In This House We Believe in Keeping People Safe

Inspired by a New Year's Eve family trip to the shooting range.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

If this starts appearing in American homes it would be an almost comically horrifying illustration of our gun crazy culture.

[Brett Bellmore]

More a matter of our gun sane culture, actually.

Now if we can only get the laws regulating suppressors repealed. They do not, despite many movies to the contrary, "silence" guns. They merely reduce the noise level enough to prevent acute hearing damage. They're safety equipment.

Opposition to relegalizing them seems be be based on the theory that, "Maybe we can't stop you from owning guns, but we can at least make sure you go deaf as a result."

[Longtobefree]

What?

[santamonica811]

First LOL moment for me in 2024

[Macy's Window]

^+10

[SimonP]

More a matter of our gun sane culture, actually.

Certainly, there is such a thing as "responsible gun ownership." If you're going to keep these instruments of death in your home, it's wise to inculcate values that treat them as the serious and deadly instruments that they are, rather than as playthings or props.

But it may be more helpful to illustrate captcrisis's point if we were to think of an image like the OP being posted widely or proudly, when predicated of other, more lethal everyday risks. Imagine a version of the OP, for instance, but relating to car ownership/use, or to heart disease. Imagine a bumper sticker reading: "In this vehicle, we wear our seatbelts, regularly service our brakes and steering mechanism, drive the speed limit, etc." Or a sign for a home emphasizing the household's commitment to eating healthy and exercising daily.

We don't do that, because that would be kind of wacky, right? We all understand that driving recklessly and sedentary lifestyles aren't what's best for us, but we don't feel any particular need to extol our commitments to safe driving or healthy habits, much less use a prominent blog to remind readers that we recently drove or exercised.

Gun nuts are, in other words, kind of like the right's answer to veganism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Understand that vanishingly few gun owners would think there was any point to putting such a sign up in their houses, any more than car owners would put up your proposed sign.

You might put up such a sign at a gun range, just as yours might go up at a driving school.

[Rossami]

"instruments of death" such as most cleaners, power tools, your car, your kitchen knives, any half-sharpened pencil? Yes, they are all tools that should be treated with respect and care. No, they are no different from firearms.

This sign, by the way, appears to be an intentional parody (or maybe homage) to the these yard signs which are equally obvious and politically motivated. You just don't like the valence of the politics. Grow up.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"they are no different from firearms."

Only a half wit could say such a thing. Guns were invented to kill. Not so any of the other items. The primary purpose of guns is to kill. Not so any of the other items you list.

So, yes, guns are "instruments of death" in a sense that none of the other items you list are.

[Currentsitguy]

"Guns were invented to kill"

No, guns were invented to propel a projectile downrange at high velocity. Mine, for example, exist almost exclusively to put holes into targets or the occasional tree I felt particularly threatened by.

Some of the projectiles I have aren't even lethal. I keep some beanbag and pepperball shells for the shotgun for camping just in case I have a bear encounter that is too close for comfort.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"No, guns were invented to propel a projectile downrange at high velocity."

And why did people originally want to propel a projectile downrange at high velocity? To kill. Ergo, guns were invented to kill.

That you own guns that are not intended to be used to kill or that were designed for target shooting says nothing about the reason guns were invented in the first place.

Disputing that guns were invented to kill is moronic.

That you and 12 are so vexed on the point says a lot about how ideology and pet causes affect your relationship to facts and reasoning.

Everything you believe about gun rights can still be true even if guns were invented to kill. But the fact that you want to dispute whether guns were invented to kill indicates you are actually uncomfortable with the fact of what guns are. And so you dispute an unquestionable fact because of what you, apparently, think it entails.

It's an embarrassing position for you and 12 to be in.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's embarrassing is that you can't seem to understand that purpose is an attribute of beings with agency, not inanimate objects.

It literally does not matter that guns were originally invented to kill. Not even the tiniest bit. So were slingshots and bows, even boomerangs.

But, so freaking what? That doesn't matter even the tiniest bit. It entails nothing. So, why do you obsess about it?

Some of my guns were purchased to fill tin cans full of holes. Another was purchased to kill... deer.
Another to, yes, kill a human, if preserving my life ever required it.

But none of them have so much as moved on the shelf on their own initiative. The deer gun would not misfire if pointed at a tin can, the plinking gun would not refuse to fire if pointed at a burglar. The person killing gun has reliably put holes in paper.

Why? Because intention, purpose, is an attribute of people, not tools.

[Stella Link the dog]

"What’s embarrassing is that you can’t seem to understand that purpose is an attribute of beings with agency, not inanimate objects."

Obsess much, Rainman?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"What’s embarrassing is that you can’t seem to understand that purpose is an attribute of beings with agency, not inanimate objects."

Quote what I said that, in any way, suggests that I don't understand that.

Quite obviously, the comment I responded to appeared to take issue with describing guns as "instruments of death" and, very explicitly, said there was no difference between a gun and various household tools, vehicles, or cleaners. There is a difference. Once difference being the original purpose of and primary purpose of the other objects was not to kill.

I said nothing beyond that. The original point was stupid. There are obvious differences and guns are quite fairly described as "instruments of death" given the entire reason they were invented in the first place and their primary purpose (at least for 2nd Amendment purposes as absolutists interpret it).

After that, you all have been attributing to me ideas and beliefs you imagine I have because I acknowledged the reality that:

1. Guns were invented to kill.
2. The primary purpose of guns (the category) is to kill.

(Yes, there are exceptions in both types of guns and the owners of them, but guns for self-defense, hunting, police/military use, and preparing to overthrow the government all have as a primary purpose bestowing on the owner lethal force.)

The rest of what you spout is utterly unresponsive to anything I said.

[Macy's Window]

If guns have some metaphysical purpose to kill (people) — as opposed to being objects that can be used for a variety of purposes, depending on the intentions of a human — then why do only a vanishingly small fraction of guns ever achieve their purpose?

Why do considerably resources go into making objects that almost all fail in their purpose?

The answer is that guns have no “purpose” except for what people used them for.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'm not sure why a certain type of person apparently finds this "they fail in their purpose" a clever or convincing argument. It is neither.

I refer you to the nuclear weapons analogy. But for two examples, you would claim they fail in the purpose for which they were designed. And, yet, I don't think anyone really believes that. Nuclear weapons are designed to effectively decimate enemy soldiers, cities, infrastructure, etc. in a decisive manner. That is their primary purpose. The desired secondary effect is that, knowing a country has those weapons designed for very effective and catastrophic damage to one's own country, nations tend not to attack nations with nuclear weapons.

The same applies to guns. They were invented, most are designed, and their purpose is to kill. That most are not actually used to kill is irrelevant to their purpose and is not a failure to "achieve" their purpose. You are the one falling into the mistake Brett keeps warning against, you are anthropomorphizing guns. Gun owners (in the vast majority of cases) buy guys because they can kill (else, there are cheaper options that don't kill and plenty of non-lethal alternatives to guns if one wants personal protection, but the fact that guns can kill makes them, in the minds of buyers, more effective and hence desirable) and, usually, they desire the secondary effects of owning a weapon that can kill. For those whose jobs don't require them, most charitably, they are hoping for deterrence and sincerely hope never to use them for their designed purpose. There are less charitable explanations of the motives, but it's enough to note that almost all of them (except those of pure target shooters who don't own "personal defense" or hunting weapons) involve the necessity that the gun be designed for and effective in killing.

Your comment miscomprehends this entire conversation.

[SimonP]

Why? Because intention, purpose, is an attribute of people, not tools.

You're actually touching on a fun metaphysical question here. It's amusing, because while of course you're wrong about this, you're mistaken in a way that Aristotle could have explained to you, millennia ago.

Here is the puzzle you've raised. If it is true that "intention" and "purpose" are just mental states of people, then what does it mean to say that something is a tool? Doesn't something's being a "tool" necessarily imply a "purpose" for which it has been designed? Don't we evaluate the quality of a tool relative to its usefulness for achieving such a purpose, regardless of whether we have any intention of putting it to that use, or another one? Does a "tool" cease to be a "tool," when there is no one around to use it, or who knows how to use it? Does its "purpose" and status as a "tool" change if all knowledge of its most efficacious use is lost and it is used for something else?

All of the contortions that you and others are engaging in, in order to bizarrely avoid admitting that guns are deadly instruments, which ought to be obvious (and not intentionally pejorative, just FYI), can be dispensed with by asking simply this: What is a good gun? If you had a gun that was not capable of killing a human, a deer, or even punching a hole in a tin can, would it be a "good" gun? If someone asked you if you could sell them a gun, and you offered them that gun, do you think that you'd be selling them what they'd asked for? If they came to complain, would you do this prancing about, claiming that they never specified that they wanted a gun that could kill people, and intentions belong to entities with agency, or would you admit that you cheated them?

Seriously, Brett. This is the problem with you science-types. You think you know everything, or can handle any intellectual question, but fumble on the most basic philosophical concepts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Doesn’t something’s being a “tool” necessarily imply a “purpose” for which it has been designed?"

The rocks and branches that I've picked up and used as tools while camping say that's clearly not true.

[SimonP]

The rocks and branches that I’ve picked up and used as tools while camping say that’s clearly not true.

The fact that you've called them "rocks" and "branches" rather than "tools" (thereby conceding the point) shows, right on the face of it, that you're not capable of engaging at this level. You're playing semantics here.

You recognize that they're not "tools." You say it yourself: these rocks and branches are merely "used as tools." And implicit in the construct is a further concession to my point, which is that a rock or branch "as a tool" serves its purpose "as a tool" more or less well, independent of the subjective intention of any specified user. That is, whether a rock may serve more or less well "as a hammer" or "as an axe" depends on features that are independent of any person's "purpose" or "intention". If I were to show you a round rock and a rock with a sharp edge, and ask you which one is useful as an "axe," you would have no problem selecting the sharp one, even if no one in the vicinity has need of a rock-as-axe for chopping things.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, my position is that a tool is anything you use as a tool. It doesn't have to have been specifically designed or intended for that purpose, usage as a tool is what makes the tool.

All this emphasis on what a hunk of steel was originally designed or intended to do? It's barely better than animism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Guns were invented to kill. Not so any of the other items.”

Only a quarter-wit would say such a thing. Dynamite was invented for mining. That doesn’t make it more suitable to have around the house than guns.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That dynamite was invented for mining doesn't change the fact that guns were invented to kill.

That there are things that may be less suitable to have in the house than guns says nothing about whether guns were designed to kill

That you apparently think otherwise suggests you are a moron.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps, but the fact that you think that the purpose for which something was determines how it should be responsibly handled indicates that you are about as sharp as a marble.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Perhaps"

An admission that you are the quarter wit.

