Two points about declining gun ownership.

[Arkady]

As others have mentioned here already, gun ownership has been in steep decline in the US since the 1970s (from 50% of households to 34%). I wanted to make two quick points about this, in relation to gun control arguments:

(1) One objection to the assertion that broader gun ownership would be expected to cause more crime has been that even as gun sales continued robustly for decades, violent crime has fallen by about half in the last two decades. That looked like a case of more guns and less crime. However, it turns out gun ownership was, in fact, getting narrower in that period. Although gun enthusiasts have apparently been driving gun sales through multiple single-household purchases, guns are in fact present in a far smaller share of households, which common sense would predict would result in less gun crime.

(2) Another objection to gun control is the idea that it's pointless, because the genie's out of the bottle. Guns are very durable, and so even if you restricted new gun sales, existing guns in circulation would remain very high for many decades. However, the fact gun ownership has declined, by household, suggests that, in fact, gun control could push the share of gun-owning households down relatively quickly. That makes sense if you think about it. There are more households over time, so if you keep new gun sales beneath new household formation, you will get declining rates. Plus, gun collectors will tend to suck up even more of those guns from circulation -- the likelihood of a given gun being involved in a violent death would almost certainly be expected to be lower if it was one firearm in a person's large collection than if it was the only firearm in a particular household. And, of course, durable as they are, firearms do wear out, get lost, get broken, etc., and they also get bought back and destroyed in voluntary gun collections efforts.

Controlling gun sales could be expected to have a disproportionate impact on violent crime, just because of the nature of who would be armed and who wouldn't be. As it became harder and harder to get a gun, the demographics of a typical gun owner would age and become wealthier (though grandfathered in, and those with the resources to deal with the restrictions).... and both age and wealth have negative correlations with violent crime commission rates (as well as accident and suicide rates). A million guns in the hands of upper-middle-class gray haired collectors are going to be involved in a lot fewer killings than a million guns in the hands of poor young men.

 

[trapdoor]

Arkady, another way to look at it is if there are now less guns and less crime, what's the need for new restrictions?

I also rather take exception to, " As it became harder and harder to get a gun, the demographics of a typical gun owner would age and become wealthier (though grandfathered in, and those with the resources to deal with the restrictions).... and both age and wealth have negative correlations with violent crime commission rates (as well as accident and suicide rates)." Would you think it a good thing if other civil rights were restricted to the wealthy and elderly?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Leaving aside the debate over gun control legislation, it is obvious to me what has driven the decline in gun ownership in the typical US household. Fewer people now engage in the sport of hunting. The reason for this is also fairly obvious. As our human population has increased, the wilderness habitats suitable for supporting hunting have decreased.

When I was a child, one could easily engage in the sport of hunting. There were many locations in which one could be permitted to hunt for no charge and hunting licenses, guns and ammunition were all relatively inexpensive. If I wanted to hunt now, I'd have to either lease land or join a hunting club to gain access to an environment suitable for hunting or eschew real hunting altogether to pay for the privilege of shooting game animals on a so-called "hunting" resort. The various state wildlife management agencies have taken notice of the decline in resources for engaging in the sport of hunting and have subsequently raised the fees for hunting licenses to reflect the increased value of a diminished resource. This has driven hunting to become a pastime of the relatively wealthy among us, as opposed to the "everyman" sport that hunting was back when I was much younger.

I suspect that this trend could be verified by comparing the percentage of true hunting guns and rifles that made up overall gun sales back in the 1960s to the percentage of firearms designed primarily for hunting that make up current firearm sales. Without doing any research whatsoever, I'd be willing to wager that handguns and assault weapons now make up a much greater percentage of overall gun sales than they did back when hunting was a much more common sport among Americans.

 

[Arkady]

Arkady, another way to look at it is if there are now less guns and less crime, what's the need for new restrictions?

I don't follow the logic of that question. It's like saying if exercising a little made you a little healthier, what's the need for exercising more.

Would you think it a good thing if other civil rights were restricted to the wealthy and elderly?

The first thing is to recognize the soundness of the theory-- that if we imposed more gun restrictions that made initially acquiring a gun more difficult and expensive, chances are the demographic profile of the average gun owners would be expected to become less crime-prone. Once there, we can address the civil rights issue.

First, I'd point out that my reading of the Second Amendment (consistent with its plain language and most of its history) is that it's tied to a well-regulated militia. So, that's the civil right: to own arms as part of membership in such a militia. As long as we don't restrict that by age or wealth, we have addressed the civil rights issue. The balance of the issue is a practical one.... similar to individual car ownership. Regulations on cars have made them, on average, more expensive, resulting in an older and wealthier demographic of car owner than if you could buy new $1500 Tata Nanos here. That has almost certainly made our roads safer.

 

[trapdoor]

Leaving aside the debate over gun control legislation, it is obvious to me what has driven the decline in gun ownership in the typical US household. Fewer people now engage in the sport of hunting. The reason for this is also fairly obvious. As our human population has increased, the wilderness habitats suitable for supporting hunting have decreased.

