, "Your dead kid does not trump my freedom to drink real fun beverages with no impediment whatsoever"? Or might they have thought, for instance, that Prohibition might cause more deaths (and other harms) than it would prevent?
This post by the blog owner is astonishing in how unworthy it is of the blog owner. I hardly know where to start.
#1. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never advocated banning anything.
#2. Your analogy is inane. The production, sale, and consumption of alcohol never had anything whatever to do with acquiring the ability to perform mass murder. Alcohol (and other drugs) might induce someone to commit murder, but that is not the same as purchasing the product to do exactly that. Nobody shows up at a school or a disco to mow down the occupants with a beer keg.
#3 Here is what I am actually against. Gun fetishists who are actually a minority in this country (if the data is to believed), have conditioned our society to accept that NOTHING CAN BE DONE about what happens regularly here and nowhere else on earth. The slightest suggestion of any gun control whatever no matter how sensible is immediately met with furious backlash of "slippery slope" arguments and about the sanctity of their peculiar reading of the 2nd Amendment which was written when "rapid fire" was about one shot every 30 seconds. (With an assistant.)
I met a real gun fetishist who lives in Canada. Interesting guy to talk to. He owns a true arsenal and not just guns but all kinds of weapons. And he does that under a set of gun control laws that would make the Texan gun luvin boy pick up his skirts and run screaming from the room. But he is free to exercise his fetish and I have no problem with it whatever. Why? Because he is free in the way we in the U.S. are not free. He is free from being the victim of a mass shooting of which we have had over 300 in the U.S. this year alone. As is everyone else there.
Same for Japan. Same for Switzerland. Same for Australia. List all the countries.
And why are they free and we are not free? Because idiotic, specious, and diverting arguments in the U.S. carry the day.
10 people were just "mass" murdered in Canada by a dude with a knife. The deadliest school massacre in US history remains the Bath School massacre which was a bombing. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and gasoline in Oklahoma City.
Murderers will find a way.
Right. So doing nothing is the best thing. Let the carnage continue.
MADD would disagree with you about alcohol.
I wonder why.
MADD would disagree with you about gun control. They don't want their kids killed no matter the means.
I wonder why.
The level of reasoned debate you deserve is directly proportional to your ability to frame arguments without partisan diatribes.
Your knowledge of firearm history is equally poor.
I'd say Eugene's assumption about your point of view is entirely accurate; you just don't have the balls to admit it.
So nothing about the substance of what I wrote. Just maumau about civility and a proclamation of your superior probity. Very convincing.
Perhaps you are confident you will not ever have to confront parents who have lost their children to perfectly avoidable gun violence and present your magnificent knowledge of firearm history to explain why we can't avoid those kinds of deaths, but you just don't have the balls to admit it.
Nice racist comment you failed gun grabbing weasel. But pretty much what we've learned to expect from "Lefty" when they get too excited and are losing/have lost the debate.
The production, sale, and consumption of alcohol never had anything whatever to do with acquiring the ability to perform mass murder. Alcohol (and other drugs) might induce someone to commit murder, but that is not the same as purchasing the product to do exactly that. Nobody shows up at a school or a disco to mow down the occupants with a beer keg.
But there are many more deaths caused by alcohol in the United States than caused by guns. (According to the CDC, an average of 140,557 per year from excess alcohol consumption (https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=612EF325-9B55-442B-AE0C-789B06E3A8D5&R=C877B524-834A-47D5-964D-158FE519C894&M=DB4DAAC0-C9B3-4F92-91A5-A5781DA85B68&F=&D=), but only 45,222 from gun violence in 2020 (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html). Even if you deduct suicides (11,013) and homicides (8,462) from the alcohol figures, they still vastly outnumber the deaths from gun violence.
So the analogy is not "inane." If you want to argue that policymakers' failure to ban guns means they are prioritizing gun-owners' wishes over the lives of gun violence victims, then it's just as valid to argue that their failure to ban alcohol means they're prioritizing drinkers' wish to consume booze over the lives of those whose lives are snuffed because of that booze.