"but the fact that you think that the purpose for which something was determines how it should be responsibly handled"

If only I ever said such a thing, you would have a point. Only I didn't.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're the type of person that ignores the literal thing someone you support says to divine their "true meaning" (generally to render stupid or offensive comments reasonable or benign) and ignore the literal thing someone with whom (you think that) you disagree to divine their "true meaning" (generally to avoid admitting the truth and reasonableness of their actual point and instead skewer them, in your own mind, for idiocy which they never actually uttered or believed).

You'll less often reveal your analytical deficiencies if you engage with what people actually say rather than arguing what you imagine they maybe think.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That you apparently think otherwise suggests you are a moron.

I'd advise you to consider growing the hell up, but that has about as much chance of happening as I have of winning the Powerball.

[Scooter]

Less.

You actually have a CHANCE of winning the Powerball.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Is there anything more childish than chiming in to a thread to "me too" a juvenile ad hominem?

If there is, I'm sure you'll soon demonstrate it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Wuz calling into question anyone else's maturity is a pot/kettle situation. But I see you implicitly concede the point that guns were invented to kill and, for that reason alone, are categorically different from things like power tools, cars, and pencils.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But I see you implicitly concede the point that guns were invented to kill

I didn't concede anything, implicitly or otherwise, no matter what the voices in your head tell you. I didn't even comment on the subject. Besides, it's a an utterly pointless observation. What something was invented for is of zero importance.

and, for that reason alone, are categorically different from things like power tools, cars, and pencils.

Everything is different from everything else in some ways, and alike in others. But if scoring pedantry points continues to entertain you then by all mean, continue.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it is interesting that many people seem to have trouble admitting (mainly to themselves, I suspect) that most guns have been designed to kill people.

Technically, of course, they have been designed to "propel projectiles" in a controlled fashion, but that is certainly not the reason why they have been designed to do so.

Perhaps these people have internalized the specious notion that killing people (or threatening to do so) is always wrong? It is not always wrong, and for the vast majority of gun owners, the situation in which it might be wrong never arises. The vast majority of guns are used 100% lawfully, whether that is for hobbies, hunting or self-defense--or not used at all. Law enforcement uses guns exclusively for self-defense, of course, and only exceptionally do the police use them unlawfully (I hope that is still true, anyway).

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, it goes back and forth.

For instance, you had the . 50 Browning Machine Gun. Absolutely a tool for killing.

Sports enthusiasts adopted the cartridge for the sport of long range target shooting, and built precision rifles around it.

The military then, noticing that the resulting rifles had extreme range and accuracy, adopted them as sniper rifles, back to killing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

While it is true that the vast majority of guns are used 100% lawfully, it is also true that an alarmingly large minority of guns get used to shoot people. For pistols—based on the insight that all the pistols there are must account for all the pistol deaths and injuries inflicted—that figure seems to be in the range of 2–4%, with the variation depending on the value you choose for the service life of a pistol.

Note that a notable fraction of pistol owners own more than one pistol. Thus a corollary which seems mathematically beyond question is that among pistol owners generally, the likelihood that any one of them will shoot someone is surprisingly high. It must be even greater than the likelihood that any one of their pistols will be chosen to do it.

Note that the estimates mentioned excluded deaths by suicide. If those were included the shooting percentages would be higher, but not much higher. Most of the shootings reported are non-fatal injuries treated in hospitals.

[Brett Bellmore]

" it is also true that an alarmingly large minority of guns get used to shoot people. "

Of course, any fraction that are used to wrongfully shoot people is bigger than we'd like. I take it you're easily alarmed? Because the numbers per car are worse.

"Note that a notable fraction of pistol owners own more than one pistol. Thus a corollary which seems mathematically beyond question is that among pistol owners generally, the likelihood that any one of them will shoot someone is surprisingly high."

This is staggeringly illogical, it totally reverses causality. Pistols do not cause owners to shoot, owners cause pistols to shoot. So the probability of a pistol owner shooting somebody is not driven by the number of pistols they own.

You're treating guns like radioactive atoms, that just spontaneously shoot somebody with some probability, so the more guns you have, the more the likelihood that one of them will shoot somebody. To describe what you've done here is to refute it.

In reality, almost all wrongful shootings in this country are committed by a small minority of the population, habitual criminals. If you're not a member of that fraternity, the odds of you wrongfully shooting somebody are minuscule.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You do not understand the logic, but it is not illogical. And it is simple logic.

We can reframe the principle. All the pistol shooters there are must account for all the pistol injuries and deaths inflicted. Because some pistol owners own more than one pistol, there are fewer pistol owners than pistols. So mathematically, if x percent of pistols have been used to shoot someone, then x + increment percent of pistols owners have shot someone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you really ARE innumerate! How can I get this across so that somebody totally without any sense of mathematics would understand?

Let's use small numbers, that might help. Toy models can help people understand more complex systems.

Suppose there are 100 pistols, and on 5 occasions a pistol is used to shoot somebody. Does this really mean that 5% of pistols are used to shoot somebody?

Why, no, because you haven't considered that pistols can be fired more than once, so that it's entirely possible that all five occasions are accounted for by only one of them being fired, multiple times.

And, if there are 50 pistol owners, and five shootings, does this really mean that 10% of pistol owners shoot somebody?

Why, no, because you haven't considered that people can pull a trigger more than once, and it might be that only one of your pistol owners was guilty of all the shootings.

In other words, your math proved nothing at all, except that you're an idiot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, right after an ominous criminal type uses a gun to get rid of someone, what's the next thing he gets rid of? The gun. Not many folks are stupid enough to do what you describe—to shoot someone in a gun crime, and then hang onto the gun to shoot others, again and again. It could happen. But it will not happen in most cases.

These are rough estimates. But they cannot be improved if folks insist on basing them on stuff which is unlikely to happen.

[Absaroka]

"Not many folks are stupid enough to do what you describe—to shoot someone in a gun crime, and then hang onto the gun to shoot others, again and again"

It's common enough that New Jersey has a specific law against "community guns", defined as:

""community gun" means a firearm that is transferred among, between or within any association of two or more persons who, while possessing that firearm, engage in criminal activity or use it unlawfully against the person or property of another."

The Gray Lady knows about them.

And if you read e.g. police biographies, catching crooks with a gun that matches previous crimes isn't exactly rare. Of course, crooks do toss guns in rivers or whatever. They also just sell them to some other crook, or keep them themselves. Oddly enough, some criminals aren't rocket scientists.

[Armchair]

Just curious...is it possible for you to post without insulting someone?

Also, in regards to "The primary purpose of guns is to kill."

Guns seem to be doing a pretty bad job of their primary purpose then. There are nearly 400,000,000 civilian owned firearms in the US. You would think as a "primary purpose" they'd average more than 0.001 killings per firearm per year. I mean, think about it. Your average firearm hasn't actually killed anyone. Less than one in a hundred firearms are achieving their primary purpose. Your average automobile has killed more people than your average firearm in the US.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Just curious…is it possible for you to post without insulting someone?"

It is. But saying guns are no different than a screwdriver or power drill.....really?

"Guns seem to be doing a pretty bad job of their primary purpose then."

We should get rid of our nuclear weapons systems, I suppose, because they sure are bad at their primary purpose......

Sometimes, owning an instrument designed to kill other humans is useful in that it deters others from attacking and making it rational to use the weapon designed to kill. Funny how that works.

It doesn't change the fact that guns were invented to kill and, if modern guns weren't designed to be effective at killing, most people who own guns wouldn't own them, they'd choose something else.

(And I say this because I think we can put the vast majority of gun owners in the categories of military, police, self-defense, and hunters, all of whom that choose a gun are looking for something that kills effectively and easier than, basically, any other method that has the same portability/usabiilty, etc.).

But denying guns were invented to kill or that (the vast majority) are designed to kill is simply wrong and not terribly bright.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It is both wrong and irrelevant.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It’s certainly relevant to the claim I was disputing which was that guns are not different from half-sharpened pencils.

[Armchair]

You changed your argument.

You said the “primary purpose of guns was to kill”. But you didn’t defend that. You switched arguments to “guns were invented to kill”.

But in fact, you did chance upon the TRUE primary purpose of guns (especially from a civilian perspective). Their true purpose is deterrence or defense. The purpose isn’t to kill people. The true purpose is deterrence. Firearms allow a little old lady the ability to effectively defend herself against a big strong young man who would take advantage. Firearms allow for the majority of female police officers to be effective in violent situations. Not because they "will" kill. But the threat that they could.

To use your nuclear weapons analogy, nuclear weapons likely prevented a large scale was between the USSR and the US. Deterrence. Like firearms.

But to reiterate, you changed your argument. You argued the primary purpose of guns was to kill, but then couldn’t defend that, so changed to “were invented to kill”.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"You switched arguments to “guns were invented to kill”."

My original point was both they were invented to kill and their purpose was to kill. Several took issue with the invented to kill assertion. See Twelve and CurrentItGuy.

You've focused on the purpose. If you misconstrued my statement that the purpose of a gun is to kill is that everyone who buys one wants to kill someone, then I understand your confusion. That's pretty obviously not what I meant.

However, guns have deterrent effect and are chosen over non-lethal options precisely because they are designed to be effective at killing. They have no deterrent effect if they aren't good at killing.

Back to the MAD argument I made, which you embrace but fail to fully comprehend: Yes, the (second order) purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence, but the primary (first order) purpose is as a weapon that kills and destroys buildings and things. Nuclear weapons are designed to inflict devastating damage on enemy cities, soldiers, fortified defenses, and/or infrastructure. That's why they are a deterrent, because of their first order purpose.

Perhaps now you understand how I didn't ignore the purpose argument, but explained it to you in more detail.

If you persist in denying the purpose of guns is to kill, you are simply involved in semantics. Just as nuclear weapons are "weapons of mass destruction" despite rarely being used as weapons to cause mass destruction (they are mostly used for target practice!), guns are "instruments of death." Thanks for playing.

[Armchair]

"The purpose of guns is to kill"

Let's look at a hypothetical example. A criminal invades a person's home to assault them. The person defends themselves with a firearm, wounding the criminal in a way that prevents the assault, but doesn't kill the criminal.

Has the firearm been used for its intended purpose, despite not killing the criminal?

I would argue, yes it has been used for its intended purpose.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I see you are leaning hard into the semantics of this discussion which is entirely uninteresting.

As to whether it matters that the shot wasn’t fatal:

“Rule #2: Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.”

Why? Because guns are very good at, and in fact are designed for, killing. Being somewhat knowledgeable, I’m sure you’d agree self-defense experts do not recommend “aiming to wound.” You aim to kill. As Brett would say, the gun didn’t fail (unless it malfunctioned), rather the shooter did.

