There have been peaks and valleys, but basically about 40% of American households have owned at least one gun since 1980. The NRA has certainly been responsible for turning this into a virtual cult, but the underlying rate of gun ownership is the fundamental reason that gun control laws are so hard to pass. As is so often the case, while lobbyists and politicians can amplify the preferences of their constituencies, it's the constituency itself that's the real opposition. Somehow they need to be convinced to change their minds.
As far as I know, nobody has a plan for doing that.
The only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is --nothing, apparently.
Even after the Sandy Hook killings, when rank and file support for gun control reached something like 70%, Congress did not act. So I don't think it's "the people" who are blocking gun control. I think it's the arms dealers.
I recall it being higher, more like 90% overall, 70% among NRA members / gun owners, at least for some simple measures like universal background checks.
It's definitely NOT the rate of gun ownership that's the problem, it's that political leadership in the NRA and GOP does not represent the will of the people.
Kevin, I share your love of charts, but not all the world's causality is found in those squiggly lines.
1. The Gallup numbers are higher than some other sources. E.g., according to Pew: "Three-in-ten adults say they own a gun."
2. KD: "...the underlying rate of gun ownership is the fundamental reason that gun control laws are so hard to pass." But even gun owners support many common-sense regulations like universal background checks. So why hasn't widely popular legislation passed? Because the gun industry and NRA own the GOP, which lies through its teeth about Dems taking away everybody's guns. To blame gun owners is to ignore the real culprits, the crooked pols. The challenge is not to convince gun owners to change their minds, but to correct the lies the GOP et al. tell them.
3. The chart on gun ownership is deceiving, making it appear that not much has changed over recent decades. But a lot has changed. We have tons and tons more guns sold every year. In 1999, less than 10 million firearms background checks were done; last year, 40 million were.
4. The most critical change is sales of AR-15s, which invariably are used in the killings that get everyone talking about guns again. Sales, by one estimate:
2007: 257,000
2012: 1,400,000
2017: 1,733,000
2020: 2,277,000
In a sane country, that number would be 0. There is no good reason any private citizen needs an AR-15.
Open carry. Another damned thing that is not the same as before.
https://twitter.com/CJ_FightPD/status/1374176418754617344
I wonder how many of those AR style guns are sold to people who already have one or more AR style guns. Any way you look at it less than 2% of the country owns such weaponry. I don’t understand why that few people get to hold the rest of us hostage.
Here’s a video of some guy demonstrating the Ruger AR-556 pistol:
https://youtu.be/oFqd7JONpDU
It comes with a 30 shot magazine. Is this something we really think people should be open carrying around town?
I vaguely recall a couple of relevant statistics, to wit that only about 10% of people who own "one or more" guns own a lot of them, and that the average number of guns owned by those people is surprisingly high -- like 10 or something (fuzzy on that one).
That is, the large majority of gun owners would appear to be sensible, and it's only a small and apparently somewhat unhinged minority who are the real "gun nuts."
That sounds about right, at least anecdotally. Most people I know have a gun in their home but most have either one or a few at most. (They may have different types of rifles/shotguns for different types of hunting.) I have two because one is an old youth rifle my grandfather left me before he passed. I don't know anyone that has more than four or so guns. But they are definitely out there and skew the numbers for everyone else.
I own a revolver. But just because I do, that doesn’t make me a part of “the gun owning constituency” that Kevin sees as problematic in passing gun legislation. I’m all for reasonable gun laws. I think most people are.
I think some might buy it due to familiarity. It was the mainstay of the US military for decades, so many (like myself) learned how to use it, how to care for it, and so on. And nostalgia for when one was a younger man.
As for the number of gun owners, the salient point here is "own one or more", which suggests that although people who don't own a gun at all remains relatively stable, it's the gun owners who have gone from one hunting bolt-action to owning several AR-style guns with pistols for recreational- I mean, personal protection.
Rate of gun ownership as a binary statistic is not very helpful. What matters is the number and type of guns owned. The huge increase in ownership of AR type weapons is a big problem.
Here in rural America, almost everyone I know (myself excepted) owns a gun or guns -- a least a shotgun for vermin control. Most of the gun owners are perfectly on board with more gun regulation. They know that AR-15s are not hunting weapons, even if they own one (for reasons I don't understand).
Most firearms homicides are still committed with handguns. The AR-15 and similar weapons are popular for mass shootings, but the vast majority of killings are done one or two at a time. Many more lives could be saved by cracking down on handguns than could be saved by banning "assault weapons".
It’s a start and would save lives.
Seven mass shootings in seven days, but only two made the national news ... because those two had mass fatalities, the others had casualties which were mostly wounded who survived.
The difference? The Atlanta and Boulder shooters used the AR15. It doesn't just pierce you, it blows you apart, and you bleed out too fast for first responders to save you.
