New gun violence thread

[SKL]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Ironically, a lot of guns used in Mexico are purchased in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

Yeah there are cross-border effects on crime rates going both ways for sure.

Other countries that don't border the US also have similar issues though.  Gun control does not equal peace and tranquility.

[KSera]

29 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

This is an example of “eating your own”. You are attacking someone who is on your side because they don’t meet some purity test.   This doesn’t persuade anyone and it makes our side look extreme.   Stuff like this brings movements down. 

I didn't have any sense that AnotherNewName was on my "side" -- I don't know enough about them to know, but the posts in this thread were suggesting a heavy anti-regulation bent. They followed up with a post right after yours clarifying their position, which was helpful to me. I was getting a strong "we can't/shouldn't regulate anything" vibe and I stand corrected. I'm just incredibly frustrated and angry that we are where we are in this country. It should be unthinkable that we wouldn't move mountains to do anything and everything we can to change this.

[prairiewindmomma]

Gun control generally isn’t the determining factor, but rule of law is. One cannot look at Mexico and its gun violence issue without also looking at the fact that cartels drive a good chunk of the gun deaths. Those cartels largely get their guns from the US. Cut down the supply, cut down the violence. 
 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43654914

below is an open access version. Conclusion and the graph on page 43 are most relevant if you don’t want to read the whole thing 

https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/evnts/media/Oeindrila_Dube%2C_Cross_Border_Spillover.pdf

[MercyA]

5 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Off topic, but you have to do that?  Yard sales also aren’t regulated in my state.  Some towns will fine you if you don’t collect your signs in a timely fashion, but I can throw stuff on the drive way to sell any time I want.  The only notification I have to do is to the local Facebook groups to advertise.  

In our little rural town, you're supposed to buy a permit and hang it up at the garage sale. I think it's $10. My mom always did it, but I rarely ever see them at other sales. 

Guessing that the purpose was to discourage people from having sales at their house every weekend or otherwise excessively. I've never ever seen anyone stop and check for a permit, but if your neighbor kept having sales with no permits, it would be easy to report them. 

Sorry, random. 🙂 

[SKL]

When we talk about kids and firearm deaths, people seem to be picturing young kids sitting in school, but the vast, vast majority of those involved in gun murders are older teens.  The "child" gun death rates include adults ages 18 and 19.  Not saying their lives are less precious, but knowing the types of murders we're talking about is necessary for discussing solutions.

We also have way too many suicides that could be prevented with better gun purchasing and storage laws (and compliance / enforcement).  And accidents, though relatively, the gun accident rate is much lower than the above two.

On the topic of storage ... this ought to be the least controversial topic of all.  Why don't we see the kind of public education in the media that we see with other child safety issues?  Is it because the media is afraid to admit that there is such a thing as legal, responsible gun ownership in the first place?  I think lives could be saved with mass eduation about the risks of improper storage and the ABCs of proper storage.  Why is this not a no-brainer?

[Heartstrings]

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

On the topic of storage ... this ought to be the least controversial topic of all.  Why don't we see the kind of public education in the media that we see with other child safety issues?  Is it because the media is afraid to admit that there is such a thing as legal, responsible gun ownership in the first place?  I think lives could be saved with mass eduation about the risks of improper storage and the ABCs of proper storage.  Why is this not a no-brainer?

I watch too many cop shows and see plenty of examples of people using gun safes to store guns in the home, etc.  I think any campaign blitz would run afoul of the NRA and who wants that headache.  Have you seen the vitriol online that comes from pediatricians advising safe gun storage at well child checks?   People lose their minds, full stop.  People pose with their children holding AR 15s in Christmas cards.  We’re a long way from being able to have ads showing teaching about gun storage.  Can you picture the outrage? People would start leaving loaded guns on the breakfast table to prove a point.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

16 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think lives could be saved with mass eduation about the risks of improper storage and the ABCs of proper storage.  Why is this not a no-brainer?

I agree it should be, but safe storage laws have been heavily lobbied against by prominent gun groups. They tell people that it's the first step to losing gun rights and that it's just people being hysterical about guns. I think it's those groups and not the media that carry the blame on that one.  Sure, education on that topic would be great, and better than not doing it, but I expect there are a lot of gun owners who take in the information that safe storage laws are a threat to their rights and make the leap to safe storage itself being somehow a bad thing.

22 minutes ago, SKL said:

We also have way too many suicides that could be prevented with better gun purchasing and storage laws (and compliance / enforcement).  And accidents, though relatively, the gun accident rate is much lower than the above two.

Yep. A gun in the house makes suicide a much bigger risk. Safe storage wouldn't protect the gun owner from that risk, but would protect other people in the house.