But more to the point, I noted previously that there are going to be some exceptions, but the majority of people being attacked are going to reach for, aim, and shoot their gun with the intent to kill. Just because a gun is one of the most effective handheld weapons with which to kill doesn’t mean it is easy to use or always effective. And, because most people are quite happy to achieve second order effects (no attack or attack thwarted) without killing anyone, yes, semantically, it was a success if the intruder was wounded. But that doesn’t change the general (primary) purpose of having the gun and shooting the gun at a person. That purpose is to kill. Else, you are in the minority and disregarding the advice of virtually every expert in the use of guns for self-defense.

You know all this, so I expect, again, you are just enamored of the semantic game you are playing. Dereck Wittenberg shoots, he misses, but Lorenzo Charles catches it and slams it home for the last second NCAA championship win. Did he fail in his purpose or not? He won. That’s what he and we his fans cared about. But, yes, he technically failed in his purpose (which pretty clearly was to make the shot). You play with those semantics if you want, but it doesn’t change either the fact that ultimately he wanted to win (good result, achieved his intended purpose!) or that he did miss the shot he intended to make (failed in his intended purpose!).

[Armchair]

You have the order of purpose reversed.

The purpose of firearms (for civilian use) is to dissuade an attack of an assailant, or failing that, to stop the attack of the assailant. Certainly a prompt fatality would cause that effect. But it is not essential to the purpose, it is secondary to it. If the firearm wounds the assailant in such a manner that the attack is stopped, it is entirely successful at its intended purpose.

On the other hand, a slow fatality which nevertheless allowed the assailant to continue the attack would be a failure in the primary purpose of the firearm.

The reason law enforcement individuals are encouraged to shoot center mass is not due to increased lethality, but because the chance of landing a shot is higher. A head shot would almost certainly be more fatal...but that's not recommended. And indeed, looking at firearm shootings, the majority result not in death, but in injury.

Again...primary purpose: Dissuade attack or incapacitate an attacker. Secondary purpose: lethality.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, use less statistical distortion. Annualizing your result is gratuitous under-reporting. Excluding injuries is gratuitous under-reporting.

What you profess to disclose is the danger of a gun which has a service life far longer than one year. See my comment directly above. It shows in the case of pistols how distorted are the annualized and injury-excluding figures so often cited. That, in turn, explains why gun apologists are either trying to fool themselves, or to fool everyone, when they insist that people wary of guns are irrationally afraid.

The fear is entirely rational. Given the number of guns in service, and given a many-decades service life for each gun, and given a toll of deaths and non-fatal injuries continuously accruing over a period of years, a thoughtful person comes to the accurate conclusion that there is an appreciable chance that lower-single-digit percentages of those guns will sooner-or-later be used to shoot someone.

The principle is simple to understand. All the guns there are must account for all the gunshot deaths and injuries which happen. Total the latter, and divide it by the former to get the percentage risk attributable to each gun. Choose a plausible gun service life to determine the length of the period to study.

The result is unequivocal. The irrationality is all on the side of those minimizing gun dangers, and referring only to annualized figures for fatalities to do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is phenomenally stupid. Really, there's no better word to describe it. Guns do not shoot themselves, they only shoot if a person pulls the trigger.

It is not a matter of crude statistics, it's a matter of the intent of the owner. You could double the number of guns in the country overnight, and have no reason to expect the rate of shootings to climb, because shootings are committed by people, not guns.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you posit that what has happened will not continue to happen.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

Your point is primarily an indictment of Armchair’s calculation, as he was calculating per gun, not per owner.

Given there are roughly 80M owners and 45,000 gun deaths (roughly) per year, the 80M owners (of course, that’s not static over 20 years, but roughly) cause roughly 900,000 deaths by gun over 20 years, that would entail that roughly 1.1% of gun owners will cause a death over the course of 20 years.

There are roughy 230M drivers and roughly 40,000 fatal crashes per year, so, oops, a gun owner is much more likely than a driver to kill someone. (Roughly, a 0.35% chance of a driver causing a fatal car accident over the course of 20 years which is less than a third the likelihood a gun owner will be responsible for a fatal shooting.)

Now, of course, all of these are very rough estimates and some gun owners are much more likely to be responsible for more deaths, mass shooters being one obvious example, and, yes, some gun fatalities are justified, but it’s doubtful these would amount to 2/3 of gun deaths such that the rates would be roughly similar. Further, the death by gun rate has been climbing (and the auto death rate decreasing), so the past 20 years would require significant adjustments to these numbers. But, by the same token, the future trend is looking worse and worse for guns as the death by gun rate is climbing. Perhaps it’s temporary, but then, the long term trend of automobile death rate is down, so the trend of the relative rates is still not good for guns.

But the point is that the narrative that automobiles are more dangerous than guns is silly. Add to that the utility of automobiles versus the utility of guns and the cost-benefit analysis is heavily, heavily skewed in favor of (highly regulated) automobiles versus (relatively unregulated) guns (which is also why, despite automobiles being much more expensive than guns, there are far more owners of automobiles than guns, they unquestionably provide greater utility to their owners).

Second Amendment absolutists should avoid making the automobile comparison at all costs.

(And my own caveat, Armchair invited this sort of statistical analysis. I don't think these sorts of rough estimates are very useful, but if you're going to use these kinds of rough estimates, at least make the right comparisons which, if as Brett claims, it should be deaths per gun owner, then it should be deaths per automobile driver (owner really, but let me not quibble too much).

[Brett Bellmore]

"that would entail that roughly 1.1% of gun owners will cause a death over the course of 20 years."

Except, of course, as you recognize, since people are capable of causing more than one death, it's going to be less than that, perhaps much less than that.

But setting that aside, the refusal to analyze this beyond "does or doesn't own a gun" represents a covert way of making the only independent variable capable of being considered gun ownership. Thus automatically driving the conclusion that gun ownership is "the" cause of shootings.

It would be like analyzing automotive deaths, and being utterly incurious about whether the driver had been drinking...

In reality, homicide statistics demonstrate that most murderers, (unlike most people) have criminal records. (Likewise for most murder victims, it should be noted.) See, for instance, Study: Vast Majority of Murder Suspects and Victims in Baltimore Have Criminal Records

This means that those gun owners who do not have criminal records, which is most of them, have a very reduced probability of shooting somebody indeed, relative to your crude calculation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

All true, so far as it goes. We agree, Armchair’s attempt at using statistics was really too crude for the task at hand, to the extent they are relevant. (See my caveat underscoring this point.)

I would quibble with you point about analyzing automotive deaths while being incurious whether the driver had been drinking. As you’ve previously pointed out, it’s neither automobiles nor alcohol that causes deaths by automobile, it is drivers’ choices (or insufficient skill perhaps artificially induced by the choice to drink alcohol, etc.). So you may want to inquire as to whether drivers had been drinking, but the statistic as to what percentage of drivers are likely to cause a fatal accident remain just that. You might be able to more finely dissect categories of drivers as having higher or lower risks, and probably should for many reasons. But it doesn’t invalidate the overall statistic.

Likewise for guns.

However, I assume (having seen no studies myself, but having common sense and knowing people with criminal records are much more likely to commit crimes than those who don't) that gun owners with criminal records are far more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting than those without criminal records. Which, of course, is evidence in favor of universal background checks, gun shows and private sales included.

But, again, I think we agree that the general calculation of deaths per gun owner (or gun, which is even worse), aren’t terribly useful for any purpose whatsoever. (Though, again, I’ll note, if you use that metric, as Armchair does, guns don’t fare well versus automobiles.)

[iowantwo]

Yet, guns are not even close to the leading cause of death.

[NOVA Lawyer]

True, but irrelevant.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I see you can spot irrelevance...

[Eggprd]

"Guns were invented to kill. " Agreed. In war they replaced crossbow bolts, arrows, and machines for throwing large rocks. So what? Why is their original purpose important to this discussion?

[BadLib]

I question

“instruments of death” such as most cleaners, power tools, your car, […] No, they are no different from firearms.

There is a substantial difference. It is far from clear that Second Amendment protection extends to my cordless drill just because it could be used as a weapon and can be carried by an individual.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Good point.

[SimonP]

No, [various household items with myriad practical uses besides shooting people] are no different from firearms.

Whatever you say, idiot.

This sign, by the way, appears to be an intentional parody ...

As I said in another comment, it took me a moment to infer this, because the yard signs you're speaking of occupy much less of my mental space than they apparently do in the minds of conservatives. You people are just obsessed.

[Voize]

 

No, they are no different from firearms.

Such a relief, that gun owners have no cause to object when their guns are swapped for half-sharpened pencils.

[grb]

SimonP : "....when predicated of other, more lethal everyday risks...."

It's a useful test to separate the utility of gun owernship from more nut-oriented extremes. Take the people who think they need to continually carry for "protection". Are they prepared to drag a cart behind them piled-high with all the things more likely to save themselves than a gun? Probably not, since few other things in the cart would rate as a fetish object.

Me? I've developed my own personal "Weedeater Standard". I live in the city and have no yard or landscaping, therefore need no weedeater. I can imagine elaborate fantasy scenarios where a weedeater might be suddenly & heroically essential, but what are the odds? Somebody might try to convince me a weedeater would make me more sexy or manly (like the hardy pioneers of yore), but who'd be fooled by that? I just don't need a weedeater. If people bought guns by the same logic they buy any other tool, there'd be millions upon millions less in circulation. And the country would be a much better place.

And making a faux-homey sign on the subject of guns is an absolute Nut-Thing, half-serious or not. My neice (who I stayed with at Xmas) has a good half-dozen of these homey signs, all built around the theme of a loving and happy household. A Nutter could definitely picture a list of gun pieties fitting right into that, even while knowing how absurd it would be.

It's just the way they think. When covid first became a thing, one of the Conspirators noted the run on toilet paper and guns. Being a Nut (or looking to pander thereof), he said those guns may prove the most essential purchase of all. I just laughed. Even piled to the ceiling, all that toilet paper eventually got (essentially) used. But Nut Ideologly relentlessly promotes the critical & essential importance of guns, often on the most wacky grounds.

[Michael Ejercito]

It’s a useful test to separate the utility of gun owernship from more nut-oriented extremes. Take the people who think they need to continually carry for “protection”. Are they prepared to drag a cart behind them piled-high with all the things more likely to save themselves than a gun? Probably not, since few other things in the cart would rate as a fetish object.

Does the Secret Service do that?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, they do

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Does the Secret Service do that?"

Do you think the average person is as likely to be attacked as a U.S. President? (6 out of 46 have actually been shot, with 4 killed, and 10 or so others have been shot at or someone intended to shoot at them but were thwarted or lost their nerve.) If so, then you have bigger problems than an internet comment board can help you with.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I can imagine elaborate fantasy scenarios where a weedeater might be suddenly & heroically essential, but what are the odds?