Death from excess alcohol consumption is not murder, any more than deaths from tobacco use or excess sugar consumption. Only with DUI induced vehicular manslaughter would there be any statistical comparison. (I doubt that there is any reliable data on homicides committed by people under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, thought that might factor into it as well.) Looking it up, the NHTSA listed 11,654 alcohol-impaired traffic deaths in 2020. The CDC data I found listed 19,384 homicides in 2020 using firearms, so it's not clear to me where your numbers for suicides and homicides came from.
And even in the case of drunk driving, the issue is irresponsibility, not murderous intent. That means that interventions other than blanket prohibition could make a significant impact. Libertarians might not be okay with technology in vehicles that check the driver's BAC before it would start, but at least that would be likely to be effective without hindering personal enjoyment of alcohol for everyone else.
Also of note is that traffic fatalities not involving alcohol-impaired drivers exceed drunk driving deaths by a factor of three. Suicides with firearms are a little higher than homicides, but both vastly exceed accidental death with firearms. Prohibiting alcohol (and being effective with it) would, at best, reduce traffic fatalities by around 25%. Firearm homicides make up 79% of all homicides in the U.S., and it is reasonable to think that a lack of access to firearms would substantially alter the rate of suicide as well. Firearms are highly lethal when used to attempt suicide (82.5%) and requires no advanced planning if a firearm is already present in the home, and the other most commonly used methods of suicide attempts allow for the possibility of rescue or for the person to change their mind mid-attempt. For instance, a person that takes pills or slashes their wrists can call for help. There's no calling for help after pulling a trigger.
I am also not advocating gun prohibition. I own 3 myself. (A 9mm pistol, a .22 pistol and rifle for target practice.) But I do not believe that reducing gun violence, and suicide risk, for that matter, is an all-or-nothing proposition when it comes to private gun ownership, nor will I close my eyes to the facts when considering regulation.
No, death from excessive alcohol consumption isn't murder. Nor is suicide (i.e., the overwhelming number of gun deaths) murder. But it is death, and people who advocate gun control don't claim to be seeking to reduce murders; they claim to be seeking to reduce fatalities.
To clarify: They don't claim to be seeking to reduce murders only.
This is difficult for you I see so let me reiterate with simpler words.
Nobody buys alcohol with the intent of using it to commit mass murder.
Some people buy guns and particularly AR type weapons for the specific purpose of using it (them) to commit mass murder.
If you are unable to see that this critical attribute of these two issues require different regulatory policy approaches then there is nothing else to say.
I do not support banning either.
If "NOTHING CAN BE DONE" then why don't Vermont and New Hampshire have a problem? They have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. So why don't they have a problem with gun violence?
Maybe you can share it with us.
But you misattribute what I wrote before. I am not saying nothing can be done what I am saying is 2A fetishists insist nothing can be done. To them, implementing the slightest restriction on the purchase of firearms is a violation of constitutional rights and will absolutely not be tolerated.
This is a minority opinion if all polls on the topic are to be believed. But it is dominant with regard to what regulation or laws we get.
Um, he didn't say you did. He asked what if someone was advocating that.
What does that have to do with anything? A dead person is dead whether someone tried to kill him with a particular product or whether his death was merely the incidental effect of the product being sold.
Gun fetishist?
Here's the deal for the real statist/fascist you are.
YOU, YES YOU, and those like you, are one of the reasons the founders demanded and made absofuckinglutely sure that an amendment to the Constitution that restricted goobermint from interfering with the right of the people to keep and bear arms was included in a Bill of Rights.
Just to make sure that little tin horn, pea brained wanna-be tyrants who deep down inside their psyches, dreaming of running other people's lives, understand that they can be influenced to do nothing more than dream on...one way or the other.