23 minutes ago, SKL said:

When we talk about kids and firearm deaths, people seem to be picturing young kids sitting in school, but the vast, vast majority of those involved in gun murders are older teens.  The "child" gun death rates include adults ages 18 and 19.  Not saying their lives are less precious, but knowing the types of murders we're talking about is necessary for discussing solutions.

I'm actually not. It's my college age kids that I actually feel are at highest risk. And they're also the ones whose mental health is most affected by the gun violence in this country. If I had elementary students attending school, I expect I would worry for them at school as well, though.

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

We’re a long way from being able to have ads showing teaching about gun storage.  I can picture the outrage right now.  People would start leaving loaded guns on the breakfast table to prove a point.  

Exactly this. You said it much better than I did.

[pinball]

2 hours ago, Goldcrest said:

Predictive models by default end up discriminatory though in any scenario I can think of. Because they are proactive, not reactive, therefore there must be an element of profiling, or typecasting, whatever terminology you want to use. 

Would it not be more simple to strengthen your country's laws against already violent criminals. Domestic violence, criminal violence, repeat violent offenders? While that would not likely have stopped this individual from possessing a gun, isn't strict and harsh prosecution and high prison/jail sentences a better deterrent to the overall problem with gun violence? 

I have read many many US news stories that detail very violent criminals committing crimes with guns and then being released on bail, and also in many cases having the charges dropped, not because there were. not grounds, but as AnotherNewName outlined, because the state chose not to prosecute. 

Are you not in the U.S.? 

[Goldcrest]

1 hour ago, pinball said:

Are you not in the U.S.? 

I am not a citizen. I am in the States occasionally, and have lived in the States at various times though. 

[Goldcrest]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

 

Isn’t that what most of what we’re talking about is? I was responding to someone who suggested that instead of any gun reform, we should just increase sentencing, which given what we already have and see, doesn’t appear likely to do much to reduce homicides, and nothing at all for suicides or mass shootings. I mean, I don’t see any reason any one who purposely kills another person (other than in clearly warranted self defense) should ever be out of prison, but I don’t think that really has much to do with this particular discussion.

Multiple major US cities are no longer prosecuting an assortment of violent crimes by choice, so it would appear as if you aren't actually attempting to reduce homicides and violent crimes using even existing laws. Do you think these prosecutors will be more likely to enforce new laws than ones that already exist against violent crime? 

Of course additional laws can reduce crime, but if no one prosecutes the violators, they are just as impotent as the laws and court officials you have now who actively promote not prosecuting crimes in the name activism. 

If you are fixating on suicide and school massacres, those are very specific instances, but the vast majority of gun violence (as the name of this thread indicates) committed against other people are neither suicide nor school massacres, and it seems that you already have laws in existence to address many many forms of gun violence. 

Why isn't there more outrage against the lack of prosecution and prison sentence against gun violence in general? From the outside, it seems like Americans think that something new and improved is going to help but you don't even avail yourselves to what you have. Aren't prosecutors elected in most municipalities? People are voting in prosecutors who are actively opposed to prosecution it would seem. 

 

 

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Goldcrest said:

Multiple major US cities are no longer prosecuting an assortment of violent crimes by choice, so it would appear as if you aren't actually attempting to reduce homicides and violent crimes using even existing laws.

Where are they not prosecuting homicides and other violent crimes. Many cities have reduced prosecution for non-violent crime for a variety of reasons (sometimes because they are too busy prosecuting violent crime, but that's not the only reason). I just did a search to see if I was missing something about cities actually not prosecuting homicides or violent crimes, and I couldn't find anything. I did find some interesting statistics indicating that it appears that in several places, reducing prosecution for non violent offenses led to a reduction in future crime, including violent crime (Not Prosecuting Low-Level Crimes Leads To Less Crime In Suffolk County, Research Finds). But in any case, I can't find anything about cities no longer prosecuting violent crime.

14 minutes ago, Goldcrest said:

If you are fixating on suicide and school massacres, those are very specific instances, but the vast majority of gun violence (as the name of this thread indicates) committed against other people are neither suicide nor school massacres, and it seems that you already have laws in existence to address many many forms of gun violence. 

I'm not fixating on suicide and school massacres--I addressed that above. They are both very relevant, though, and all three categories need to be addressed. About half of gun deaths are suicide, so that's a massive issue and without access to a gun, a much smaller number of those suicides are attempted and especially completed. School shootings make up a very small percentage of gun deaths, but hopefully it goes without saying why they are important to address as well. The factor that all three of these categories have in common are the guns. Different precipitating factors, but it's the guns the guns the guns that make the outcomes different than in countries without the gun problem we have here.