The stupidity of that analogy should be obvious to even a slow 3rd grader, though it's undoubtedly well beyond your feeble grasp.

[grb]

An awful lot of insults to cover-up your total absence of any point, Wuz. You should work on that.

Or leave everything precisely as is, given you make my point twice over. The scorn and incredulity of a Nutter shocked (shocked!) that anyone would look at guns the same way as any other tool is pretty damn telling. Like I say above, if people used the same criteria to buy guns as they do other tools, there’d be a shit-ton less guns sold every year. And we’d all be better off…

[grb]

(The edit command is working again!)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

An awful lot of insults to cover-up your total absence of any point, Wuz. You should work on that.

That you didn't understand the obvious point (the mind-numbing stupidity of your analogy) is evidence that you're the one who desperately needs to do some work. Here's another example:

The scorn and incredulity of a Nutter shocked (shocked!) that anyone would look at guns the same way as any other tool is pretty damn telling.

Anyone who thinks that the cost/benefit analysis for self-defense preparedness is even remotely akin to that for lawn maintenance because the implements involved can both be referred to as "tools" is so pathetically simple-minded that scorn is all that their idiotic rambling warrants.

[Harvey Mosley]

I've owned at least one gun continuously since I was five years old. Approaching my sixth decade on this planet not one of my guns has been used in a crime or an accidental shooting. If I owned less (or no) guns how exactly would we all "...all be better off…"?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, suppressors absolutely reduce noise levels dramatically, making it far harder for bystanders to be aware of a nearby shooter. I am surprised a self-described engineer would make your mistake.

You can figure it out mathematically. The decibel scale is logarithmic. There is for any sound a characteristic radius within which it can be heard by someone with normal hearing. Noise suppressors reduce gunshot noise by amounts measured in decibels. The mathematical answer you want is the comparative areas of those circles, before and after the measured noise reduction.

Checking the internet, I see a claim of ~35 dB reduction for a noise suppressor on an AR-15. Do the math, and you will discover the relative area of the circle after the noise has been suppressed 35 dB will be a tiny fraction of the area of the circle without suppression. Even 6 dB would be a reduction highly significant for measuring how many folks in a large crowd might hear a gun go off nearby.

[Absaroka]

Car mufflers make it harder for a pedestrian to hear the vehicle approaching from behind. Yet, oddly, we not only allow them, but require them!

As for the rest, rimfire suppressors, with carefully chosen ammunition, can be hearing safe. Not silent, but hearing safe (for some definitions of hearing safe).

With centerfire suppressors, sensible people wear hearing protection when shooting suppressed centerfire guns. That's a clue.

For your amateur physics problem, you might want to remember that much of the noise from supersonic ammunition (i.e. most ammunition) is not from the muzzle blast, but from the sonic 'boom' the supersonic bullet leaves. Suppressors, alas, affect that not at all. That's why you can hear, say, a suppressed deer rifle from miles away.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but hearing safe (for some definitions of hearing safe)"

I wouldn't say that suppressors take the noise level into the "no harm at all" region. But they get it down to the point where one accidental exposure doesn't cause dramatic loss of hearing for the rest of your life. They make it more of an issue with chronic exposure.

Just occurred to me: Sarah Conner should have been deaf in the sequels...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, go down range five-hundred yards and note the sound of the bullets. Zips in the air. No booms. The booms come a second or two after the zips. That's what shows the booms were made by the muzzle blast, not by the bullet.

I get that the bullets are still supersonic. It has always puzzled me why they don't make booms. But they don't. Not at least 400 or more yards down range. Much closer and you wouldn't have enough time delay to clue you in. The bullet may stay supersonic, but still not fly far enough in advance of the muzzle blast to put an easily perceptible interval between them, not until both go somewhat down range while the bullet continues to open the gap.

An illustration. At one point I had a favorite informal target range I used to sight in my .270. It was in a little box canyon walled by steep cliffs. You could be sure it was empty of everyone, and safe.

Of course the cliffs made it loud. One day, just for the hell of it, I took a shot at one of the cliffs, up halfway, maybe 300 yards slant distance. So what did I hear?:

1. BOOM!, a beat;
2. Bang!, a beat;
3. Schooooop!, a shorter beat;
4. Bang!; Boom!

Tentative diagnosis:

1. Muzzle blast direct from gun;
2. Supersonic bullet strikes cliff, heard directly;
3. Sustained noise of bullet approaching cliff; sound made farthest from me echoed back first, the initial sound of the bullet in flight echoed back last and less loudly;
4. Echo off cliff of muzzle blast, heard closely after initial bullet flight sound;
5. Almost simultaneous with another echo of muzzle blast from somewhere else in the canyon.

I had never considered that a bullet made a sustained whizzing sound in flight which could only be fully heard by a sustained echo. I knew that out in the open it would only have been heard instantaneously at its closest point of approach.

You must already know that if you shoot your deer rifle out on the plains, with no reflective surface to echo off, it just sounds like a tiny instantaneous pop. But it still hurts your ears just as much. Apparently the sound of a supersonic bullet is even less perceptible in the open than a muzzle blast only a couple of feet from your ear.

[Absaroka]

"It has always puzzled me why they don’t make booms."

You can call it a crack or a boom or whatever you like, but they make it. That's why hearing protection is required in the pits for e.g. CMP Highpower matches (it's Rule 3.6.2 if you want to look it up).

See Slide 17, 'Bullet Flight Noise'. Note that 55 yards from the muzzle they were measuring nearly identical values suppressed and unsuppressed. Note also the fine print at the bottom: "There was no measurable or perceived sound with subsonic or standard velocity .22LR" - and yet supersonic 22LR was 143.5 suppressed and 144.1 unsuppressed. No measurable sound with subsonic, 144 dB supersonic - where do you think that 144 dB came from?

(FWIW those numbers seem a little high to me, and I would quibble with 'no perceived sound'. Even with earplugs, you can hear even a suppressed subsonic 22LR. They are quiet, but not that quiet.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

. . . where do you think that 144 dB came from?

Mostly from muzzle blast; maybe a tiny contribution from bullet flight noise.

Note that the distance from gun to measurement equipment is only 55 yards. The sound of the muzzle blast travels at the speed of sound. The velocity reported on the internet for a "supersonic," .22 LR is given variously, with numbers only slightly above the speed of sound, or only slightly below it—so the expected velocity of the bullet is a straddle with the speed of the muzzle blast.

There is a tacit assumption in your conclusion that the bullet and the muzzle blast traverse the same distance to the measuring equipment, but that is not in accord with the diagrammed setup. The path to the measuring equipment of the muzzle blast is more direct than that of the bullet sound, apparently by about a yard, or a tiny bit more. The unreported path variance is clearly small, but adds a small bit of uncertainty about the result. What does not seem uncertain is that the muzzle blast and the bullet travel at almost identical speeds, and that if there is a small speed variance between them 55 yards of approximately-supersonic flight does not afford much time to develop notable separation.

[Absaroka]

"Mostly from muzzle blast; maybe a tiny contribution from bullet flight noise."

Funny, innit, that they didn't get the same sound with subsonic, only supersonic?

Dude, you're arguing with first hand experience. And not something I did once a long time ago, but something I do routinely.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Absaroka, go down range five-hundred yards and note the sound of the bullets."

Hey Lathrop, I know you're a fucking idiot obsessed with your delusions regarding the 2A and firearms in general, but can you please not advise people to go DOWNRANGE to listen to bullets being fired in their direction?

Note to everyone else: Do not listen to Lathrop's dangerous and moronic advice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you can hear a suppressed deer rifle then what are the Feds using to shoot the deer in DC's Rock Creek Park?

For the past decade, they have reportedly been shooting them with "silenced" weapons that people can't hear.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Bellmore, suppressors absolutely reduce noise levels dramatically, making it far harder for bystanders to be aware of a nearby shooter.”

Silencer Guide with Decibel Level Testing

As it happens, I’m quite familiar with logarithmic scales. The average gun shot can be over 140 decibels, easily loud enough to cause acute hearing damage with a single exposure. 35 decibels lower is approximately the noise level of a motorcycle or chainsaw, and no sane person would describe a chainsaw as difficult for bystanders to be aware of.

[Don Nico]

As a self-described, small-town newspaper man, SL knows how to tell a half-truth to create misinformation.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does seem to be an occupational qualification for journalists, yes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, with that post you are doing what the fools on this blog do all the time. They try to reassure themselves that substantive points they don't like can be critiqued by piling on empty repeats it pleases them to share. Just a line or two of dismissal, with no substance nor even a hint of engagement.

That's you in your comment above.

[Stephen Lathrop]

35 decibels lower is approximately the noise level of a motorcycle or chainsaw and no sane person would describe a chainsaw as difficult for bystanders to be aware of.

Bellmore, at what distance? Against what level of wind? Through how many brick walls, intervening apartment floors, or thermopane windows of the house 200 feet away? In the presence of what level of competing sounds?

I'm guessing you did the math, got embarrassed by the result, and decided to spout bullshit.

Math is math, and the dB scale applies to the audibility of noises in well-studied ways—which include application of the inverse square law. For instance, in a crowd evenly distributed in a circle just broad enough to encompass completely the radius of an unsuppressed sound, a 21 dB reduction would leave less than 1 percent of the listeners able to hear the noise. That would happen with a chainsaw, a motorcycle, or a gun. If the reduction were 35 dB, the auditors would be reduced to a small fraction of 1%.

Those are predictions of a mathematical abstraction. In the real world, sound is more often obstructed than amplified. In most real world situations the reductions would narrow audibility to lesser ranges encompassing fewer people.

The fact that someone right beside the shooter hears what seems to be a loud noise has no relevance at all to the measurements, the math, or the accuracy of the prediction. That person is within the reduced range the math predicts.

By the way, just as one little further critique of your analysis, when was the last time you held your ear as close to a motorcycle exhaust as it is to a gun when you shoot it? To posit a numerical value for sound intensity, but omit measurement distance, is not a careful way to discuss what we are talking about. It's bullshit, actually.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're saying that I can't protect my hearing because at SOME range, a suppressor would make the difference between noticing and not noticing a gun shot?

Man, it's a good thing for you that you don't actually care if you sound like an idiot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Still more bullshit.

No, idiot. I am saying stick some cotton in your ears if they need protection. Or just buy professional hearing protection.

Also? Do the math and show your work. Math is an engineer’s friend. Or don’t do the math, and leave others to guess at your incompetence.

You made stupid assertions about sound suppressors for guns. I’m guessing no math to justify them will be forthcoming, even after your brag you are well acquainted with how to do it.

[Absaroka]

"You made stupid assertions about sound suppressors for guns."

I disagree with Brett a lot, but what he has said about suppressors in this post is factually correct. None of it is controversial. He backed it up with links from reputable sources.

