Who's packin' in the US?

[Dr Mordrid]

Who's packin' in the US (Gallup gun ownership poll)

Ownership: 47%

Gender -

Men: 52%
Women: 43%

Political -

Republicans: 55%
Democrats: 40%

Distribution -

South: 54%
Midwest: 51%
West: 43%
East: 36%

Largest gains -

Women: (36% to 43%)
Democrats: (32% to 40%)
East: (23% to 36%)

[dZeus]

Looking at the graph, ownership looks relatively stable. However, the latest increase could also be an early indicator of an up-trend.

Dr. M., I'm curious what you think of the reasons for the last increase. Surely the amount of violence hasn't increased much over the past few years? Do you think it is a result of people starting to be more wary of the US government?

However, as the accompanying text with the poll already tells, it's the percentage of reported gun ownership. Changes in actual ownership figures are more difficult to estimate: maybe figures on non-restricted weapon sales would tell us something about that.

[cjolley]

I would be wary of those statistics.
First, it's self reported, not sales figures. So an increase could just be a change in self reporting trends.

Second, I would count as a gun owner. But I have a 40 year old 22 rifle with the body on a shelf and the trigger mechanism locked in a drawer somewhere.
And a plastic sandwich bag full of very old bullets

So, I don't think my gun ownership would imply any social trend one way or the other regarding guns here.
But if I had been in the poll I would have been a yes.

[Brian Ellis]

Well, at least a slim majority of Americans (51%) have enough sense NOT to have a gun in their household. Maybe there is hope yet!

[UtwigMU]

Hope for what? Look at Switzerland, they have high gun ownership and they're one of best countries to live in - high human rights, high social standard, social state... It has always been a right of free people to bear arms, from medieval Europe to Samurai Japan.

This is typical thinking:

1) People are too immature to own guns and might hurt themselves, so we best take them away (even though legally owned firearms don't contribute to crime).

2) My viewpoint is progressive and because of that it must be correct.

[cjolley]

...(even though legally owned firearms don't contribute to crime)...

What on Earth makes you think that?

http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp

Suicide
Firearms were used in 17,352 suicides in 2007, constituting 55% of all gun deaths.10
Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11
On average, 46 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2001-2007.12
White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2007.13
A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.14
Firearms were used in 45% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2007.15
More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.16
The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.17

Domestic Violence

Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.26
Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.27
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.28
Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.29
A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.30 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.31
Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.32
Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.33
A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.34
For additional information about domestic violence and firearms, including background information and state and local laws on the topic, see LCAV’s Domestic Violence and Firearms Policy Summary.

[Brian Ellis]

I lived in Switzerland for 35 years. Generally speaking, although most households have a military weapon which must be kept under strict conditions of security, private non-sporting gun ownership is low, except for collectors. It is mainly illegal to carry arms (police excepted) other than military weapons when going to or from a military course or for approved annual shooting. To obtain a licence to purchase a gun, other than a sporting gun, is VERY difficult in most cantons. You also need a permit to buy ammo for non-sporting guns.

My boss received death threats from a disgruntled ex-employee. He obtained permission to carry a .22 automatic for a period of three months. At the end of this period, he had to show a balance sheet of the ammo purchased and used for practice at the police range and return all the unused ammo, but he was allowed to keep the gun in a safe.

The most usual illegal gun use is suicide, using military weapons. Using a military weapon for crime is judged by court martial and is worth a goodly number of years in clink, even if the crime itself was banal; it is practically unknown, perhaps once a year on average, mostly family problems. The most famous military weapon crime was the bloke who opened fire with an automatic rifle on the cantonal council of Zug, killing 14 about 20 years ago. If I remember correctly, he topped himself at the end.

There is not a great deal of hunting in Switzerland, either. It is rare to see anyone carrying a 12-bore or a hunting rifle. The seasons for chamois, ibex and deer are short with one person-one animal, as a rule, except when there is a need to cull.

No, you cannot compare an almost-police state like Switzerland with the USA.

[Dr Mordrid]

Dr. M., I'm curious what you think of the reasons for the last increase. Surely the amount of violence hasn't increased much over the past few years? Do you think it is a result of people starting to be more wary of the US government?

The curve was rising but made a sharp turn up in 2010.

The longer term rise was due to the general liberalization of gun laws in State law, both in terms of the ease of getting a concealed carry permit (Shall Issue** vs. May Issue or No Issue), and with the evolution of the Castle Doctrine (self-protection of home, property and occupants) and Stand Your Ground (Castle Doctrine taken to the public square) laws.

even with these there was always the question of Federal law vs. the Constitution's Second Amendment which had not been directly addressed in terms of self defense and general gun ownership. Those decisions came down in 2008 and more importantly 2010 -

June 26, 2008: District of Columbia v. Heller

June 28, 2010: McDonald v. Chicago

Heller established the supremacy of Federal and Constitutional guarantees as regards gun ownership, basically that States and municipalities cannot excessively restrict ownership to the point it becomes a de facto ban.

McDonald addressed the Second Amendment directly, and the decision reinforced Heller and found that gun ownership itself was indeed protected - especially for self defence purposes.

The Federal ambiguities resolved, those waiting for resolution made their decision to buy.

Also; there is an increasing realization among all parties; citizens, cops, police officials, prosecutors and those in govt., that the police and courts are a reactive force - not proactive. This means they can do little to actually protect citizens against most violent crime, they only handle the investigation and prosecution. That being the case, citizens need the ability to protect themselves.

Rock stars, movie stars, executives, and government officials can get security details, but what about John & Jane Doe? They're on their own, and increasingly they're discovering that fact of life and responding. The largest groups doing so are those at a physical disadvantage: women, seniors, and often the handicapped - the easy prey.

** Shall Issue: as long as a citizen passes the Federal Instant Background Check and meets State requirements (passed the mandatory classes, no mental illness, not under personal protection orders, no felonies etc.) a carry permit shall be issued. To my knowledge at least 42 States are now Shall Issue.