[Heartstrings]

Has anyone seen the massive protest for gun reform in the TN state house today.  Yes inside the state house, not at the state house. Amazing! 
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nashville-shooting-protests-tennessee-capitol-gun-control/

 

[Heartstrings]

There is a new group coming together through TikTok and discord that is trying to plan for a sustained action, something in every state and long term. It’s called Grown Ups for Growing Up and wearorange.org is the website for now.  If anyone wants to get involved to try to make change.  
 

edit: 
You can already see a lot of orange in the protest in TN.  I thought it was mocking jail clothes, but it’s because of this new group trying to come together.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

26 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Has anyone seen the massive protest for gun reform in the TN state house today.  Yes inside the state house, not at the state house. Amazing! 
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nashville-shooting-protests-tennessee-capitol-gun-control/

 

Some of the despicable response and spin in response to this has me feeling absolute despair. This country is so broken 😪.

[Heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

Some of the despicable response and spin in response to this has me feeling absolute despair. This country is so broken 😪.

It is.  But man, if you want some HOPE, get over to Tik Tok and watch what’s going on.   I’m usually pretty jaded but these young people give me HOPE.  

Edited March 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[livetoread]

2 hours ago, Goldcrest said:

Multiple major US cities are no longer prosecuting an assortment of violent crimes by choice, so it would appear as if you aren't actually attempting to reduce homicides and violent crimes using even existing laws.

That's quite an assertion, (one I have frankly never heard before outside of those just trying to score political points in bad faith) and it would be helpful to the discussion if you could link to some reputable sources that have facts supporting it. What violent crimes are no longer being prosecuted and in which multiple cities?

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

It is.  But man, if you want some HOPE, get over to Tik Tok and watch what’s going on.   I’m usually pretty jaded but these young people give me HOPE.  

I hate TikTok and all the bad stuff it brings to a lot of kids’ mental health, but I’ll look this one up. I do agree the young people are what give me hope. It’s what I lean into with my own young people when they are feeling despair about things like this: their generation will not stand for this, and it will change. 

[Heartstrings]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

I hate TikTok and all the bad stuff it brings to a lot of kids’ mental health, but I’ll look this one up. I do agree the young people are what give me hope. It’s what I lean into with my own young people when they are feeling despair about things like this: their generation will not stand for this, and it will change. 

Search for gun reform, or Tennessee Protests.  
 

I don’t fully get the Tik Tok hate, it’s not any worse for kids than FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, snap chat, etc. etc.  Kids shouldn’t be on any of them.  I enjoy tik tok myself though.  

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Search for gun reform, or Tennessee Protests.  
 

I don’t fully get the Tik Tok hate, it’s not any worse for kids than FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, snap chat, etc. etc.  Kids shouldn’t be on any of them.  I enjoy tik tok myself though.  

Oh I have issues with all of them. I find TikTok and Instagram have been most problematic for my own young adults due to the way the algorithms work and the fact that they watch the negative stuff served to them and then get fed more and more and more of it, and it’s been a bad thing. 

[Katy]

4 hours ago, KSera said:

Where are they not prosecuting homicides and other violent crimes. Many cities have reduced prosecution for non-violent crime for a variety of reasons (sometimes because they are too busy prosecuting violent crime, but that's not the only reason). I just did a search to see if I was missing something about cities actually not prosecuting homicides or violent crimes, and I couldn't find anything. I did find some interesting statistics indicating that it appears that in several places, reducing prosecution for non violent offenses led to a reduction in future crime, including violent crime (Not Prosecuting Low-Level Crimes Leads To Less Crime In Suffolk County, Research Finds). But in any case, I can't find anything about cities no longer prosecuting violent crime.

I'm not fixating on suicide and school massacres--I addressed that above. They are both very relevant, though, and all three categories need to be addressed. About half of gun deaths are suicide, so that's a massive issue and without access to a gun, a much smaller number of those suicides are attempted and especially completed. School shootings make up a very small percentage of gun deaths, but hopefully it goes without saying why they are important to address as well. The factor that all three of these categories have in common are the guns. Different precipitating factors, but it's the guns the guns the guns that make the outcomes different than in countries without the gun problem we have here.

 

2 hours ago, livetoread said:

That's quite an assertion, (one I have frankly never heard before outside of those just trying to score political points in bad faith) and it would be helpful to the discussion if you could link to some reputable sources that have facts supporting it. What violent crimes are no longer being prosecuted and in which multiple cities?