Yes, that's the interesting stat along with the number of Americans that own extended clips. Military style semi=automatic weapons are not what most people have.
In a sane country, there is no good reason any private citizen needs an AR-15.
Agreed.
Gun control laws are difficult to pass because:
(1) Guns have become an ingrained politicultural issue;
(2) The country is held prisoner by a political structure that enables a minority of Americans to dictate the terms of most policies, with deference to doing nothing;
(3) Guns as a politicultural issue are supported by that political minority with the power to force this country to do nothing;
(4) The NRA successfully fetishized guns, starting in the mid-70s, as a White ethnocentric response to fear of Black men with guns.
+1
Meh, the NRA "changed" due to money. It's a globalist organization. Your racial point is refuted that the NRA is a large reason why negro gun ownership has surged. More of a reaction to the crime wave that has been debated over and over again.
If the NRA so supportive of gun ownership why weren't they protesting the death of Orlando Castile, a law abiding gun owner?
...negro gun ownership...
WTF year are you living in?
The one in which the "Republican" Party is supposedly composed of globalist zionists. We need to just not join midgard, wherever he lives.
Disclaimer
Current gun owner (one) got my conceal carry as well
Retired Army - served in the infantry in "Nam. I've shot people, yes and killed people. Been splattered with the blood of my comrades as they fell to the ground dead. Almost always after a battle when things calmed down grown men would wretch, puke and cry reliving the gunfight.
I also have seen historical photos of Bonnie and Clyde in their old bullet hole riddled car, blood everywhere.
SHOW the crime scene pictures. Show the carnage and the horror
Show "little Susie" face on her desk at Sandy Hook, with the back of her head blow off. Or Little Johnny with several bullet holes in his clothes.
For those marginal gun owners - for those that want to own the libs - for those that want to send ONLY thoughts and prayers when gun fire erupts - THESE PHOTOS will start to have an impact. Good guys with guns very seldom stop bad guys with guns and even if they did after several people got shot we would see that THAT isn't enough. We need to let the people know that these types of things aren't video games they aren't "the Matrix". Bullets kill and maim. Show it.
THEN we will get meaningful legislation. Nationwide back ground checks. Full both hand finger prints for gun permit application. Training for use in order to get the permit. Back date them so that all CURRENT gun owners have a year to get this done. Get gun permitting OUT of the hands of locally elected Sheriffs and into the hands of the state police or a federal agency.
Law abiding citizens do not have anything to worry about. Your guns will NOT be seized unless you don't follow the rules - at that point you'll be a criminal anyway - you'll be a "bad guy with a gun" instead of a good one.
For 70 years we've done things the NRA and gun owners way - and that way has failed
Time for new tactics
All I see are false flags.
To each his own Monty
What I recommend is just the START.
Want to go after the criminals? Enforce the laws we already have?
Mandatory sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun
Immediate NO WARRANT searches of homes for all felony criminals who used a gun in the committing of a new crime
Whats really interesting is that NRA supporters want criminals imprisoned and I agree with that BUT when the issue of warrant-less searches comes up for criminals with felony back grounds the NRA starts the slippery slop argument because what they BELIEVE is that once the "right" to illegal search and seizure is removed FOR CRIMINALs then the next right to be softened is gun owners rights
Slippery slope be damned
IF the NRA and gun supporters are SERIOUS about going after criminals who use guns then stop coddling them under the slippery slope arguments
I've pointed it out many times in the past to no avail, but I'll do it again; the "good guy with a gun" bit is based on a logical fallacy. It assumes perfect, or new perfect, information on both sides. However in the real world, information is asymmetric; the bad guy with a gun knows in advance who he is, the good guys with guns usually haven't got a clue until it is too late. I don't get why purveyors of the "good guy" theory don't understand this. It's also a critical flaw in "open carry". If "open carry" is illegal, then when you see a guy with a gun that isn't in a police uniform, you know he is the bad guy.
That's some sound reasoning! For certain, uh, tactical situations most of us -- thank Heaven! -- will never encounter in our lifetimes.
Show the crime scene photos
I know it's controversial but visual imaging works
Take a look at this story
https://www.rawstory.com/boebert-guns-2651191831/
I don't care that it's from Raw Story or pro DEM what have you
The image is the thing that caught the readers eye - the lack of weapons in the new pic versus the old pic taken at the same location
We are a visual society. Kevin knows this as a photographer. Photos are personal and elicit personal responses. From awe at immense beauty to sadness at extreme poverty to anger at dead people, especially children
No captions needed - just photos
Thoughts and prayers are good if you believe in those things - and I do - but when parents see other children with gun shot wounds they start thinking real hard about their kids safety and their own when guns are about.