I dunno about Brett, but I have suppressors and use them regularly, so I can confirm what he says from first hand experience.

And this: "... stick some cotton in your ears if they need protection". I suppose you say the same to people who don't like unmuffled Harleys? Mufflers on lawn mowers? Come to think of it, don't you get all worked up over airport noise? Why don't you just tell people who live near airports to just get some earplugs?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Engage substantively with the math Absaroka.

I did not critique Bellmore for thinking sound suppressors would convenience and even somewhat protect the hearing of people who shoot guns. Which is the only claim he cited reference for.

I critiqued Bellmore’s insistence that suppressors would not make guns shot unlawfully in public harder to detect and defend against. He, like many other gun advocates, asserts falsely that because a somewhat loud noise remains after gun sound suppression, that means sound suppressors will not cause illegal gunshots to go unnoticed by many who might otherwise hear them and respond to protect themselves.

Bellmore’s claim is wrong. I showed the method to prove that. Use it and see for yourself.

There is one point to which I did not give sufficient emphasis. With gunshots and sound suppression, practical analysis depends on a mix of factors which include not only the suppressors and their effects, but background noise, and sound attenuation by obstacles or with distance. In a noisy urban environment, to make shooting a gun in public an essentially private event, not that many tens of dBs of sound suppression are necessary. People inclined to fear that are not misinformed.

So when you do the math, assume at least one case with a steady 90 dB ambient noise at the ear of the listener (in a car stalled on one side of a busy freeway, for instance, with truck traffic in the other direction), and a murderous gunshot fired right out in the open, about 100 feet away from the driver. See if the driver is likely to hear the gunshot. I haven't done that problem myself, so show me up if you can.

[Absaroka]

Brett said: "The average gun shot can be over 140 decibels, easily loud enough to cause acute hearing damage with a single exposure. 35 decibels lower is approximately the noise level of a motorcycle or chainsaw, and no sane person would describe a chainsaw as difficult for bystanders to be aware of."

And he's right. You can hear a car with no muffler farther than you can hear a car with a muffler, but that doesn't imply we need to ban car mufflers in the interest of pedestrian safety.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, that from you and Bellmore takes no account of two interacting acoustical principles: the inverse-square relationship between sound intensity and distance; and the notion of competing ambient noise at the point of perception. Until you combine those you don't have much basis to predict audibility.

As for airport noise and earplugs, I have lost count of the number of times I had to offer exactly that advice to help folks get to sleep under final approach paths. Not until I went deaf in one ear, and could put the good ear down on the pillow, did I find any solution which worked better.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Still more bullshit.

I see that you're now adding titles to your posts describing their content. That's very helpful. Thank you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Do the math and show your work."

You didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't need to run the numbers to understand his point: ANYTHING that lowers the volume of a gunshot reduces the range at which it can be heard. I mean, in principle you could build an anti-suppressor, that efficiently converted the muzzle blast into sound, and increased that range.

He's right about that, but it's a stupid point to make when you're simply reducing the range it can be heard at from "enormous" to "a long ways". It's tacitly pretending that gunshots are by any normal standard hard to hear when suppressed, when that's not true.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, if you actually haven’t done the math, and continue to exclude all consideration of other acoustical practicalities, it is unsurprising that you don’t yet grasp the point the calculations could deliver. It comes in two increments:

First, the reduction of audibility range delivered by a 35 dB reduction is not accurately reported by your sloppy proportioning of, “enormous,” to “a long ways.” It is more like, “a short to medium way.” You draw intuitive but self-deceptive conclusions when you reference motorcycles and chainsaws. When was the last time you heard either of those at a distance of more than a mile, let alone two or three miles? But unmuffled gun shots can readily be heard out to those distances. So a reduction from 3 miles to, “the distance I can hear a motorcycle,” is not a small reduction. It is a large reduction.

Second, and this is the crucial part, the number of potential auditors is not proportionate to the distance, it is proportionate either to the distance squared, or even proportionate to the distance cubed, in cases like a high rise building where potential auditors might be distributed through 3-dimensional space. That is why noise suppressors have potential to reduce audibility to very small percentages of people—not uncommonly less than 1 percent—compared to those who could hear the same sound without the 35 dB reduction.

When you take a very large radius and reduce it to a smaller one, whatever size reduction you create reduces the related area or volume exponentially. You know that, of course, but you apparently have failed to grasp that it is an insight inherent in measuring how many people might hear a gunshot.

Third—note that this is a two-part explanation which features a bonus third part—there is always greater or lesser ambient noise to account for. Ambient noise has potential to compete with and overwhelm other noises, no matter how loud they are, if the louder ones are also relatively distant. And relatively distant can be a pretty short distance given the relative noise values.

Notorious Boston gangster Whitey Bulger had a favored execution spot for shooting some of his victims. It was out in public, at a narrow disused beach, about 100 feet down an embankment which supported an always-noisy freeway, at a point where the drivers did not quite have line of sight to the killing field. For activities such as those, 35 dB reductions, combined with ambient noise competition, can open vast areas to mostly-inaudible gunshots.

[Absaroka]

"You draw intuitive but self-deceptive conclusions when you reference motorcycles and chainsaws. When was the last time you heard either of those at a distance of more than a mile,"

Hmmm, I'm not sure exactly. Towards the end of October, I think. As in, at the cabin our closest neighbors are a mile plus, and we can hear them shoot, and hear their chainsaws.

And they can hear our suppressed centerfire shooting.

(I dunno if theirs is suppressed or not because ... it's hard to tell just listening)

[Eggprd]

Stephen,
Every weekend I shoot next to people using suppressors on center-fire rifles. The suppressed sound is different than un-suppressed and not as loud but I would not remove my hearing protection. During a NRA highpower match, I have worked the pits - rifles are not suppressed. At 600 yards (about 3/8 of a mile), I could hear the shots being fired but they were muted by the distance and because we were in a ditch. In the pits, the bullets passing through the targets made a SNAP sound. The sound seemed to come from the point of impact. I think the argument that a suppressor prevents people from hearing shots is ridiculous.

[kb]

I understand your fear. It is horrifying that others might act freely beyond your control. Maybe you should get a gun.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm looking forward to your argument for responsible grenade and mortar ownership. It's fine as long as only responsible people have them, ya?

[kb]

Freedom is messy. Maybe we can agree on some rules, but we should err on the side of freedom always.

[Krychek_2]

I actually agree that we should err on the side of freedom, while at the same time recognizing that that is the first issue in the discussion, not the final one. It may be where we start, but there's an awful lot of ground to cover after that.

There's a constitutional right to travel; the courts have repeatedly told us so. That doesn't mean that you can drive an unregistered car on a suspended driver's license following your fourth DUI. Because somewhere between two extremes -- the government can't regulate travel at all, versus nobody gets to own a car -- there is the middle ground of having enough regulation to foster public safety, while at the same time allowing people who are safe and careful drivers the freedom to come and go as they please.

And what I'm not hearing from the Second Amendment extremists is any willingness to entertain gun restrictions, no matter how reasonable, that might actually save some lives. All I hear is well worn talking points about big bad gummint ain't taking my freedom away. At some point the balance between your freedom and public safety tips in the direction of public safety. Can you at least recognize that? Or is everything about you?

[Michael Ejercito]

I never heard anyone calling for "common sense" gun control actually call for the repeal of measures that go beyond common sense.

None of them called for the repeal of the handgun bans in Chicago or Washington, D.C..

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, it was pretty conspicuous that people who claimed to only favor moderate, sensible gun control typically were outraged when the Heller decision struck down the strictest gun control law in the entire country. That was a pretty good reveal of what they really meant by "reasonable".

[Krychek_2]

It's what Heller opened the door to. I agree with its bottom line holding that there is a private right to gun ownership. I'm just not sure that post-Heller, truly reasonable regulations are safe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe we should define "reasonable" here? What do YOU mean by "reasonable", when it comes to regulating exercise of a civil liberty?

[Krychek_2]

See my response to Noscitur a sociis below. Just to be clear, is it your position that the civil liberties may not be restricted in any way, shape or form?

[Brett Bellmore]

It is my position that civil liberties should only be restricted when the restricted exercise itself is the proximate cause of some unlawful harm or unreasonable risk thereof. You can't ban high quality printers because somebody might use them to forge currency, or chemistry textbooks because somebody might synthesize a poison.

So, of course, you can restrict, for instance, shooting into the air on New Year's eve, because it carries an unreasonable risk of the spent bullet falling back to the ground and hitting somebody, which can cause considerable injury or death. Or require that people target shooting have adequate backstops, so their rounds don't carry on past the target to hit somebody. Or limit the defensive use of arms to protecting life, not just property.

But you can't restrict ownership of a particular sort of firearm just because you think it appealing to criminals, and are willing to infringe the rights of a hundred or a thousand law abiding citizens just to inconvenience a single criminal. An arm to be actually banned must be unreasonably dangerous in a sense that doesn't implicate the choices of the user, like one that might blow up in your face, or fire if dropped.

You can't engage in futurecrime, and deprive somebody who has committed no serious crime of the right to keep and bear arms just because you prognosticate that they have a higher than average chance of eventually doing wrong. They have to have actually been adjudicated in a criminal trial of committing some serious wrong to lose the right.

Every use of a firearm that would itself harm somebody unjustifiably is already illegal. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to murder just because you use a gun, or rob just because you use a gun. Just as the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to say, "Your money or your life!" while holding a knife to somebody's throat.

But you need some actual harm proximately caused by the exercise, not just some general belief that the restriction would carry some benefit.

[Krychek_2]

That's probably because nobody ever talks about everything at the same time. I do not support handgun bans and would favor repealing the ones in Chicago and DC. But, when the subject of reasonable regulation comes up, those usually aren't the specific regulations being discussed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why, I am perfectly willing to entertain gun restrictions that might save lives. Consumer safety legislation: Guns should NOT blow up in your hand, or malfunction unreasonably often. Perhaps a requirement to use frangible ammo if you live in a thin walled apartment building? Backstop requirements for gun ranges?

Laws that directly address the harm they seek to avert, without unduly infringing the right.

This is NOT what gun control laws look like. Conspicuously so.

[kb]

Yes, it is about me, but I offer the same freedoms I demand. Because, apparently, we can disagree about reasonableness.

[Krychek_2]

Well, part of living in society as opposed to being on an island all by yourself is that everything isn't about you. Other people have rights too.

[kb]

Yes, I want the same freedoms for each. I don't understand your objection.

[Krychek_2]

My objection is the old joke that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to steal bread, sleep under bridges, and beg in the streets. Your so-called equality ignores that the two are not similarly situated.

[kb]

Rightly considered, my freedom situates me to be able to aid others. That is my choice. I have no right to demand aid for or by others. It is freely given, but requires freedom.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Their rights are derived from their humanity, not their situation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

And what I’m not hearing from the Second Amendment extremists is any willingness to entertain gun restrictions, no matter how reasonable, that might actually save some lives.