You've precisely proved you're a wanna-be tyrant by your other commentary here, that you want to be exactly what I described you as, so no denials or backtrackings are possible.
Now, you have nothing personally to worry about from me, as I have no clue who you really are behind that moniker, and couldn;t really care less, but you can take it to the bank that someone you do know, knows exactly how you feel and following the Corleone dictum keeps their enemy closer than their friends. Who that might be, who one day might decide to influence your mind, you may never know. Keep that in mind, fat mouth.
These analogies fail because the primary function of a gun is to kill. That is what it is designed to do even if it is never used for that purpose. The same is not true of alcohol, or automobiles, or fertilizer and gasoline. It isn't even true of knives.
Arguably the primary function of alcohol is to kill. Ethanol is a poison produced by the decomposition of plant matter, fatal to microorganisms and in large doses, fatal to macroorganisms as well. Humans just happen to be one of those macroorganisms where the lethal dose of ethanol is very, very high.
This is why for millennia humans have used fermentation as a preservation method. Because it kills (other things).
It's a strange "primary function" that is a tiny minority of the actual uses, isn't it? Judging by actual usage, the primary function of most firearms is target shooting and hunting.
I said primary function, not primary use.
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Its primary function is to put out fires, but like most fire extinguishers (I hope) it will never be used for that purpose.
Yeah, you said primary function. But "function" isn't a property of inanimate objects. It's something the user assigns it.
Try this.
Party A: Buys an assault rifle. Gets medals as top target shooter.
Party B: Buys a concealed carry weapon. Ends up not getting mugged because of it.
Party C: Buys an AR. Has a plan to make headlines. And does but only for a short while because there is another Party C coming just a few days or weeks after. And one after that and after that.
The argument I push back against is that Party A and Party B have absolutely no responsibility for Party C and should suffer absolutely no inconvenience whatsoever (much less prohibition) to stop Party C from happening. A minority in this country have exactly that opinion. I reject that.
Yeah, you're a moral idiot, then. Just as much as if you applied the same reasoning to knives or baseball bats, or cars.
Alcohol makes life meaningful in a way guns do not.
This just tells me that you get more enjoyment from alcohol than from guns--i.e., it tells me more about you than it does about either alcohol or guns.
There is a more abiding theme at play. Alcohol is Dionysian and guns are Apollonian, alcohol is togetherness and guns are isolationist. Alcohol is bonobo society and guns are chimpanzee society.
Yep, and how many Bangladeshi's are going to drown because you want to keep your home warm winter?
Socialist mantra: Punish everyone because of one bad actor. Pay everyone the same regardless of work ethic. Reward laziness and criminal behavior, damn productive members of society.
Before WWII, my grandfather was in N. China and Manchuria (near the border with Russia) for 35 years; and when the Japanese began their predation against China, a local German "befriended" him. He showed his hunting guns to the German; and the next thing he knew, the Japanese were at his door pointing rifles at him. They came on horseback and in uniforms and confiscated all his guns and ammunition, sometime shortly before Pearl Harbor. He and my grandmother "snuck" into Siberia, and out of China just in the nick of time. He was a missionary and wrote a book.
Maybe Trump just arrived in VA/DC to purchase a weapon.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-visit-dc-arrest-doj-golf-1741915?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1662974633
Yeah, let’s make everything about Trump. I wonder why he just won’t go away.
Equally likely, Democrats gave up hiding the truth and he's come to take the oath of office.
Good luck trying to purchase a weapon (legally) in D.C.
Quotes from Lindy Li, George Conway, Seth Abrahamson, Palmer Report!
Its an avalanche of crazy.
He owns a golf course in Virginia where there is an event happening. He's out enjoying his life while he is in between gigs.
How many times can he be frog marched in your mind before he's actually frog marched?
Nah, that was Hunter Biden, before he ditched it in a trash can next to a school.
Wow you just made an illegal comment, the FBI will be raiding your home with CNN cameras soon.