While I agree that such images would be powerfully persuasive, the problem is they are brutal to survivors - especially parents of the slaughtered children. The fact that people can be so willfully lacking in imagination when reality encroaches on their politics/fetish that such imagery would be necessary to break through to them is distressing in itself.
tdl-
I agree that it would be tough on survivors
What are the two MOST indelible images from Vietnam?
First and foremost the Buddhist monk setting himself afire in the middle of the street.
Why/ Well he was a man of religion and peace so the contrast was striking
Then there was the S Vietnamese I believe it was a police officer, revolver in hand shooting a suspect. He was using a revolver. The picture seems to show the moment the gun was fired
Why do these images stick with us? They go against everything we believe in but MORE importantly they happened to someone else
It's time to show the horrors because gun shot wounds are horrific
Those images from Vietnam galvanized a LOT of folks - as would pictures of gun massacres today
Agreed, but you left out the little girl on fire, running from the napalmed village with all her clothes burned off.
Salamander
Another vivid image. 60+ years ago and you remember it.
Thats why photo's are so powerful
I firmly believe some of those pictures changed some minds about the legitimacy of the war in Vietnam
I think Boebert realizes this and that is why she changed the photo back ground. Imagine having images of Colorado grocery shoppers and workers shot to death showing them in a pool of their own blood splashed across the internet while that snarky woman wears a side arm?
I agree with what you say, but in 2021, there will be many responses to REAL photos by wingnuts claiming to believe that they are fakes.
Disinformation seems to reign supreme in such a large segment of the population that I can't quite recommend putting survivors in the danger to which even the Sandy Hook parents have been subjected.
Kaw -
The claims we can do nothing about but then those photo's are labelled crime scene photos and appear in courts as evidence the news outlets that claimed they were fake may end up in court too.
Yeah, but before the 60's, this type of crime didn't exist. Even up until the mid-90's, it was rare. Gun Control won't work frankly, the internet as Columbine showed, destroyed it.
The real answer is in William James's world
The crimes didn't exist because mass production of semis didn't happen yet.
Yup, the NRA was also quite different (much less politically involved) before the 60s, and at least since the 80s started there have always been at least a few mass shootings per year. The number has only gone up as gun laws have been relaxed, accessibility to guns increased, and fetishization of guns (particularly semi-auto rifles) raised to a cult like devotion.
What "relaxation"? There were no laws in the first place. The problem is people are mentally sick. sick.
The expiry and non-renewal of the assault rifle ban in 2004 for one. Every country has crazy people, but only the US has mass shootings with such high frequency.
Mental sickness is not the problem, stupidly easy access to weapons designed to kill as many people as possible, as fast as possible, and as easy as possible, is the problem.
If you go to Wikipedia & search for mass shooting incidents, the earliest I recall is from an elementary school in Waukesha, WI, c. 1850.
& there are plenty more between that & Paducah, KY, 1993. (The first I remember seeing in the news of the time.)
I've read elsewhere that it's something like 10% of gun owners own 90% of the guns -- ammosexuals who have stockpiled virtual arsenals of military-grade hardware to defend their homesteads against UN penis-shrinking rays or something.
The real problem is that those gunhumpers are single-issue voters who will crawl over broken glass to punish any politician who votes for gun control, whereas the 90% who tell pollsters they would like to see better gun control aren't so passionate about it that it scares pro-gun politicians into rethinking their votes. So we're ruled, as in so many other things, by an unrepresentative, tyrannical minority. The question is when we decide we've had enough and tell the gun nuts to go fuck themselves, and put our politicians on notice that being pro-assault weapon is going to be the career killer.
"The real problem is that those gunhumpers are single-issue voters who will crawl over broken glass to punish any politician who votes for gun control"
Boy do I know a few of those guys. Good grief
"whereas the 90% who tell pollsters they would like to see better gun control aren't so passionate about it that it scares pro-gun politicians into rethinking their votes"
Two things first many people LIE to pollsters. I hate to be so blunt but they do. Trumpers were even told by groups LIKE the RNC to lie so as to have a November surprise. But secondly anti gun legislation is not popular when you use the term gun control"
Think about this in todays terms - COVID control - wear a mask. Americans HATE the thought of being under someones "control". They hated being told by insurers that seat belts save lives - but insurers went about it through our pocket books. Higher premiums for cars w/o seat belts. It has now morphed into being automatic when you get in the care OR a civil offense for being observed w/o a belt on.
But the issue is "control" no one likes it for any reason so those folks who may be ambivalent about gun legislation are now against it when the word control is used.
We are a weird nation and we are so full of ourselves.
+1
This thoughtful dive into our problem was written in 2018 after Parkland and
its still relevant as nothing has changed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/american-gun-culture/554870/
America's Gun-Culture Problem
Sadly, at least half the Parkland survivors are prolly going on today about how Bernie wouldn't have let this happen in Boulder.