Well, let’s see. What are some regulations you have in mind? And what are some regulations that you think are unreasonable?

[Krychek_2]

It's a balance between public safety on the one hand and individual rights on the other. You want enough regulation to protect the public but no more regulation than is necessary to protect the public. And, since gun ownership is a fundamental right, sometimes that means that public safety has to yield. Unfortunately, it's not always a bright line.

I would consider unreasonable: Flat bans on gun ownership, flat bans on concealed carry, "may issue" laws that essentially give unfettered discretion to bureaucrats, excessive waiting periods, and limits on the number of firearms an individual is entitled to own.

I would consider reasonable: a 48 hour waiting period so that people have a chance to cool down before buying a gun and shooting someone in anger, limits on magazine size so a school shooter has to at least stop to reload, mandatory gun safety classes, mandatory home safes for guns so the kids can't get to them, and a system in which people who have demonstrated they are too irresponsible to be trusted with a gun can't get one (not unlike yanking someone's driver's license if they are convicted of DUI).

I see both sides of requiring gun owners to carry insurance (you need insurance to drive a car), so long as insurance is reasonably available at affordable prices. I see both sides of taking someone's guns if a court finds they have engaged in domestic violence, but I would require a finding that he actually did engage in domestic violence and provide a means for him to get it back if he meets certain criteria.

[Bill R]

I'm a gun owner, and I consider those suggestions reasonable.

[Bruce Hayden]

You don’t need insurance to drive a car on your private land. You don’t need a driver’s license or plates either. Yet, you would need insurance to enjoy an enumerated fundamental right (on your own property? Indeed, how often would insurance really be useful? Are there really that many times when non criminals (since criminals, by definition don’t obey the law) commit torts that could be remedied with insurance (and their homeowner’s insurance wouldn’t cover it)? 10 times a year? 100? 1,000? You need to assert that quantitatively before you a legitimately ask for it. Even if it were 1,000,000, that would be less than 1% of gun owners.

The problem with your suggestion that people who are too dangerous to own guns, shouldn’t e allowed to have them, is that that is effectively already the law. It’s just not enforced very well. And, of course, criminals ignore that law, knowing that they will very rarely be held to account.

David Kopel recently demonstrated here why magazine limits were a bad idea. And, if they don’t apply to cops, why are their lives more valuable than ours. Realistically, it has been exceedingly rare, in the past, to show that more than a handful of shootings a year would have been less devastating with mag limits, and those are countered by examples of when those responding defensively would more likely have died, with mag limits.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You have conspicuously omitted anything about "assault weapons". Intentional?

[Macy's Window]

Waiting periods:

How many people are shot by a brand-new gun? My guess is very, very few, statistically speaking.

How many of these people would have survived with a waiting period? Who knows? Probably a minority.

How many people need a gun promptly because they have been threatened? Again, very few, but perhaps more than waiting periods save.

Limits on magazine size

How many people will be saved from the very few mass shootings in which there are more than 15+ bullets fired and a limited magazine capacity would actually save anyone? My guess is very few.

How many people will be less able to defend themselves if magazine capacity is limited. Also few, but some.

Mandatory gun safety

How many people would be saved who were otherwise killed bc of gun accidents? My guess is relatively few. The people I see having fatal accidents are chronically ignorant and unsafe people.

[Absaroka]

"Waiting periods: How many people are shot by a brand-new gun? My guess is very, very few, statistically speaking."

I'm going to pontificate some here (no surprise to regular readers).

The goal of gun laws ought to be to extract whatever benefit is to be had, at a minimum cost in time/money/inconvenience. Otherwise, it's not about reducing harm, it's about sticking your thumb in gun owner's eye out of spite.

Some years ago, a (then) local range had a problem: someone walked in, rented a gun, went to their lane and shot themselves. The local papers kept it in the headlines for a while, with the predictable result - copycats started doing the same thing at that and other local ranges. So the ranges have a problem - they really want to stop the suicides, but their business is renting guns.

They adopted the following policy: for a new customer to rent a gun, they had to do one of the following:
1)Arrive with a friend
2)Bring some evidence of prior interest, like a CPL or whatever.
3)Bring a functioning gun, based on the obvious notion that if you already have one gun, you don't need to rent one to kill yourself.
4)Some more I'm probably forgetting??

That worked. The suicides stopped completely, and overwhelming majority of customers could meet one of the criteria and weren't inconvenienced.

Now contrast that with a blanket 10 day waiting period. If I have a gun at home already, a waiting period serves no purpose. Heck, I was once at an FFL and a young police officer, fresh from the academy, walked in. In uniform, city issued gun in his holster. He said 'my training officer told me to come in and buy a backup gun'. They had what he wanted, did the paperwork, and ... explained to him that he had to wait ten days to take it home. That's ... not about public safety.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, indeed, the statistical association between purchasing a gun and committing suicide is only high for about a week after buying the gun, is negligible after some months, and is absent if the person buying the gun already owned one. It is entirely due to people becoming suicidal, and then going out an getting a gun to do it with.

And impose a waiting period, and the peak occurs, instead, in the week after the waiting period expires.

If you're suicidal, it's not the sort of thing that evaporates in a week.

But, you know what? Gun controllers don't give a damn about suicide, except as an excuse to take away guns. Because it's EASY to identify the people at highest risk of suicide. Half of all suicides are men shortly after divorces! You ever heard of a gun control group proposing divorce law reform, or even counseling for divorced men?

[Absaroka]

"And impose a waiting period, and the peak occurs, instead, in the week after the waiting period expires.

If you’re suicidal, it’s not the sort of thing that evaporates in a week. "

I agree that depression is a long term thing, but my sense is that a weeks delay may have substantial benefit. My objection is that a flat X day waiting period isn't narrowly tailored to providing that benefit. If you adopt the same kind of criteria as the ranges, you get the benefit without most of the cost.

[Randy Sax]

"There’s a constitutional right to travel; the courts have repeatedly told us so. That doesn’t mean that you can drive an unregistered car on a suspended driver’s license following your fourth DUI."

That is specifically for public roads. You can drive around your own property in an unregistered car drunk as a skunk with no license. That difference is larger than is seems. Gun ownership restrictions would remove them from private property.

[Krychek_2]

With the major difference being that most automobile deaths don't happen on private roads, whereas an awful lot of gun deaths do take place on private property.

[Randy Sax]

The right to defend your property with firearms is intrinsic to American freedom. If you wana ban guns in the courthouse or city hall, I'm fine with that. I also think it's important to differentiate between "gun deaths" and murders. Not all gun deaths are bad.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t have a right to defend your properties with firearms, at least not nationwide.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'd say most gun deaths probably "bad", but suicides are obviously a different kind of "bad" than homicides.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given that the statistics say most firearms homicides are criminals killing criminals, I'm not even sure I'd agree most of them are "bad".

[Bwaaah]

So your choice is a bomb, or no plausible tool for self defense at all?

[zztop8970]

Are you advocating for irresponsible mortar ownership?

Responsible ownership would include storing the shells in a small bunker, far away from heat sources, fire or sparks. The fuses should be stored seperately, and only applied to the shells prior to firing.

If you are willing to jump through the hoops, you can own your very own mortar tube and shells. today.

[Randy Sax]

I liked when Biden said when the second amendment passed you couldn't buy a cannon. Not only could you buy one back then, you still can lol.

[Frank Drackman]

Get a Shotgun Man!

[Randy Sax]

Genuine question, Mossy or Remington? I recently spent ~$4700 on a bicycle, I can spare $600 for another gun.

[Frank Drackman]

I like The Remington 870 Police Magnum is a 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun designed to meet the needs of law enforcement. It is built on a unique action and boasts a balanced sear and silky smooth, ultra-reliable operation. The receiver is made from steel and has a matte black finish, while the stock is synthetic. Features of the 870 Police Magnum include a steel-lined forend, cross-bolt safety, sling swivel studs, and a 20” barrel. It also offers a 4-round capacity.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m looking forward to your argument for responsible grenade and mortar ownership.

Given that neither of those things are "arms" as protected by 2A, I'm not sure what your strawman has to do with anything.

[Rossami]

Actually, they both are "arms" and were widely considered to be protected by the 2A until the early 20th century. A minority position still considers them to be protected by the 2A. As the sub-thread immediately above points out, Biden was laughably wrong when he said that you couldn't own your own cannon when the 2A was passed.

[Brett Bellmore]

My neighbor back in Michigan owned a cannon, kept it on his front lawn. I used to jokingly suggest that he stop pointing at my house...

He'd fire it occasionally, too, though only after redirecting it.

Cannon ownership isn't terribly common, but neither is it unheard of even today.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'd be interested to see evidence for 2A-protected private ownership of hand grenades prior to the early 20th century. The first modern hand grenade was patented in 1906.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Modern" is doing a lot of work there, hand grenades in one form or another go back a LONG ways. As incendiaries they went back to the Byzantine empire, explosive grenades went back to the 1600's. The name originated in the early 1700's.

But the catch here as far as "2nd amendment protected" is that the 2nd amendment only applied to the states for a brief period between the 14th amendment being ratified, and the Supreme court spiking it. And the federal government didn't develop any interest in gun control until the early 20th century.

So it mostly was just a question of governments not having any interest in regulating them, early on, not the 2nd amendment being invoked against attempts to regulate them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If this starts appearing in American homes it would be an almost comically horrifying illustration of our gun crazy culture."

I suppose it would be, in the same sense that the signs that actually did appear where a comically horrifying illustration of other aspects of our crazy culture.

[Drewski]

Are you having a stroke?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, but I did make a typo. Where should be were. Thanks for your concern though.

[arch1]

Yes, exalting as a family value the means to incapacitate and kill one’s fellow humans seems only rarely to be a good idea in this country. May it ever be thus.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do archery.

[Ed Grinberg]

Believe it or not, there are some "fellow humans" that need to be incapacitated and killed. Sorry to be the one to tell you...

[arch1]

Nothing I said implied otherwise.

[Social Justice is neither]

You mean protect your family from those that mean you harm. Weird how you all demand more victims, must be some sort of foundation of your ideology.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, it's not saying 'guns keep people safe' it's just a joke talking about pretty legit gun safety principles.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One shouldn't joke about stuff like that. It shows an obliviousness to the real problem of gun deaths in this country.

[Absaroka]

Our town has been posting 'Neighbors drive 25!' signs in residential neighborhoods. Using your logic they are showing obliviousness to the real problem of traffic deaths in this country.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Queue the meme that has frowning pictures of various online feminists with the caption "That's not funny."

[Sarcastr0]

That kind of 'don't joke about gun safety measures' is windmill tilting at best. It says more about the silliness of the OG 'in this house we believe' sign than anything else.