I don't know about multiple cities, but I saw this play out in Milwaukee while we lived in Wisconsin.  The city had had enough with police violence and cops targeting minorities. So they chased out the leaders who wanted to stop crime, and decided to stop enforcing most laws. Crime skyrocketed. It was frankly scary needing to go anywhere near Milwaukee after a while. The city had to pay back the police chief they demoted without cause because they no longer supported law enforcement. https://www.wpr.org/former-milwaukee-police-chief-files-federal-lawsuit-against-city

Milwaukee stopped prosecuting many crimes, stopped police chases because they were deemed too risky, and let violent criminals out on bond.  The man who drove an SUV through a Christmas parade in Waukesha (killing 6 and injuring more than 60) had not been kept in jail for attempted murder of his girlfriend with his car a few weeks before.  I do believe it's happening in many major cities.  There's a big shift in attitude about police.  Possibly for good reason, but there are natural consequences to it.

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Katy
Correcting link.

[KSera]

50 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I don't know about multiple cities, but I saw this play out in Milwaukee while we lived in Wisconsin.  The city had had enough with police violence and cops targeting minorities. So they chased out the leaders who wanted to stop crime, and decided to stop enforcing most laws. Crime skyrocketed. It was frankly scary needing to go anywhere near Milwaukee after a while. The city had to pay back the police chief they demoted without cause because they no longer supported law enforcement. https://www.wpr.org/former-milwaukee-police-chief-files-federal-lawsuit-against-city

Milwaukee stopped prosecuting many crimes, stopped police chases because they were deemed too risky, and let violent criminals out on bond.  The man who drove an SUV through a Christmas parade in Waukesha (killing 6 and injuring more than 60) had not been kept in jail for attempted murder of his girlfriend with his car a few weeks before.  I do believe it's happening in many major cities.  There's a big shift in attitude about police.  Possibly for good reason, but there are natural consequences to it.

 

From looking it up, that looks like a specific Milwaukee problem, related to a specific DA. Definitely a problem. Brooks absolutely shouldn’t have been let out so easily (I take issue with the way our bail system works in general, but that’s a totally different issue). I’m still not seeing refusal to prosecute people for homicide anywhere, as was claimed. I’m seeing those changes are related to non-violent and low level crime. 

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

From looking it up, that looks like a specific Milwaukee problem, related to a specific DA. Definitely a problem. Brooks absolutely shouldn’t have been let out so easily (I take issue with the way our bail system works in general, but that’s a totally different issue). I’m still not seeing refusal to prosecute people for homicide anywhere, as was claimed. I’m seeing those changes are related to non-violent and low level crime. 

I don't know about not prosecuting say, murderers.  But they weren't prosecuting for things like carjacking.  Things that most people would consider violent. And I don't think letting Brooks out was unusual, he just did an unusually horrible crime next.

[MercyA]

13 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

 It’s called Grown Ups for Growing Up and wearorange.org is the website for now.  If anyone wants to get involved to try to make change.  

Thanks for this! These groups are also part of the wearorange.org community:

https://www.everytown.org/

https://momsdemandaction.org/

https://studentsdemandaction.org/

[TheReader]

13 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

There is a new group coming together through TikTok and discord that is trying to plan for a sustained action, something in every state and long term. It’s called Grown Ups for Growing Up and wearorange.org is the website for now.  If anyone wants to get involved to try to make change.  
 

edit: 
You can already see a lot of orange in the protest in TN.  I thought it was mocking jail clothes, but it’s because of this new group trying to come together.  

re: the bold, my guess would be it's supposed to be hunter safety orange -- as in, you wear orange when you are going hunting, so that you don't accidentally get shot. Since our politicians are not doing anything to help people not get shot, it's now on us to "wear orange" so we signal the "hunter" don't shoot me. 

 

[MercyA]

16 minutes ago, TheReader said:

re: the bold, my guess would be it's supposed to be hunter safety orange -- as in, you wear orange when you are going hunting, so that you don't accidentally get shot. Since our politicians are not doing anything to help people not get shot, it's now on us to "wear orange" so we signal the "hunter" don't shoot me. 

Yes. From the website:

"On January 21, 2013, Hadiya Pendleton marched in President Obama’s second inaugural parade. One week later, Hadiya was shot and killed on a playground in Chicago. Soon after this tragedy, Hadiya’s friends commemorated her life by wearing orange, the color hunters wear in the woods to protect themselves and others. Wear Orange is now observed every June. Thousands of people wear the color orange to honor Hadiya and the more than 40,000 people who are killed with guns and approximately 85,000 who are shot and wounded every year."

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, TheReader said:

re: the bold, my guess would be it's supposed to be hunter safety orange -- as in, you wear orange when you are going hunting, so that you don't accidentally get shot. Since our politicians are not doing anything to help people not get shot, it's now on us to "wear orange" so we signal the "hunter" don't shoot me. 