Technically, I believe it was his sister who ditched it, he "just" illegally bought it in the first place.
830 million = twice as good
1 billion 660 million = four times as good
Working on it. You can thank Democrat politicians in numerous cities and states who fail to enforce the laws intended to protect citizens from violent criminals.
If one inherits a firearm (rifle, handgun), is there a legal obligation to report this to law enforcement?
Depends on the type of gun, and the state you live in, but generally no.
There should be. And, eventually, there will be.
Hold on and hold out (or is it stand back and stand by) as much as you like, clingers. But unless you figure a way to make your stale, ugly conservative thinking more popular in America, prepare to comply with the preferences of other (mainstream) Americans.
(You will always get to whimper about it, even after progress has been implemented.)
Most things are progress. Jumping on the Hitler Stalin bandwagon to outlaw guns is not.
Ukrain screamed for guns, starting with rifles, for its troops.
The nost popular movie this year was RRR, a movie whose background was getting guns into the hands of Indians so they could resist the British, who had made it illegal.
These are not anachronisms of 200 years ago, no matter how much the idiot writer at the Simpsons feeds it into Lisa's mouth.
?????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRR_(film)
Sorry; my comment wasn't clear. I know it's an Indian movie; I was questioning the "most popular movie this year" claim.
Although to be honest this is a more fun way to understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9K3nj_v8xU
"'RRR' ... is now ranked among the top ten movies on Netflix in 17 countries.'" 16 Jun 2022
Really popular in the US and India.
"Most popular" depends on locale, I suppose.
I do not wish to outlaw guns.
I believe the Constitution (although not necessarily the Second Amendment, consequent to the unseemly linguistic gymnastics required to reach the conclusion) entitles an American to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home. I hope the predictable, deserved backlash against gun nuttery does not overrun that right.
I also support reasonable gun safety laws.
In other words, to the obsolete losers who constitute this white, male, right-wing blog's core audience, I am a godless commie gun-grabber.
(Just like John Wayne, when he collected the yahoos' guns as they reached town and held them in safekeeping until the yahoos slept it off or left town.)
Carry on, clinger. Guys like me will let you know just how far and how long, though.
Arthur, I don't think we are worlds apart. Tell me, what is a reasonable firearm? POTUS Trump did away with bump stocks (in an unconstitutional manner, I might add), so emulating an automatic is out. In your mind, what is reasonable?
"Reasonable" is a term of art that comes from before the Heller decision when anti-gun courts demanded that gun laws follow a "reasonable regulation" standard, which made it easy to prohibit guns. Arthur just kept using the term after Heller.
Reasonable is an important word for lawyers. If you do not wish to take my word for it, ask any educated person. If you can find one in your community.
For self-defense in the home, most pistols seem reasonable. A shotgun is reasonable. Some rifles.
Arthur, would you prohibit guns on a model by model basis, or by specific functionality of the gun?
I would note we are not worlds apart on self-defense in one's home.
How would those two standards differ?
If you go strictly by firearm functionality, model is irrelevant, and it is objectively verifiable. The functionality is there, or it is not.
If you go model by model, it is easy to tweak something and change the model. That would defeat the purpose, right?
I have no strong opinion in that regard. Perhaps a system similar to that governing motor vehicles (which are lawfully operated on public streets, which are not) would be appropriate.
Just when one thinks you've reached 'peak stupid', Rev you surpass all expectations!
Good job!!!
You get to whine and rant about it as much as you like, loser, but guys like me will continue to establish the rules that guys like you must comply with for so long as we are alive.
Being a bigoted, downscale, obsolete culture war casualty imposes that consequence on every Republican right-winger.
So open wider, clinger.
Or not.
Your comfort is a receding concern among your betters.
Well....potentially two handguns and two rifles. NJ.
Incidentally, applied for your CA permit yet?
No time like the present.
USA! USA! USA!
[not ironically]
Were Joe and Hunter Biden included in the count?