The GOP has become dependent on various groups of single-issue voters, and they can’t afford to lose any of them. One of those groups are the obsessive gun-control opponents, who have been convinced by decades of propaganda that gun control = confiscation. That allows the NRA, National Shooting Sports Foundation and similar industry groups to focus on the small number of red- and purple-state Democrats that are running in a given election; the threat or actuality of negative ads is enough to keep gun-control supporters out of contention.
Frankly, I think the gun paranoiacs are unreachable. Democrats just need to turn more purple states blue emphasizing economics, equal justice, education issues and similar.
Sorry about the subject-verb disagreement there. ‘Garden-path’ error.
Waste of time. Equal justice is a dialectical illusion. Democrats gain by flaming why people are humping guns in the first place and then pounce on it. Social Nationalism is the answer, progressives are the disease.
The rate of gun ownership is less important than the culture of gun ownership we have. There are still people who exist in the older gun culture: they own a small number of guns for sporting activities, and keep those guns stored responsibly when not in use. This is the gun culture that predominates in other developed nations.
A lot of American gun culture now is a mixture of posturing and self-proteection. That has resulted in a shift in the types of guns purchased: assault rifles and handguns have risen in popularity to meet those desires. But both of those types of guns are riskier for people. They are perfect for people who want to kill many others, who want to hide their weapon while in public, who want to carry the gun everywhere, who want to commit suicide.
The movement toward guns for protection instead of hunting has also changed how guns are stored. Locked and unloaded is no longer useful. But guns that are loaded and easy to access result in more accidental shootings, more suicides, and more gun theft. News reports in the last couple of years have highlighted the increasing number of gun thefts from cars - so many are left in unlocked cars that it is now an easy way to steal them.
We focus on gun control whenever there is a mass shooting, but the daily one-off gun deaths are a much more significant problem. Banning AR-15s might help make people feel less vulnerable, which will help. Because it is really the guns for protection movement that we have to change. That will take more than laws. That requires a cultural shift, and we are going completely in the wrong direction on that one. Groups that had few guns before (women, POC) are buying guns at greater rates now, explicitly for protection.
Loaded, unsecured guns also lead to more domestic quarrels that end in shootings. The ‘guns for personal/home protection’ story is a false one; a gun in the house is more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder. But I am doubtful that the data will convince anyone. It’s so much more agreeable to imagine oneself the hero, foiling a home invasion, than to picture oneself as a suicide, or accidentally or intentionally shooting a family member.
It's not even guns for personal protection anymore. Protection from what? Most of them are well-off, middle-class suburbanites living in perfectly safe neighborhoods protected by white cops who look (and feel) like them. It's about assembling a military-grade arsenal for when the time comes to storm the Capitol, seize the government and exterminate the "undesireables." These guys are Nazi brownshirts -- no more, no less.
"The movement toward guns for protection instead of hunting has also changed how guns are stored"
Which is why pics of Sandy Hook are so vital
That Mom who bought a gun for protection and leaves it loaded in her night stand may look at that gun differently when the 11pm news shows the pic of the 3 year old shot accidentally by the 7 year old in the house
She will look at that loaded, unlocked weapon differently.
The only thing that can stop a dumb freak with a gun is another dumb freak with a gun.
I do not think it is a leap of faith that plenty of hand gun owners would be ok with an assault weapons and HCM ban. Not mention closing any loop holes to permitting. All perfectly reasonable.
Banning alcohol and drugs worked, so let's do more of that with guns.
It'll be a lot easier and cheaper than unfucking our broken society, that's for sure.
Was anyone here advocating the banning of guns? No. Are there reasonable measures to regulate gun ownership and handling, short of banning? Of course there are!
Every other developed nation has disturbed people, income inequality, violent gamer subcultures, etc. We're the only one that regularly deals with mass shootings. I wonder what the difference could be?
A) Nobody advocates banning private firearms ownership in America. B) We know what works with respect to lessening gun violence: standard, rich country firearms regulations. A good number of such countries (Canada, Finland, Switzerland, etc) maintain widespread private gun ownership and robust hunting cultures but nonetheless have implemented stringent regulatory systems that help reduce violence. It's possible to have both. Gun nuts in America want the former but not the latter.
The NRA has certainly been responsible for turning this into a virtual cult, but the underlying rate of gun ownership is the fundamental reason that gun control laws are so hard to pass.
This is asserted without evidence, and, among other weaknesses, the arguments assumes people who own guns are all opposed to strengthening gun regulations. I doubt that's true. Moreover, gun ownership has been drifting downwards (mostly due to increased urbanization).
The main reasons sensible firearms regulations are so hard to enact in America are: A) asymmetrical intensity of opinion and B) the myriad, anti-democratic features of the US political system that help Republicans in lots of other policy areas, too (not just guns).
(Needless to say the extremist second amendment jurisprudence of right wing judged doesn't help either.)