7 ms·

Fewer than 20% of gun owners are active hunters [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if it's as low as 10%, and more than a few of those hunters are pretty casual about

Fewer than 20% of gun owners are active hunters [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if it's as low as 10%, and more than a few of those hunters are pretty casual about gun safety and conservation, in my experience. A little off topic, but...my experience is that many gun owners (maybe most?) are far too casual about gun safety. I'm a 2nd amendment supporter and lean libertarian, BUT I'm also a pragmatist. I think it's absolutely ludicrous that we don't have strong national standards and licensing requirements for acquiring, owning, and carrying firearms. I'm a pilot, and the amount of effort I had to put into being able to fly a small airplane is orders of magnitude greater than that required to walk into a store and walk out with a weapon designed to kill people. I think you should be required to go through initial training, safely store your firearms, and go through refresher training every 2 years. At minimum. 1. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-gun-owners-outnumbered-hunters-5-1-2011 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-gun-owners-outnumbere...

zepto 10y ago
Whilst I agree with you about the need for people to know gun safety rules, your requirements seem unrealistically reactive. Most gun owners in the US barely if ever shoot their guns, and the number of accidents or deaths that result from unsafe handling is negligible. You would save more lives by requiring training every 2 years for an license to buy aspirin.
- 542458 10y ago
  For anybody else curious about actual numbers... In 2013 it was 505 deaths due to negligent handling (vs 11,208 homicides and 21,175 suicides). I'm not able to find any numbers for accidental Aspirin overdose specifically. NSAID use in general kills about 16,500 people yearly, but that number includes drugs other than Aspirin and doesn't differentiate accidental overdose vs suicides or complications from use as prescribed.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Those numbers suggest that the two problems are in very much the same ballpark. Conservative estimates suggest that 1 in 3 Americans own guns. A mandatory training every other year would be an approx $2Bn program annually. (Based on $50 per person per class including administration, which seems very conservative to me) It seems obvious that if you had $2Bn per year to spend on preventing avoidable deaths, this would be an extremely low priority.
    - brewdad 10y ago
      You are neglecting the medical costs of treatment prior to death and also treating those who are injured by guns but not killed. I don't know the exact numbers but I have to imagine that $2bn worth of gun safety courses comes pretty close to paying for itself when all costs are included.
      - zepto 10y ago
        It's absurd to suggest that it costs $2bn to treat 500 people who die of their injuries. If you don't have numbers to back up the idea that that injuries soak up the rest of the expense then I'm just going to call it and say your imagination is flat out wrong. Most gun related deaths are not accidents, and wouldn't be presented by safety classes.
    - DamnYuppie 10y ago
      That would then become a defacto gun owner registration system. Good luck getting that passed!
      - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
        Why just owner database? Such registration would create two classes of citizenry, current gun owners who have guns without having cleared the tests, and another class of people that are first time gun buyers who can't buy guns without first clearing the test. To make it fair to first time gun buyers, then the process would become a "gun round-up, education, certification and reclaim you gun" process. Good luck passing that!
  - thomnottom 10y ago
    I was curious about the NSAID number. Doing some quick research I came across this quote: "Mortality reported with NSAID use is generally linked to NSAID-associated GI bleeding, and the reported incidence is quite variable. Much of the literature reports 16,500 deaths annually as a result of NSAID-induced GI bleeding. However, it is important to put this number into perspective. This estimate was published in a 1999 observational study evaluating data from the Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information System (ARAMIS).5 The database captured 19 NSAID-related GI bleeding deaths; the authors then extrapolated this number to the overall US population with arthritis. The 16,500 deaths has been considered overestimated or inaccurate because it was based on a small number of actual deaths and extrapolated inappropriately.6,7 A much smaller number was reported by Tarone and colleagues.7 They reported 3,200 deaths annually as a result of NSAID-induced GI bleeding based on US mortality data reported in the 1990s." Unfortunately I can't access the sources right now. https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/ask-expert-do-nsaids-cause-more-deaths-opioids https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacol...
  - zepto 10y ago
    Also: I'm curious how reliable that 2013 figure is. 2014's was misreported: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
> walk into a store and walk out with a weapon designed to kill people. 1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) Ability to kill is limited by your imagination only. I don't want to help, but do the exercise yourself, sit down for five minutes with a goal of hurting a faceless non-existent person and count how many ways you can come up with. Whether the tool is designed for that purpose has nothing to do with it. > I think you should be required to go through initial training, safely store your firearms, and go through refresher training every 2 years. At minimum. Real life, legal, gun needs are more urgent in nature than that. In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Your "Let me feel good with there being a 2 week gun training course" is actually stopping a real life person from protecting themselves in a real life situation. I am fine with the course being a highly recommended thing that people should attend, but it shouldn't be required qualification for a gun purchase. Guns are much much easy to operate than planes. Yes, safety is important but self-preservation is even more important. I have seen this lately, existing gun owners are quite fine with new ardent restrictions on new purchases. If we say, everyone must deposit guns at armory first, take a course and then pick up their guns from armory, then we would get an immediate push back from existing gun owners. I got mine, now others should be thoroughly checked before they get their. I don't think that is fair to someone who needs a gun for personal safety immediately. Personal safety situations can't be planned for unfortunately, it creeps up on you when you least expect it. Last thing you want is some "let me feel good and righteous" has trimmed your rights to bear arms.
- InitialLastName 10y ago
  >1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) There's a difference between "it's possible to kill a person with this" and "this is designed to be good at killing people". It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". > In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts).
pc86 10y ago
We don't have strong national standards because it's not in the purview of the Federal government to regulate gun sales or licensing. It is explicitly up to the states to do within the bounds of the Second Amendment. Flying a plane is not a Constitutional right (I am finishing my PPL now, actually!), and is under the Federal government's regulatory authority.
- winter_blue 10y ago
  In 2010, the SCOTUS found that the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment) is incorporated by the 14th amendment against the states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago So states have restricted power and authority to regulate or restrict your freedom to bear arms. Now, regarding flying... If we ignore the machine used to travel / the mode of transportation (be it a plane, a car, a space saucer, etc) -- the basic question we're asking here is: do the people have a travel freely within their country regardless of what machine or contraption they use to do so? A basic analysis of the constitution would reveal that the right to travel freely (using whatever contraption or machine to do so) was something so obviously a right, that it did not require to be explicitly stated as a protected right (and likely implicitly covered under the 9th). Imagine states in 1800, requiring licensing (i.e. government approval) before you could ride a horse. There would've been an uproar.
  - pc86 10y ago
    The specificity is important. I am talking specifically about operating general aviation aircraft. A good portion of GA flight is not travel from A to B but sight-seeing/recreation. The question isn't whether travel is a Constitutional right. The question is whether it's a violation of your Constitutional rights to require training and licensure to operate a single-engine piston aircraft. It's not.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Flying a plane is not a Constitutional right (I am finishing my PPL now, actually!), and is under the Federal government's regulatory authority. Which enumerated power in the Constitution grants the United States the ability to regulate intrastate flight?
DamnYuppie 10y ago
As for percentage of gun owners who hunt please keep in mind more than 1/2 of all tags sold for big game are for Archery. As for knowing those who aren't conservationists I think, based on my experience, it is very much a regional thing. People from back east don't have a strong a tie to conservation as most of their land isn't public land or land they have easy access to. Most hunting out east, and in Texas, is owning land or knowing someone who owns land. As you move further west most hunters use public land and they are more inclined to focus on conservation. Please keep in mind these are my observations having lived and hunted all over the US, it is by no means a sweeping detailed study.