""Americans Own Over 415 Million Firearms,""
And? America is a rich country, that is also relatively rural compared to other rich countries (like Germany, Japan, and England). Having a higher rural population/area lead to a higher percentage of households having firearms. For fun, look at a map of household ownership of firearms by county, and where most are.
Moreover, guns should be thought of as a tool. Because that's what they are in many places. It's not uncommon to have more than one variety of a tool. For example, in Australia the average firearm owner has 4 different firearms.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
Stats like this are not uncommon. For example, the average boat-owning household owns an average of 1.8 boats.
If you want to have real fun, consider the number of shovels owned in America, and the average number of shovels per household. Currently, I have about 10 shovels.
" Having a higher rural population/area lead to a higher percentage of households having firearms. "
Fortunately, those rural areas are failing and emptying. Increasingly, the depleted human residue remaining in those desolate stretches can't afford much more than the handful of street pills needed to get throughout another desolate day in rural America.
There is so much human shit on the streets of Democrat San Francisco that someone wrote an app to map it out so you could avoid it.
Do you know of any rural areas that have apps that map the human shit in the streets?
In rural areas, regular street maps do the trick.
“There is no centralized federal registry of gun owners …”
There is no centralized federal registry of gun owners so far!
Mexico has a central registry of 3 million legal civilian caliber* firearms. You must apply to the Mexican Army for permission to purchase, and travel to Mexico City to pick up the gun at the Mexican Army run store.
For an international small arms survey, a Mexican security consultant estimated 40 million unregistered civilian caliber guns and 12 million unregistered military caliber guns in circulation in Mexico.
Mexico has 3 million centrally registered civilian guns.
Mexico has 52 million unregistered guns in circulation.
* (MIlitary caliber is any caliber adopted by the Mexican military, such as 9mm. The goal was to prevent Mexican revolutionaries from stealing ammo from military/police arsenals. Which made the more powerful .38 Super populat in Mexico.)
Not to mention that Mexico has a much higher firearms homicide rate than the U.S. (16.5 per 100,000 vs. 4.2)
I got some funny looks in the 90s when friends would argue that all civilian guns should be banned and that would prevent gun violence and I would reply that, because so much gun violence at that time was drug related, I thought most addictive drugs should be banned and, therefore, there would be no such drugs would be in circulation and all that drug related gun violence prevented. Many of my friends used such drugs and didn't get the irony. Street crime arises mostly from other illegal activities like drug importation and distribution. To think that banning legal gun ownership would prevent people who deal in dangerous illegal activity from importing and distributing guns along with their drugs is irrational. People who conduct their business outside the law (and, tragically, the people who live in areas frequented by such people) NEED guns to stay ahead or even with their competitors. The will always be a black market for any banned material when there is a need for it. New York's virtual ban on carrying firearms anywhere outside the home went into effect September 1. Will violent street crime abate? I don't think so.
Which one of this blog's regular commenters is Igor Lanis? Anyone know his screen name?
How about Matthew Taylor Coleman? He probably has not posted in a while.
(That "serpent DNA" stuff seems odd even for QAnon-class losers.
How and why do so many right-wingers fall for this silly shit?)
If you're a Trump supporter, I hope you're arming yourselves. The Democrat FBI is pulling out all the stops to interfere in our elections and they are going to start killing people soon.
These are your peeps, Volokh Conspirators. This is why your law schools would prefer that you leave — except George Mason and South Texas. And Berkeley probably just hopes for a formal — rather than de facto — departure.
(Departure from this white, male, wingnut blog, not a departure from the faculty. Prof. Kerr isn't doing himself or his reputation any favors by clinging to his Conspiratorship, but I doubt his dean wants to be rid of him.)
If someone called, came to my door, or even sent a letter asking me if I owned any firearms I would just ignore it figuring the data was either being procured by the FBI through a third party or would eventually be highjacked by the government for illicit gun confiscation purposes. No joking in that probably 25% of gun owners would do the exact same thing, if that percentage is indeed not closer to 50%. The other 25-50% would just say "no" and hang up.