When I was a child, one could easily engage in the sport of hunting. There were many locations in which one could be permitted to hunt for no charge and hunting licenses, guns and ammunition were all relatively inexpensive. If I wanted to hunt now, I'd have to either lease land or join a hunting club to gain access to an environment suitable for hunting or eschew real hunting altogether to pay for the privilege of shooting game animals on a so-called "hunting" resort. The various state wildlife management agencies have taken notice of the decline in resources for engaging in the sport of hunting and have subsequently raised the fees for hunting licenses to reflect the increased value of a diminished resource. This has driven hunting to become a pastime of the relatively wealthy among us, as opposed to the "everyman" sport that hunting was back when I was much younger.

I suspect that this trend could be verified by comparing the percentage of true hunting guns and rifles that made up overall gun sales back in the 1960s to the percentage of firearms designed primarily for hunting that make up current firearm sales. Without doing any research whatsoever, I'd be willing to wager that handguns and assault weapons now make up a much greater percentage of overall gun sales than they did back when hunting was a much more common sport among Americans.

Loss of habitat is indeed a problem for hunters, and for all sorts of wildlife species, both game and non-game.

I dispute, however, your last paragraph. You make a distinction between "true hunting guns" and other designs that is impossible to define.

And handguns have always been a common item. Oddly, there are probably more of them today that have accouterments designed to make them better for hunting larger game (although again there is no functional difference between such "true hunting" handguns and "non-hunting" models).

 

[Arkady]

Leaving aside the debate over gun control legislation, it is obvious to me what has driven the decline in gun ownership in the typical US household. Fewer people now engage in the sport of hunting. The reason for this is also fairly obvious. As our human population has increased, the wilderness habitats suitable for supporting hunting have decreased.

When I was a child, one could easily engage in the sport of hunting. There were many locations in which one could be permitted to hunt for no charge and hunting licenses, guns and ammunition were all relatively inexpensive. If I wanted to hunt now, I'd have to either lease land or join a hunting club to gain access to an environment suitable for hunting or eschew real hunting altogether to pay for the privilege of shooting game animals on a so-called "hunting" resort. The various state wildlife management agencies have taken notice of the decline in resources for engaging in the sport of hunting and have subsequently raised the fees for hunting licenses to reflect the increased value of a diminished resource. This has driven hunting to become a pastime of the relatively wealthy among us, as opposed to the "everyman" sport that hunting was back when I was much younger.

I suspect that this trend could be verified by comparing the percentage of true hunting guns and rifles that made up overall gun sales back in the 1960s to the percentage of firearms designed primarily for hunting that make up current firearm sales. Without doing any research whatsoever, I'd be willing to wager that handguns and assault weapons now make up a much greater percentage of overall gun sales than they did back when hunting was a much more common sport among Americans.

That sounds reasonable to me. I know there's a huge difference in hunting rifle ownership in rural Maine, where my family lives, versus suburban Massachusetts, where I live, and it has little if anything to do with gun regulations (you can buy a hunting rifle here legally without much hassle). But, probably, fifty years ago, when the area where I live was far more rural, there would have been much more of a hunting culture.

 

[trapdoor]

I don't follow the logic of that question. It's like saying if exercising a little made you a little healthier, what's the need for exercising more.

No, it's saying "if you're exercising enough to be healthy, you don't have to worry about your health."

The first thing is to recognize the soundness of the theory-- that if we imposed more gun restrictions that made initially acquiring a gun more difficult and expensive, chances are the demographic profile of the average gun owners would be expected to become less crime-prone. Once there, we can address the civil rights issue.

First, I'd point out that my reading of the Second Amendment (consistent with its plain language and most of its history) is that it's tied to a well-regulated militia. So, that's the civil right: to own arms as part of membership in such a militia.

I'm sorry, but legally that interpretation of the civil right has never been accepted by the court system in the U.S. There are numerous dicta and two landmark ruling that the right to ownership of firearms is an individual one, not connected to participation in any militia, organized or unorganized (and U.S. law also acknowledges the ability to participate in unorganized militia outside the National Guard -- its in USC 10).

This essentially moots the rest of your statement. A civil right that can only be practiced by the wealthy or elderly is no longer a civil right.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I dispute, however, your last paragraph. You make a distinction between "true hunting guns" and other designs that is impossible to define.

I suppose that one could make the argument that this is not unlike the difference between erotic art and pornography. Personally, I have no problem recognizing the difference when I see it.

 

[trapdoor]

I suppose that one could make the argument that this is not unlike the difference between erotic art and pornography. Personally, I have no problem recognizing the difference when I see it.

Yes, but the laws leave that distinction up to local community standards -- and even then it can't be controlled. Was Maplethorpe's work art or pornography? I have an opinion -- but it is simply an opinion, it rests on no fact. YOU may well be able to determine the difference between "Piss Christ" (different artist) and the Pieta, but others may not make the same distinction, and both views are equally valid.