 

Yeah, someone pointed that out last night and it made so much sense.  I just don’t hunt so it wasn’t in my mind.  I was just confused as to why so many decided to wear jail house orange.  I’ve learned a lot about orange in the past 12 hours!  

[livetoread]

11 hours ago, Katy said:

I don't know about not prosecuting say, murderers.  But they weren't prosecuting for things like carjacking.  Things that most people would consider violent.

I would definitely consider carjacking to be violent and would find it deeply disturbing if a city just decided not to prosecute it. I exhausted my google skills trying to find any info on that and couldn't, though I found some info on John Chisholm not prosecuting as many referrals from police during a time of spiking crime (which does raise questions but is still far from deciding not to prosecute violent crimes like carjacking). Do you have any links?

[barnwife]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:26 PM, Amy in NH said:

How about ALL firearms to be stored at an Armory, and only checked out after a brief mental health evaluation, with automatic disqualification for domestic violence and input from household members.

I am going to be the one who says absolutely not to this. For many people/households, a gun stored elsewhere does not do what they need it to. I live in a rural area. Many people have chickens. Many have guns as one way to protect those chickens from predators. Having to drive somewhere to get a gun to shoot a possum/raccoon/something else is ludicrous. Also, said places probably wouldn't be open 24/7. Heck, once we had a very ill raccoon on our property. It was daylight (sign #1 something was wrong), It was walking as if it were drunk. I sure as heck wished for something other than a shovel to dispatch that racoon with. 

So while I am all for many, many reforms, I'd say this suggestion is not a good one.

[KSera]

1 minute ago, barnwife said:

I am going to be the one who says absolutely not to this. For many people/households, a gun stored elsewhere does not do what they need it to. I live in a rural area. Many people have chickens. Many have guns as one way to protect those chickens from predators. Having to drive somewhere to get a gun to shoot a possum/raccoon/something else is ludicrous. Also, said places probably wouldn't be open 24/7. Heck, once we had a very ill raccoon on our property. It was daylight (sign #1 something was wrong), It was walking as if it were drunk. I sure as heck wished for something other than a shovel to dispatch that racoon with. 

There could be allowance for a weapon appropriate for these situations to be stored at home. Doesn't Australia do something like that? But no one needs an AR-15 or similar in their house. I know there are people who will come up with all kinds of reasons why they "need" them in their house, but they don't.

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, barnwife said:

I am going to be the one who says absolutely not to this. For many people/households, a gun stored elsewhere does not do what they need it to. I live in a rural area. Many people have chickens. Many have guns as one way to protect those chickens from predators. Having to drive somewhere to get a gun to shoot a possum/raccoon/something else is ludicrous. Also, said places probably wouldn't be open 24/7. Heck, once we had a very ill raccoon on our property. It was daylight (sign #1 something was wrong), It was walking as if it were drunk. I sure as heck wished for something other than a shovel to dispatch that racoon with. 

So while I am all for many, many reforms, I'd say this suggestion is not a good one.

Yeah, and I'm also not in favor of this when the reason for having a gun is self protection.  (And I know some people think self protection is not real, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that.)

That said, I should have a right to know and a veto if someone is trying to stockpile weapons in my house.

[bookbard]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Doesn't Australia do something like that?

Yes there are specific rules for farmers (including safe storage, inspections, the kind of gun you're allowed to have). Of course, the consequence of this has been higher suicide rates and family murder rates in the farming community. I don't know realistically how many farmers really 'need' their own gun; you're not dispatching animals every day. There are programs now to decrease animal shootings - eg it used to be acceptable to shoot fruit bats, now the govt provides funding for fruit netting and you aren't allowed to shoot the bats (which are becoming endangered). Equally, rather than shooting foxes, you can get traps for them so they are caught and then dispatched humanely. If you've got to kill a horse or cow or whatever, you call the vet. It is against the law to shoot stuff like snakes (they're protected). Of course, we don't live in the land of bears and mountain lions, so no idea what the story is there. 

[TheReader]

31 minutes ago, barnwife said:

I am going to be the one who says absolutely not to this. For many people/households, a gun stored elsewhere does not do what they need it to. I live in a rural area. Many people have chickens. Many have guns as one way to protect those chickens from predators. Having to drive somewhere to get a gun to shoot a possum/raccoon/something else is ludicrous. Also, said places probably wouldn't be open 24/7. Heck, once we had a very ill raccoon on our property. It was daylight (sign #1 something was wrong), It was walking as if it were drunk. I sure as heck wished for something other than a shovel to dispatch that racoon with. 

So while I am all for many, many reforms, I'd say this suggestion is not a good one.

Yea, I'm with you on this. 