zepto 10y ago

Whilst I agree with you about the need for people to know gun safety rules, your requirements seem unrealistically reactive. Most gun owners in the US barely if ever shoot their guns, and the number of accidents or deaths that result from unsafe handling is negligible. You would save more lives by requiring training every 2 years for an license to buy aspirin.

542458 10y ago
For anybody else curious about actual numbers... In 2013 it was 505 deaths due to negligent handling (vs 11,208 homicides and 21,175 suicides). I'm not able to find any numbers for accidental Aspirin overdose specifically. NSAID use in general kills about 16,500 people yearly, but that number includes drugs other than Aspirin and doesn't differentiate accidental overdose vs suicides or complications from use as prescribed.
- zepto 10y ago
  Those numbers suggest that the two problems are in very much the same ballpark. Conservative estimates suggest that 1 in 3 Americans own guns. A mandatory training every other year would be an approx $2Bn program annually. (Based on $50 per person per class including administration, which seems very conservative to me) It seems obvious that if you had $2Bn per year to spend on preventing avoidable deaths, this would be an extremely low priority.
  - brewdad 10y ago
    You are neglecting the medical costs of treatment prior to death and also treating those who are injured by guns but not killed. I don't know the exact numbers but I have to imagine that $2bn worth of gun safety courses comes pretty close to paying for itself when all costs are included.
    - zepto 10y ago
      It's absurd to suggest that it costs $2bn to treat 500 people who die of their injuries. If you don't have numbers to back up the idea that that injuries soak up the rest of the expense then I'm just going to call it and say your imagination is flat out wrong. Most gun related deaths are not accidents, and wouldn't be presented by safety classes.
  - DamnYuppie 10y ago
    That would then become a defacto gun owner registration system. Good luck getting that passed!
    - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
      Why just owner database? Such registration would create two classes of citizenry, current gun owners who have guns without having cleared the tests, and another class of people that are first time gun buyers who can't buy guns without first clearing the test. To make it fair to first time gun buyers, then the process would become a "gun round-up, education, certification and reclaim you gun" process. Good luck passing that!
- thomnottom 10y ago
  I was curious about the NSAID number. Doing some quick research I came across this quote: "Mortality reported with NSAID use is generally linked to NSAID-associated GI bleeding, and the reported incidence is quite variable. Much of the literature reports 16,500 deaths annually as a result of NSAID-induced GI bleeding. However, it is important to put this number into perspective. This estimate was published in a 1999 observational study evaluating data from the Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information System (ARAMIS).5 The database captured 19 NSAID-related GI bleeding deaths; the authors then extrapolated this number to the overall US population with arthritis. The 16,500 deaths has been considered overestimated or inaccurate because it was based on a small number of actual deaths and extrapolated inappropriately.6,7 A much smaller number was reported by Tarone and colleagues.7 They reported 3,200 deaths annually as a result of NSAID-induced GI bleeding based on US mortality data reported in the 1990s." Unfortunately I can't access the sources right now. https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/ask-expert-do-nsaids-cause-more-deaths-opioids https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacol...
- zepto 10y ago
  Also: I'm curious how reliable that 2013 figure is. 2014's was misreported: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