When your betters arrange a gun registration system, I hope you comply. If you do not, I hope you are imprisoned. An incarcerated gun nut is a good gun nut.
When your (actual) betters arrange a leftist American hating registration and identification system I hope you comply or are imprisoned. An incarcerated leftist American-hater is a good left American-hater.
You really can't see the predictable course of the American culture war? That seems especially stupid, even by Volokh Conspiracy fan standards.
Maybe if we had a national firearms registration and licensing regime we would know how many guns are sloshing around in the US like the fetid deadly sewage that most of them are *(cue rancid 2nd amendment gibberish from other commenters)*
Households in the U.S. : ~ 122 million. (census)
Gun-owning households (allegedly): ~ 43% = ~ 52 million
People in U.S.: 331 million; 258 million adults.
Gun-owning people (allegedly): 32% (among adults) = ~ 83 million adult gun owners.
Guns in the U.S. (allegedly): > 415 million
SO:
Average guns owned per adult gun owner: ~ 5 each
Average guns owned per gun-owning household: ~ 8
Left for speculation: how would those figures differ if median and modal statistics were available, instead of averages.
But, gun-owning households are allegedly ~ 34% more common than gun owning people, which seems peculiar, especially given the unavoidable inference that many if not most gun owning households feature multiple gun owners.
Thus, the data are internally inconsistent, and probably misreported on purpose by the responders, who of course could not collectively co-ordinate their lies to deliver consistency.
NEXT:
< 14% of defensive gun uses occur in public places or at workplaces. All others are in the home, or on the owner's property (survey).
There is no standard given for conduct constituting a threat; the subjective opinion of the reporter is the standard. That raises a question how frequent are reported defensive gun uses involving perceived threats of domestic violence, by mutual householders, armed against each other?
ALSO:
The survey reports 171 million handguns, and 244 million long guns (counting rifles and shotguns together). Other sources report that crime gun use involves handguns, almost to the exclusion of other types—but nevertheless, only a small minority of handguns are ever used for criminal purposes. (How large that small minority actually is would be a worthy topic for a different discussion).
It follows that at least in the home long guns used for defensive purposes probably outnumber pistols used for criminal purposes by a very large margin, and may also outnumber pistols used for legal defensive purposes. At a minimum—taking this survey's gun-type distribution as accurate for the sake of discussion—long guns must figure notably in defensive gun use. An inference is thus available that if pistols are preferred for crime, and long guns are adequate or even preferred for legal defensive purposes, then wise gun policy might outlaw pistols, but support long guns.
Left unexplored is the question whether many of these reported defensive gun uses do not correspond to actual threats of any kind. A respondent in an uneasy domestic relationship may think, "If my partner is armed, maybe I had better be armed, too," and then report purchase of a gun as a defensive gun use. The same reasoning might apply in the cases of armed neighbors, armed occasional associates, and dangerous neighborhoods more generally. Nothing in the survey can tell us whether that is mainly what is being reported:
"Why did you buy that gun?"
"I bought it for defensive use."
"Where was the defensive use?"
"In my home, or on my property."
There really is no way to know what to make of a survey conducted this way. The major question it suggests? What was the purpose for doing the survey? Even knowing that answer would not prove particularly helpful.
What better gun policy requires and currently does not get is data distinguishing guns by types, relating gun prevalence to the frequency of gunshot injuries and deaths. Even if such data were systematically flawed, but collected by uniform methods across all localities, they would provide useful information. For instance, using as proxies for all defensive gun uses only the claimed defensive incidents which resulted in personal injury or death, and thus got reliable and potentially uniform reporting, would provide information far more useful than this survey to guide wise gun policy.