My dad had to shoot a black bear that was climbing in his dog door once. It had climbed the outdoor stairs, was about 400 lbs., and would certainly have made its way fully in my dad's house if he hadn't shot & killed it (had a head and front leg all the way in as it was).  Middle of the night, Dad had to call the game warden after, but I shudder to think how that would have gone if he hadn't had a firearm in reach that night. 

[Ausmumof3]

36 minutes ago, bookbard said:

Yes there are specific rules for farmers (including safe storage, inspections, the kind of gun you're allowed to have). Of course, the consequence of this has been higher suicide rates and family murder rates in the farming community. I don't know realistically how many farmers really 'need' their own gun; you're not dispatching animals every day. There are programs now to decrease animal shootings - eg it used to be acceptable to shoot fruit bats, now the govt provides funding for fruit netting and you aren't allowed to shoot the bats (which are becoming endangered). Equally, rather than shooting foxes, you can get traps for them so they are caught and then dispatched humanely. If you've got to kill a horse or cow or whatever, you call the vet. It is against the law to shoot stuff like snakes (they're protected). Of course, we don't live in the land of bears and mountain lions, so no idea what the story is there. 

Fox traps are pretty ineffective, we’ve tried. We’re not even proper farmers and having a gun has been necessary quite often due to people hitting kangaroos on the road outside our place. Otherwise they call out police and the animal might be left in pain for a significantly longer period of time. It’s also been useful at times when livestock have non treatable diseases.

Feral deer control is an obligation of the landowner in my state as well. Myxomatosis  helps with rabbits but it’s not perfect, and involves a lot more suffering as well. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, bookbard said:

Of course, the consequence of this has been higher suicide rates and family murder rates in the farming community.

That’s sad. Also a good illustration of how guns make the majority of people less safe, rather than safer. 
 

If guns were only being used by people in situations as you describe in your post, the US wouldn’t be in the situation it is. Clearly, that’s the vast minority of gun ownership here. 

[Katy]

8 hours ago, livetoread said:

I would definitely consider carjacking to be violent and would find it deeply disturbing if a city just decided not to prosecute it. I exhausted my google skills trying to find any info on that and couldn't, though I found some info on John Chisholm not prosecuting as many referrals from police during a time of spiking crime (which does raise questions but is still far from deciding not to prosecute violent crimes like carjacking). Do you have any links?

I don’t really have time to search for them right now. I’m not sure what made it online, we learned what we learned from local news. When we first moved to Wisconsin the daily news was 2-3 cars driving into houses or businesses every night. Apparently the first time you get caught drunk driving it’s only a misdemeanor.  Then Milwaukee fired their police chief and in a matter of months people were getting shot outside of basketball tournaments and there were far more carjackings than other crimes. 

[Pawz4me]

13 hours ago, barnwife said:

Heck, once we had a very ill raccoon on our property. It was daylight (sign #1 something was wrong)

Totally OT, but seeing a raccoon during the day is NOT a sign that something is wrong with it.

The Humane Society of the US: "If you see a raccoon in your yard during the day, don’t panic—she is not necessarily sick or dangerous. It’s perfectly normal for raccoons to be active throughout the day. She may merely be foraging longer hours to support her young, visiting a garden while the dogs are indoors, or moving to a new location."

Edited April 1, 2023 by Pawz4me
humane society, not human (LOL)

[SKL]

5 hours ago, KSera said:

That’s sad. Also a good illustration of how guns make the majority of people less safe, rather than safer.

If guns were only being used by people in situations as you describe in your post, the US wouldn’t be in the situation it is. Clearly, that’s the vast minority of gun ownership here. 

No, the vast vast majority of US guns are never pointed at a human.  Legally owned guns in the US are far more likely to be owned by rural folks, and many guns owned in cities are used only in rural areas (by outdoorsmen). 

And guns don't "make the majority of people less safe."  Perhaps what you meant to say is that when an unprepared person fumbles with a gun when faced with an intruder, some studies indicate that the gun handler may be more likely to be injured than the intruder.  But the vast majority of people with guns will never try to shoot an intruder; and for those that do, how do we know that they would have emerged uninjured if they didn't have a gun?  Usually someone busting into your house isn't there to borrow sugar.

Where are you getting your data for your quoted statements? 

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

And guns don't "make the majority of people less safe."

I’ll come back with stats. Having a gun in the house increases risk. 

 

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

No, the vast vast majority of US guns are never pointed at a human.  Legally owned guns in the US are far more likely to be owned by rural folks, and many guns owned in cities are used only in rural areas (by outdoorsmen).

I didn’t say they were usually pointed at humans, I said most were not for livestock protection (the discussion was regarding keeping guns at an armory and we were talking about the rules in Australia allowing guns for farmers).