AmIFirstToThink 10y ago

> walk into a store and walk out with a weapon designed to kill people. 1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) Ability to kill is limited by your imagination only. I don't want to help, but do the exercise yourself, sit down for five minutes with a goal of hurting a faceless non-existent person and count how many ways you can come up with. Whether the tool is designed for that purpose has nothing to do with it. > I think you should be required to go through initial training, safely store your firearms, and go through refresher training every 2 years. At minimum. Real life, legal, gun needs are more urgent in nature than that. In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Your "Let me feel good with there being a 2 week gun training course" is actually stopping a real life person from protecting themselves in a real life situation. I am fine with the course being a highly recommended thing that people should attend, but it shouldn't be required qualification for a gun purchase. Guns are much much easy to operate than planes. Yes, safety is important but self-preservation is even more important. I have seen this lately, existing gun owners are quite fine with new ardent restrictions on new purchases. If we say, everyone must deposit guns at armory first, take a course and then pick up their guns from armory, then we would get an immediate push back from existing gun owners. I got mine, now others should be thoroughly checked before they get their. I don't think that is fair to someone who needs a gun for personal safety immediately. Personal safety situations can't be planned for unfortunately, it creeps up on you when you least expect it. Last thing you want is some "let me feel good and righteous" has trimmed your rights to bear arms.

InitialLastName 10y ago
>1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) There's a difference between "it's possible to kill a person with this" and "this is designed to be good at killing people". It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". > In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts).

pc86 10y ago

We don't have strong national standards because it's not in the purview of the Federal government to regulate gun sales or licensing. It is explicitly up to the states to do within the bounds of the Second Amendment. Flying a plane is not a Constitutional right (I am finishing my PPL now, actually!), and is under the Federal government's regulatory authority.

winter_blue 10y ago
In 2010, the SCOTUS found that the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment) is incorporated by the 14th amendment against the states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago So states have restricted power and authority to regulate or restrict your freedom to bear arms. Now, regarding flying... If we ignore the machine used to travel / the mode of transportation (be it a plane, a car, a space saucer, etc) -- the basic question we're asking here is: do the people have a travel freely within their country regardless of what machine or contraption they use to do so? A basic analysis of the constitution would reveal that the right to travel freely (using whatever contraption or machine to do so) was something so obviously a right, that it did not require to be explicitly stated as a protected right (and likely implicitly covered under the 9th). Imagine states in 1800, requiring licensing (i.e. government approval) before you could ride a horse. There would've been an uproar.
- pc86 10y ago
  The specificity is important. I am talking specifically about operating general aviation aircraft. A good portion of GA flight is not travel from A to B but sight-seeing/recreation. The question isn't whether travel is a Constitutional right. The question is whether it's a violation of your Constitutional rights to require training and licensure to operate a single-engine piston aircraft. It's not.
zeveb 10y ago
> Flying a plane is not a Constitutional right (I am finishing my PPL now, actually!), and is under the Federal government's regulatory authority. Which enumerated power in the Constitution grants the United States the ability to regulate intrastate flight?

DamnYuppie 10y ago

As for percentage of gun owners who hunt please keep in mind more than 1/2 of all tags sold for big game are for Archery. As for knowing those who aren't conservationists I think, based on my experience, it is very much a regional thing. People from back east don't have a strong a tie to conservation as most of their land isn't public land or land they have easy access to. Most hunting out east, and in Texas, is owning land or knowing someone who owns land. As you move further west most hunters use public land and they are more inclined to focus on conservation. Please keep in mind these are my observations having lived and hunted all over the US, it is by no means a sweeping detailed study.