Other countries with lots of guns don't have our gun deaths issue; not saying it's not correlated, but the cause is almost certainly not just the presence of guns. (Our overturned criminal justice system is part of that mix IMO).

[Harvey Mosley]

Credit where it's due. This seems to me the most reasonable thing I've seen from you on a controversial issue in a long time. Is the old Sarcastr0 back? 🙂

[Michael Ejercito]

How so? None of the slogans are about going out to rob banks, or to shoot people wearing the wrong-color clothes.

[John F. Carr]

A sign from a Reason comedy video on what a Democratic Disney might look like:

In this amusement part we believe
Mice can wear pants or dresses
No duck should have a pile of gold
Gift shops are privilege
Fastpass is late stage capitalism
We self-cancel our older films
Government should extend our copyrights forever

[Dr. Ed 2]

But Steamboat Willie is now public domain.

[Longtobefree]

Also racist. Only black and white, not other colors represented.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you referring to Bill Clinton and the release of the Epstein logs?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Bill Clinton and the release of the Epstein logs"

Do the logs reveal anything that wasn't already known about Clinton and his relationship with Epstein?

[Krayt]

Only execs get piles of gold. Not portrayed execs.

[Randy Sax]

My favorite was "don't go to space" mountain.

[edemilsonmattoso]

And yet liberals believe in disarming whites, because they want their black and Mexican constituents to be able to prey on us with impunity.

That's why they also eliminated cash bail.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the response Prof. Volokh seeks as he tosses red meat to his intolerant, downscale, right-wing fans.

Open wider, clingers.

[Doug Heffernan]

Yeah, you might be right. I guess now that he is semi-retired, he has more time for "inspirations" such as this. Of everything that he could spend time on, I guess this was a top priority.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe he might be teaching this term -- one more group of law students who can look forward to hearing plenty of vile racial slurs in class.

[Krayt]

Stop "helping".

[edemilsonmattoso]

I don't want to help by trying to get the votes of my inferiors.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My prediction is that posting something like this will be considered evidence of mental illness.

[Frank Drackman]

All of your posts are, but we're too polite to tell you.
Dr. Ed 2, heal thyself!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm actually serious.

Post something like that on your office door and I can assure you that you will have problems. A dozen years ago, when things were saner than they are now, a professor got in trouble for a firefly poster. https://www.thefire.org/news/uw-stout-chancellor-doubles-down-censorship-firefly-and-anti-fascism-posters

[Estragon]

Shouldn’t this also include “run hide fight”?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Professor Volokh, no one can learn adequately the practical realities of gun safety at any shooting range. To learn those lessons requires at least hundreds of hours—more likely more than a thousand hours—carrying guns outdoors, at the ready, with intent to kill something.

You need to expose yourself to the inevitable hazards and dangerous happenstance that quantity of unpredictable experience entails. You need to find out what it is like to shoot when you are fatigued, or find yourself in light just a bit less than ideal, or when you are slightly dehydrated, or feeling cold, or standing somewhere with uncertain footing. You need to experience the effects on your gun prowess which result when a need to shoot takes you by surprise, or arises suddenly while you remain slightly uncertain of the exact location of more than one potential target.

Remember, your ambition is to increase the safety of your family in all circumstances, including circumstances where someone malevolent may have the advantage of initiative, while you remain uncertain, or confused, or in a state less completely alert than you expect of yourself at a gun range. Any gun range equipped to teach you the kinds of lessons you need to learn to cope with uncertainties and performance impairments would expose itself to ruinous liability, so of course that will not happen there.

Absent military combat experience, you need to go hunting, and spend a lot of time killing game. After you have experienced involuntary loss of muzzle control while falling down, or maybe experienced a gun which misfired when it should not have gone off at all, or any of an indescribable number of other unpredictable hazards, I expect your naive over-confidence will be less a hazard to those around you, and especially less a hazard to those you advise about guns, perhaps even including your family members.

If that ever happened, I expect you would afterwards take a far more cautious approach to even having guns around. The folks I have known who have abundant practical gun experience never sound like the gun advocates who comment on this blog. They do not proselytize gun use for others. They do not tout gun safety. Instead, they display a tendency to weigh carefully whether they want to be around guns at all. Few if any of them would think it wise to run the risk of keeping a gun around for no other reason than to arm themselves against unforeseeable contingencies. And they show a profound distrust about exposing themselves to others with guns, especially if those others do not share the depth of practical experience necessary to learn to be less confident about gun safety.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Remember, your ambition is to increase the safety of your family in all circumstances..."

From this post I don't think we can conclude that his ambition is anything more than to have a safe, fun day at the gun range.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you come by your expertise,
how?

[Absaroka]

If "your ambition is to increase the safety of your family in all circumstances, including circumstances where someone malevolent may have the advantage of initiative" you should proactively disarm yourself. Clearly.

"Absent military combat experience, you need to go hunting..."

Well, that's an improvement. In the past you said that military and police experience and training were worse than no experience, because hunting was the One True Thing that mattered; military and police experience only taught the wrong lessons. So I'm glad you're rethinking things.

(You know, I've spent hundreds of hours carrying a gun at temps below -20...other than the obvious - you might need mittens that you can take off quickly, and don't cinch up the straps on your ski poles - what are the peculiar insights you think that teaches about self defense that police officers don't know?)

(You might try a reputable class, you know, and see what you are missing. Ignorance isn't bliss. Just a thought!)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, you misremember. I have never denigrated military firearms training, or gun management policies. More the opposite. I have repeatedly cited them as models, or standards of comparison. I doubt I have ever characterized police training generally. Seems like a fools errand, given the number and variety of programs. I might have objected to some specific bit of nonsense posted here. It is true that I do not trust police departments to manage guns as carefully as the professional military, but that is not the same as saying they all do a bad job.

Also, "the One True Thing," is you, not me. You want to be fatuous, have at it. Leave me out.

If you think I am denying saying anything I actually did say, let's see the quote. I think you are making it up, although probably just misremembering because you want to dislike whatever I have to say about guns.

[Absaroka]

I remember it clearly, because even for you it seemed out there.

I'd spend the time to find it for you, but, alas, there isn't any practical way to search for comments over the years.

But glad you're coming around anyway.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

To learn those lessons requires at least hundreds of hours—more likely more than a thousand hours—carrying guns outdoors, at the ready, with intent to kill something.

And here you demonstrate that all of your rantings on this subject are nothing more than you projecting your own mental illness onto others. Nobody needs to walk around with a firearm and the "intent to kill something" with it in order to learn gun safety lessons. And the stupidity of your prescription of hunting in order to learn those lessons cannot be overstated. Tromping through the woods with long guns of the sorts commonly used for hunting will do little to nothing to prepare someone for safely carrying in public the sorts of arms commonly carried for self-defense.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

When you come down from your high horse, perhaps you can share with us the credentials you think have made you an expert on all the proclamations of bullshit you spouted above.

*I* know you're an expert of bullshit, but I think we'd all like to see the certificates.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, folks around here don't like credentials. Sometimes I don't bother to read the room.

On the credentials issue, I'm fine to just write about stuff that ought to speak for itself. I try to include explanatory stuff to let folks understand on what basis I think I know what I write about. Some folks alert to Dunning-Kruger are wary enough to stay polite.

Others aren't. Logarithms and inverse squares are high school stuff. But I learned quite a while ago that if you actually try to put them to work, a lot of folks will distrust you for it, unless you present as a professional. Sounds like that might be you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What's the matter, Stephen? Can't keep your comments straight?

Claiming something 'ought to speak for itself' when others are telling you that you're insane simply means that you don't have any credentials or authority to speak on the matter and you won't admit it.

I'd quote the relevant parts of your post I'm talking about, but I don't care to quote the entire thing and subject anyone to it twice. Your claims of requiring thousands of hours in every conceivable condition, only to conclude that guns should be avoided is purely unsupported bullshit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, it ought to be obvious that I do not care what you call me. I would not trust your judgment if you were praising me. I am no more likely to trust it when you call me insane.

What I do note is the characteristic of your comments that makes them untrustworthy. You never engage the substance of arguments you pretend to critique. Critical thinking is based on the principle to ask, again and again, "How do I know that?" Nothing in your critiques suggests you ever ask that question.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh noes, Eugene went to a gun range.

[Longtobefree]

*throws red flag*

Lock him up, he's crazy!

[Longtobefree]

Should have been a reply to Mr. Bumble.
But I guess the squirrels know best.

[Absaroka]

EV comes up with a tongue in cheek way to promote safe gun handling, and people are unhappy?

You'd think safe gun handling would be supported by everyone.

(A google image search finds lots of funny 'In this house...' variants...)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The problem (confirmed by the commenters here, who as usual are easily baited) is that gun rights advocates don't think it's tongue in cheek. They think putting up such a sign is reasonable and an actual good idea. Maybe on the living room wall next to "Bless This Home".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy has taught me much about on-the-spectrum humor . . . or, more accurate, the general lack of it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something wrong with "Bless This House"?

[Randy Sax]

+1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws

[Scooter]

With Advantage?

[Absaroka]

"They think putting up such a sign is reasonable and an actual good idea."

Can you elaborate why you think putting up a sign listing safe gun handling rules isn't a good idea?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

If he could, he wouldn't be a hoplophobe.

[John F. Carr]

It's a good idea at the shooting range. Maybe there's a house rule you should be aware of. For example, my college's pistol shooting club had a rule that only one person could be touching a gun at a time. Put the gun on the table and let the other person pick it up.

At home it's kind of weird if it is meant to be taken seriously.

[John F. Carr]

A person who would post such a sign at home probably doesn't need it. It is signaling just like "black lives matter", "blue lives matter", and so on. Depending on the sign, I might think to myself, "oh, you're one of THOSE people."

[Commenter_XY]

You think it might make a thief or robber look for easier pickings?

[John F. Carr]

Maybe somewhere.

The only burglary I know of in my neighborhood was planned for a time when the owners would be out of town. The burglars entered on the second floor to avoid alarms and a possible police response. Police knew it was planned because it was part of a series of breakins around the region apparently by a single group that targets South Asian families.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“It is signaling just like “black lives matter”, “blue lives matter”, and so on.”

Or like the signs it is parodying. That’s the joke, man.

[SimonP]

It took me a beat to realize that Eugene is mocking some other kind of phenomenon attributed to the “woke” – and one evidently more well-known among the right than among my circles.

Yet another sad indication that Eugene is spiraling down a right-wing media cess pit.

[Life of Brian]

.

and one evidently more well-known among the right than among my circles

What circles are those? The NYT describes them as “ubiquitous on the lawns of Democrats who have lawns.” I’ve seen a ton of them myself, in far less blue territory than you live in.