[Laura Corin]

9 hours ago, KSera said:

There could be allowance for a weapon appropriate for these situations to be stored at home. Doesn't Australia do something like that? But no one needs an AR-15 or similar in their house. I know there are people who will come up with all kinds of reasons why they "need" them in their house, but they don't.

The UK allows shotguns to be held at home if they are licensed, and many farmers keep them, even though most guns are banned.

[bookbard]

8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

We’re not even proper farmers and having a gun has been necessary quite often due to people hitting kangaroos on the road outside our place.

I grew up on a farm and my family are still farmers and have never owned or used guns. That is sad about the kangaroos - did you see they've developed some really cool things on the roads now which flash when a car is approaching, to warn off kangaroos? I noticed them when travelling down the coast. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

And guns don't "make the majority of people less safe." 

Where are you getting your data for your quoted statements? 

Okay, I had to come back to post because there are so many of these studies that I wanted to have time to share a good number of them. This is a selection of news stories about studies and research starting with 2022 and going back through to 1993:

People in homes with handguns more likely to be shot dead, major study finds

Quote

Living with a handgun owner particularly increased the risk of being shot to death in a domestic violence incident, and it did not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger, the researchers found.

People who lived with handgun owners “did not experience such fatal [stranger] attacks at lower rates than their neighbors in gun-free homes”, the researchers wrote, noting that stranger homicides at home were “a small minority” of the homicides observed in the study.

.

.

.

The new study goes further in addressing the perception that handguns are still worthwhile because of the safety they provide against being murdered, some experts said.

“The reason people have guns in their home is for protection from strangers,” said David Hemenway, director of Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center. “But what this is showing that having a gun in the home is bad for people in the home.”

(here's the same study reported in TIME, but I find that is sometimes paywalled for me: Owning Guns Puts People in Your Home at Greater Risk of Being Killed, New Study Shows

Quote

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers. Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population—much less common than deaths perpetrated by the victim’s partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened, people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

This result clashes with a classic narrative promulgated by gun rights groups: firearm owners use their weapon to turn away or overpower a threatening intruder, thereby protecting home and hearth. We did not detect even a hint of such protective benefits. If anything, our results suggest that cohabitants of handgun owners were more likely to be killed by strangers, although that result did not reach statistical significance.

 

Guns in Home, Greater Odds of Family Homicide

 

Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study

Quote

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

Study: Guns in home increase suicide, homicide risk

Quote

“Bringing a gun into the home substantially increases the risk for suicide for all family members and the risk for women being murdered in the home,” 

Interesting in that one is that they found mental illness did not increase the risk of suicide in homes with guns--guns make impulsive suicide more likely, even in those with no history of mental illness.

 

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Conclusion: Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

This study because controlled for a lot of factors such as area where the subjects live, illicit drug use, prior arrests, prior fights, etc.

[KSera]

I was looking at rural vs urban gun ownership and this study came up that seems relevant here as well:

Rural Versus Urban Hospitalizations for Firearm Injuries in Children and Adolescents

Quote

Hospitalization rates for firearm injuries are higher in rural areas among 5- to 9-year-olds and 10- to 14-year-olds versus urban populations. Unintentional firearm injuries are the most common cause of firearm injury hospitalizations except among urban 15- to 19-year-olds.

Quote

The majority of firearm injury hospitalizations in children <15 years of age were due to unintentional injuries. In these children, unintentional injuries were the leading cause of firearm injury hospitalization in urban and micropolitan areas, and those in rural areas had an even higher rate

In rural areas, where gun ownership rates are higher, children are more likely to be injured by a firearm than in areas where gun ownership rates are lower--having more guns around is putting those kids at increased risk, not decreased risk.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

No, the vast vast majority of US guns are never pointed at a human.  Legally owned guns in the US are far more likely to be owned by rural folks, and many guns owned in cities are used only in rural areas (by outdoorsmen). 

And guns don't "make the majority of people less safe."  Perhaps what you meant to say is that when an unprepared person fumbles with a gun when faced with an intruder, some studies indicate that the gun handler may be more likely to be injured than the intruder.  But the vast majority of people with guns will never try to shoot an intruder; and for those that do, how do we know that they would have emerged uninjured if they didn't have a gun?  Usually someone busting into your house isn't there to borrow sugar.

Where are you getting your data for your quoted statements? 

Where are you getting your data? While gun ownership rates are higher for rural people, only 20% of the US population lives rurally, so the majority of guns are not more likely to be owned by rural folks. Also, despite the focus on gun deaths in urban areas, rural homicide rates are very high in some parts of the country and increasing, surpassing many of the major metropolitan areas people normally associate with gun violence.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/

Also, the number one reason given for gun ownership is protection from crime, not hunting or protecting livestock.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/gun-ownership-numbers-us-cec/index.html

Edited April 1, 2023 by Frances

[Eos]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

guns don't "make the majority of people less safe."