And the same is largely true of firearms. Take Feinstein's current proposal. It has two different versions of the same rifle, functionally identical save for appearance, separated so that one version is an considered an "assault" weapon and the other isn't ( and the reality is that neither are assault weapons from a technical standpoint).

 

[Arkady]

No, it's saying "if you're exercising enough to be healthy, you don't have to worry about your health."

Well, what is "enough" is an open question. But even after all that improvement, the US's violent crime rates are far and away worse than what we see in just about every other wealthy nation. We have murder rates two to ten times higher than normal among our peers. So, it's a bit like finding out that after a little exercise, your time in the mile went from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, whereas most in your peer group are running it in eight minutes. Yay for the progress, but you've still got a lot of work to do.

As for the Second Amendment, if you want to read it as if the first half of the amendment had never been written, feel free. But here in the real world, it refers to the right specifically in the context of the necessity of a well-regulated militia. Any interpretation that would render half the amendment entirely extraneous is patently a ridiculous interpretation.... which is why it's the one favored by the patently ridiculous members of the Supreme Court.

 

[trapdoor]

Well, what is "enough" is an open question. But even after all that improvement, the US's violent crime rates are far and away worse than what we see in just about every other wealthy nation. We have murder rates two to ten times higher than normal among our peers. So, it's a bit like finding out that after a little exercise, your time in the mile went from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, whereas most in your peer group are running it in eight minutes. Yay for the progress, but you've still got a lot of work to do.

The U.S. doesn't emulate other nations in numerous areas, nor should it do so when it comes to civil rights. Even Canadians don't have the same right to free speech that we in the U.S. accept as common.

As for the Second Amendment, if you want to read it as if the first half of the amendment had never been written, feel free. But here in the real world, it refers to the right specifically in the context of the necessity of a well-regulated militia. Any interpretation that would render half the amendment entirely extraneous is patently a ridiculous interpretation.... which is why it's the one favored by the patently ridiculous members of the Supreme Court.

No, I'm reading it as though the first statement about the militia refers to the participation militia, and the second statement about the rights of the people refers to individuals. This is what the court has held throughouth history. It was held in Miller, and in Cases and even in the dicta of the Dredd Scott decision (among the court's comments in Dredd Scott were that the freed man would then insist on other individually held rights such as the right to arms). Here in the real world is has NEVER been solely in the context of a well regulated militia, if in fact you are even using those terms accurately (as I venture to say you are not).

 

[gabriel]

lol! this from the country that outlawed the communist party and made it illegal to travel to cuba!! hahahaahahahahahahaahahah

 

[trapdoor]

lol! this from the country that outlawed the communist party and made it illegal to travel to cuba!! hahahaahahahahahahaahahah

Which laws did those things? I believe that if you're in the right city you can buy American Communisty Party apparel. While there are no direct flights from Miami to Havannah, someone who makes the trip via Quebec or Mexico city will not be arrested on their return.

 

[gabriel]

i used the past tense pal. it WAS illegal. and your blacklist destroyed the lives of hundreds of folks accused of being commie sympathizers. and your government has threatened to imprison ry cooder if he makes one more trip to cuba! save your free speech bullsh-t foer someone who doesn't know better pal

 

[trapdoor]

i used the past tense pal. it WAS illegal. and your blacklist destroyed the lives of hundreds of folks accused of being commie sympathizers. and your government has threatened to imprison ry cooder if he makes one more trip to cuba! save your free speech bullsh-t foer someone who doesn't know better pal

The fact that something was once illegal (and I don't think the communist party was illegal -- what was illegal was participation in organizations that favored the violent overthrow of the American government, which has been generally illegal since the country's foundation), does not make the law still in effect.

As for "free speech ballshit -- in Canada a mainstream magazine was sewed for printing statements about Muslims that were verifiably true, on the grounds that despite the fact that the statements were true, they were offensive. Not possible in the U.S. -- we have more respect for the free press rights and free speech rights of individuals (their gun rights, too).

 

[gabriel]

damn youre an easy touch!! hahahaahahahahaha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

 

[trapdoor]

I freely admit I didn't know about that law -- nor do I care about it as it is no longer in effect. Congress has passed and various presidents have signed any number of damn-fool things into law. We're currently pretty much broke as a result.

 

[gabriel]

exactly. you never know the details, just the platitudes about how free you are!! hahahahaahahahahaha

 

[Arkady]

The U.S. doesn't emulate other nations in numerous areas, nor should it do so when it comes to civil rights. Even Canadians don't have the same right to free speech that we in the U.S. accept as common.

Nor do I think we should. You won't see me arguing against having individuals armed as part of a well-regulated militia.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

i used the past tense pal. it WAS illegal. and your blacklist destroyed the lives of hundreds of folks accused of being commie sympathizers. and your government has threatened to imprison ry cooder if he makes one more trip to cuba! save your free speech bullsh-t foer someone who doesn't know better pal

I am a HUGE Ry Cooder fan. I hadn't heard about any threats to imprison him for his trips to Cuba, which opened Americans up to the fabulous world of Cuban music. Do you have a link on that?