Given the durability of the gun controversy, and its obvious public importance, everyone who genuinely cares about the role of guns in our society should put gun regulation issues aside for now, and advocate instead for useful data. That is the urgent need, which if supplied could lead to a durable, and mostly mutually acceptable resolution of this nation's gun policy controversies. I get that it would not satisfy the cranks, whose responses on this blog tend to outnumber the others.
"But, gun-owning households are allegedly ~ 34% more common than gun owning people, which seems peculiar, especially given the unavoidable inference that many if not most gun owning households feature multiple gun owners."
You really didn't think deeply about this, did you? As in, you didn't actually run any calculations, you just said, "That looks odd, must be fake." Did you consider that gun ownership by women is less common than by men? Or that households often include minors?
Bellmore, there are not any valid data. There are no calculations to run. But we can speculate, and you seem to be speculating backward.
The more gun-owning people you pack into a gun-owning household, the fewer gun-owning households you need to account for all the gun owners. As long as every gun-owning household is not host to only one gun owner, there will always be more gun owners than there will be gun-owning households. If there are more gun-owning households as a percent of all households than there are gun-owning people as a percent of all people, that seems to suggest a paradox, as you apparently noticed.
I suppose there is some way you could account for it, not that you mentioned it. Conceivably there could be a pattern in which gun ownership predominantly occurs in single-person households, for instance. And multi-person households were notably less likely to include any gun owners. If that happened, it might allow fewer gun owners to run more households than their percentage of the population seems to suggest. But nobody has shown anything like that has been measured.
I suppose I should probably be cautious. The full study is not available to me. If this is some kind of research masterpiece and I just mistakenly relied on a bad summary, then my bad for not withholding judgment.
"If there are more gun-owning households as a percent of all households than there are gun-owning people as a percent of all people, that seems to suggest a paradox, as you apparently noticed."
It suggests no paradox at all, it merely suggests that you're innumerate. Or, to be generous, just not very good at math.
Imagine there are 200 people, half of them own guns, 50%. Just a simplified example.
If all the gun owners marry each other, and the non-owners don't marry at all, you have 150 households, and 50 gun owning households, 33% of the households own guns despite half the people owning guns.
If all the gun owners stay single, and the non-owners marry each other, 150 households, and 67% of them are gun owning.
Now marry them totally at random, you have 100 households, and 75% of those households own guns.
If all the gun owners marry non-gun owners, you have 100 households, and 100% of them are gun owning.
So, in our simplified example, half the people owning guns is compatible with anything between a third and all of households owning guns, depending on how things shake out.
32% of adults owning guns, and 43% of households? Easily possible, not the slightest bit paradoxical.
Let's go with some real world numbers. There are 123M households in America, 258M adults.
Assuming people marry totally at random, you'd have about 66M married gun owning households, and 4M single gun owning households. (Simplifying assumption, households are all two adults. I'm not going to the trouble to get more realistic numbers on that.)
That's 70M gun owning households out of 123M, 57%, not 43%.
43% of households is trivially between 32% and 57%. From this we can deduce that gun owners are more likely than random chance to be married to each other, but many households have just one gun owner.
I don't see why we need better data when you just make up stuff anyway, inventing fake survey questions and then denigrating a "survey conducted this way."
Thank you SL, for continually showing the class that your critical thinking skills are sorely lacking. Brilliant!
If some surveyor asked me how many guns I own, I'd probably have to give a wrong answer, because being a dumb redneck, I can't count that high.
415 million +-?
Nearly 6 years ago, the late retired Special Forces Weapons Sergeant, Kevin 'Hognose' O'Brien, swagged it at well over 600 million, and showed his work
https://weaponsman.com/total-us-firearms-not-300-million-but-412-660-million/
The anti-gun/anti-civil rights/anti-Constitution/anti-American/pro-criminal contingent of scumbag domestic enemy commenters here can suck on it.
Instead, your betters will just continue to shove progress down the whining, bigoted, obsequious throats of conservative culture war casualties.
And you will comply, clinger.