Isn't this what this whole thread is about?

[pinball]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

I was looking at rural vs urban gun ownership and this study came up that seems relevant here as well:

Rural Versus Urban Hospitalizations for Firearm Injuries in Children and Adolescents

In rural areas, where gun ownership rates are higher, children are more likely to be injured by a firearm than in areas where gun ownership rates are lower--having more guns around is putting those kids at increased risk, not decreased risk.

From the same page:

 

RESULTS:

There were 21 581 hospitalizations for firearm injuries. The overall hospitalization rate was higher in urban versus rural areas (risk ratio [RR] = 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.81–2.10). Rates were highest for assaults in urban 15- to 19-year-olds (RR = 7.82; 95% CI: 6.48–9.44). Unintentional injuries were the leading cause of hospitalizations in younger age groups in all urban and rural locations. Rates for unintentional injuries were lower among urban versus rural 5- to 9-year-olds (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63) and 10- to 14-year-olds (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.37–0.52).

CONCLUSIONS:

Hospitalizations for firearm assaults among urban 15- to 19-year-olds represent the highest injury rate. Notably, hospitalizations are lower for urban versus rural 5- to 9-year-olds and 10- to 14-year-olds, and unintentional firearm injuries are most common among these groups. Preventative public health approaches should address these differences in injury epidemiology.

[Heartstrings]

I’m not sure the statistics on guns being inherently unsafe is going to be very persuasive.  People who know, or think, they are safe gun owners know that they aren’t really in that group.    I know having guns increases my risk of intimate partner homicide, but I also know my husband and realistically I’m at 0% chance.  Maybe the gun puts that at a 0.001% risk but my risk assessment is ok with that.   
 

I do think using  the gun statistics to argue that a good many gun owners are not as responsible as they think think are is a better tactic.  Responsible owners assume most other owners are also responsible when that’s just not true.  To affect change we have to get the responsible gun owners to see that it’s not owners vs. non owners.  It’s everyone against the irresponsible gun owners.  Maybe we all need to tighten up a bit, I don’t know.  But you get exactly nowhere by trying to convince a person who thinks they take reasonable measures towards safety that really what they need is to have no guns.  
 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

6 hours ago, bookbard said:

I grew up on a farm and my family are still farmers and have never owned or used guns. That is sad about the kangaroos - did you see they've developed some really cool things on the roads now which flash when a car is approaching, to warn off kangaroos? I noticed them when travelling down the coast. 

That is interesting, I wonder how effective it is? The animal road toll is pretty sad. Do you mind me asking if your family were crop based or animal based?  I can see it working with crop farming maybe, but hard to see how you’d never need to put down an animal on a station. And rural vets are unfortunately in very short supply now. 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, pinball said:

From the same page:

 

RESULTS:

There were 21 581 hospitalizations for firearm injuries. The overall hospitalization rate was higher in urban versus rural areas (risk ratio [RR] = 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.81–2.10). Rates were highest for assaults in urban 15- to 19-year-olds (RR = 7.82; 95% CI: 6.48–9.44). Unintentional injuries were the leading cause of hospitalizations in younger age groups in all urban and rural locations. Rates for unintentional injuries were lower among urban versus rural 5- to 9-year-olds (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63) and 10- to 14-year-olds (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.37–0.52).

CONCLUSIONS:

Hospitalizations for firearm assaults among urban 15- to 19-year-olds represent the highest injury rate. Notably, hospitalizations are lower for urban versus rural 5- to 9-year-olds and 10- to 14-year-olds, and unintentional firearm injuries are most common among these groups. Preventative public health approaches should address these differences in injury epidemiology.

I read all that. It doesn’t change that for all kids, they are at higher risk if there’s a gun in the house, and that for kids under 15, rural kids are even more likely to be injured by a firearm than urban kids and that the majority of those injuries were unintentional. 

[barnwife]

15 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Totally OT, but seeing a raccoon during the day is NOT a sign that something is wrong with it.

The Humane Society of the US: "If you see a raccoon in your yard during the day, don’t panic—she is not necessarily sick or dangerous. It’s perfectly normal for raccoons to be active throughout the day. She may merely be foraging longer hours to support her young, visiting a garden while the dogs are indoors, or moving to a new location."

Sigh. Yes, you are correct. On it's own, it could really, truly be nothing. However, in that instance, there were several signs that the raccoon in question needed to be dispatched. Given all the signs, I was not willing to just let it go. And I certainly wasn't willing to allow my young children to play outside with a quite likely ill raccoon in the area. 

ETA: Sorry, OP, for the rabbit trail.

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by barnwife