[TwelveInchPianist]

SimonP has made it clear that people in his circle don’t have lawns.

My neighborhood had several of them when they were in vogue. Usually at the homes of teachers.

[Bob from Ohio]

Back in 2020, every other house in my very left suburb had one, next to the BLM sign usually.

Maybe 80% gone now. The BLM signs are 99% gone.

[SimonP]

No, lawns are fairly uncommon in the denser parts of the city where I usually live/work/recreate.

[Life of Brian]

So you're one of those Manhattanites who never set foot out of the borough to see what the rest of the country is actually like? Saul Steinberg sure nailed it.

[SimonP]

No, I grew up and lived in the midwest for many years. I know plenty about "the rest of the country," by which you apparently mean the vast amounts of space less populated than the main urban centers. Indeed, I know enough to know that the commenters here claiming to have been surrounded by obnoxious yard signs in their "very left suburbs" are either lying or exaggerating a very small number of signs they saw.

Like I said in a different thread - there is nothing stopping ordinary New Yorkers from making a display of their woke ideology. But there just isn't much of that here, and there really has never been. A few BLM signs during the protests but otherwise? No. The most common identifier I see is, while riding in traffic, all of the cars marked with "Thin Blue Line" flag decals.

[Life of Brian]

.

Indeed, I know enough to know that the commenters here claiming to have been surrounded by obnoxious yard signs in their “very left suburbs” are either lying or exaggerating a very small number of signs they saw.

Ah, so apparently the Gray Lady inexplicably decided to join in the "lying or exaggerating" when it called those signs "ubiquitous" in the article I linked above.

First law of holes, my friend.

[SimonP]

I see almost none of this shit in NYC. Not even pride flags are very common here.

The most common identity-politics symbol I see around here are those blue-line American flags, which are common on the backs of cars.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get an eye exam, soon.

[Commenter_XY]

Guess you don't look in storefront windows (the ones not smashed to shit by vandals, that is) = I see almost none of this shit in NYC. Not even pride flags are very common here.

I also see the Thin Blue Line flags.

[SimonP]

Guess you don’t look in storefront windows (the ones not smashed to shit by vandals, that is)

I live in a very gay, very "woke" part of town - and nope. None of that in storefronts, unless it's actually a gay-oriented business.

No smashed storefronts, either. God, you people are obsessed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Owning the libs (more accurate, attempting to own the libs) is most of what these disaffected, obsolete right-wingers have to look forward to they await replacement. The culture war is not over but has been settled. The Volokh Conspiracy's side has lost. I think they (mostly) know it.

[Macy's Window]

Wars are rarely over just because one side is dominant.

You should know that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I think it is more he has a sense of humor.

https://rlv.zcache.com/customized_in_this_house_we_believe_yard_sign-rd7f5c731f52d4a0a93b7b2cd53601f59_tyqv5_704.jpg?rlvnet=1

You can't reason with people like this.

[SimonP]

The point I'm making is that, when your jokes are all in-jokes that only certain people huffing the same paint will "get," there may be a problem with your information diet.

I'm not worried about you, Mr. Ed. You're an idiot and a lost cause. But Eugene is about to get paid to "think" for a living. Stanford seems to have bought themselves a scholar less and less interested in speaking to people outside his bubble.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He will be paid for advocacy — advocacy for obsolete, bigoted, doomed right-wing positions. This should be applauded. Students will no longer be forced to listen to racial slurs, awkward stabs at humor, and antisocial legal positions with a limited shelf life.

[theobromophile]

Right?!?

Was everyone's New Year's resolution to lose their sense of humour?

[Commenter_XY]

They need better coffee. Tell them what coffee to buy. 🙂

[Life of Brian]

.

(A google image search finds lots of funny ‘In this house…’ variants…)

Here's the latest, in honor of [ex] President Cut-and-Paste.

[Drewski]

Unobjectionable, but approximately as classy as a bumper sticker on the wall.

[Ed Grinberg]

I wonder: did you think that the original signs -- the ones promoting the evil, pro-criminal, anti-cop BLM movement -- were "classy"? Says a lot about you...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Worthless, defeated, cranky right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and the target audience of a white, male, faux libertarian blog with a diminishing academic veneer.

Carry on, clingers. Better Americans will let you know just how far and how long, though.

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Sandusky, again with the how far and how long. How Long? last I checked you're not eligible for Parole until 2041.

[Jerry B.]

The fact that much of the commentariat thinks that the basic rules of firearms safety are so horrible and scary fills me with dread for the future.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"The fact that much of the commentariat thinks that the basic rules of responsible wife-beating are so horrible and scary fills me with dread for the future."

Like the above (fictitious) statement, your statement says a great deal more about the society in which a sign would be placed, than about the rules involved.

[kb]

I think that a free society is the best form. Wife beating would seem to impinge on the freedom of the wife.

[Jerry B.]

Because you think no one should own firearms (except the government), and that would make such signs unnecessary, presumably.

WTF are you doing on a Libertarian site anyway? Shouldn’t you be commenting on the NYT or Washington Post along with all the other government control of everything fans?

[Sarcastr0]

Moar ideological bubbles!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh is showing off the "Trump Won Fuck Biden Fuck You" sign* for antisocial wingnuts who managed to graduate from something other than a backwater highs school.

* Still seen on some old-timey pickup trucks when I travel more than 20 miles from home.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw one in that Klinger Stronghold Escondido CA.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“The fact that much of the commentariat thinks that the basic rules of responsible wife-beating are so horrible and scary fills me with dread for the future.”

Yes, because owning a firearm is akin to beating your wife. I must be doing it wrong. I own a safe full of boom sticks, and yet my wife just keeps doing as she pleases, with no fear of me at all.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh, I love the sign. Where do I get one? Are you selling this instead of that awful Reason branded gear?

If you are selling these signs, where can I buy a few. I love them.

[Robert Efroymson]

It’s missing “know your target and what’s beyond it” and “never point your gun at anything you are not prepared to destroy”, but perhaps that’s covered by “safe direction”

[Mr. Bumble]

"destroy" ? That's a heavy lift.

[Frank Drackman]

Former San Fran Sissy-co and current Alta California Governor Calvin Loathsome's law prohibiting carrying concealed firearms in pubic places went into effect Monday, I feel safer already.

[Doug Heffernan]

Nothing like a new year's eve trip to the shooting range. But if it was that trip that inspired the words on your poster (or whatever it is), then your entire family couldn't have referred to that poster while you all were firing away at the range. Also, is "this house" also the shooting range, and/or everywhere else? Or just while in "this house"?

[Jerry B.]

If “everyone in this house believes” these rules, then they can, and should, apply them everywhere.

[gVOR08]

You'll shoot your eye out.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thread hi-jack

Claudine (Steve Urkel :did I do that") Gay will resign from Harvard today.
Film at 11.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas leader killed in Beruit too. Bad day for genocidal friendly H organizations.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I did with my 'Ugh, those glasses' comment....and You replied with the Steve Urkel rejoinder which was perfect!

The second of the Three Elite Stooges is gone.

Buh bye, Claudine. You set the Harvard record for shortest tenure in 500 years. Good job!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gay for Volokh seems a worthwhile exchange for better Americans.

[Frank Drackman]

You're Gay for Volokh? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Randy Sax]

A sad man walks into a bar and orders a shot, bartender says
"what's up?"
"My son is gay" replied the man.
"oof, that's rough, this one is on the house." says the barman.
The next day the sad guy walks into the bar again and orders two shots.
"what's got you down today?" inquires the barman.
"my other son is gay"
"oof, that's rough, these are on the house too." says the barman.
Next day man comes in again and orders 3 shots.
"what now?!" asks the barman.
"my sons are gay for each other."
"wow, that's rough, on the house again today." says the barman.
Fourth day man walks in and orders 4 shots.
"Doesn't anyone in your house like pussy?" asks the barman.
"My wife" replied the man.

[Commenter_XY]

Give him 5 shots.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem to like jokes about gays.

How do you like jokes about Jews?

[Moderation4ever]

Wonderful sign. I would add, "all guns are stored where children can not access them". It would be nice if all guns owners lived up to the ideas expressed on the sign.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It would be nice if every one in every group of people lived up to whatever high ideals they espouse, but I know of no such group in existence.

[Longtobefree]

I would say if they are old enough to change their gender, they are old enough to be trained in firearm use.

[Moderation4ever]

But they are not trained, they find them left out in the open. I did not have too much trouble in finding examples.

https://fox40.com/news/local-news/sacramento-county/my-baby-was-gone-mother-laments-the-shooting-death-of-her-10-year-old-son/

[Absaroka]

So we have a prohibited person leaving a gun unsecured in his truck, and the felon's 10 year old uses the gun to shoot another 10 year old over a bike race.

It's good to have rules in society - don't do felonies, if you do keep away from guns, don't leave unsecured guns laying around where kids can get them, don't raise your kid to think shooting other kids over a bike race is OK.

I think we all agree on those rules. The problem here doesn't seem to be a lack of rules, but rather a problem in how we deal with people who aren't willing to obey any of society's rules.

[Frank Drackman]

"Happiness is a Warm Gun" (HT Lennon/McCartney)

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWCK9zGynA

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[Frank Drackman]

Updating the late/great Meir Kahane's motto

"For every Jew a .22(3)*"

Frank

*I know there's a difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45 (learned the hard way), but "5.56 x 45" doesn't rhyme with "Jew"

[edemilsonmattoso]

Support Israel. Buy a case of IMI 5.56 green tip.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I know there’s a difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45 "

Yeah, but you don't know what the difference is. Clue: it's not the difference between .223" and 5.56 mm.

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry, we're not talking about your (redacted) length

[Frank Drackman]

Amazon has a great selection of "Trespassers will be Shot. Survivors will be Shot again" "You are no longer Trespassing, you are a Target", "We don't call 911"

Frank

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

If a sportsman true you’d be
Listen carefully to me…

Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
Matters not the least to me.

When a hedge or fence you cross
Though of time it cause a loss
From your gun the cartridge take
For the greater safety’s sake.

If twixt you and neighboring gun Bird shall fly or beast may run Let this maxim ere be thine “Follow not across the line.”

Stops and beaters oft unseen
Lurk behind some leafy screen.
Calm and steady always be
“Never shoot where you can’t see.”

You may kill or you may miss
But at all times think this:
“All the pheasants ever bred
Won’t repay for one man dead.”

Keep your place and silent be;
Game can hear, and game can see;
Don’t be greedy, better spared
Is a pheasant, than one shared. — Mark Hanbury Beaufoy

[Estragon]

In this house we run hide fight

[wreckinball]

Ha ha great sign. However it attracted a lot of idiots.

[CalArtian]

Hey now -- what happened to "be sure of your target and what is beyond it"???

(Which, heck, could be even more metpahorical like.)