This quote is from an un-remembered NewsViner.
"The Majority of Gun Owners are not the Best of the Best."
The following is a compilation from previous NewsVine discussions.
I did some research and the following are my findings.
It should be noted and will be apparent, that the metric I use here is demonstrably unfavorable to the law abiding gun owner.
My research shows that over 98% of gun owners are Responsible individuals and therefore; much of what is banded about as common sense gun regulation will only impose hardship upon them and do 'little' for the issues of gun control goals.
The NY Times notes that the surveys vary but ownership of a firearm can be between 35% and 52% (The New York Times). That's a significant portion of the population. I think Paul Theodoropoulos's approximation of half of the around 114 million households is well within the bounds of possibility. With ownership estimates of 35%-52%, that means it's probably close to 41 million to 61 million households.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.23 per 100,000 U.S. citizens); 11,208 homicides (3.5 per 100,000); 21,175 suicides; 505 deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm; and 2,818 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent",
Ok, here we go.
All injury and death (for 2013);
Ok, for discussion sake; Let's hang this ALL on legal gun owners. Let's remove all criminal element.
Using the lowest number; that would be 41,000,000 households with ONE gun owner. Of course adding to this number will only lower the result as the 109,211 number is static, so I'm helping you here.
109,211/41,000,000 = .2663682927 percent of gun owners are irresponsible.
Removing the criminal element and hanging it ALL on legal gun owners nets a little over one quarter of one percent are irresponsible.
I don't know about you, but a 99.74% effective percentage of Responsible gun owners; using this metric is DAMN good, and in reality is even HIGHER once you toss in the criminal element.
How much more do you want us to do???
Then I was requested to add some things in; here it is:
From the site chart I will add to my total of 109,211 the following:
(NOTE: These are running totals for 2016 and therefore not complete.)
Officer shot or killed;
233 Officer shoots, injures/kills;
1358 Home invasion;
1722 Defensive use; 1286 (Not clarified as unnecessary, let's assume ALL are.)
Every other category in the chart is covered in my numbers already and possibly some of the above categories, but lets add them in anyway.
233 + 1358 + 1722 + 1286 = 4599
Let's double that: 4599 x 2 = 9,198
109,211 + 9198 = 118,409/41,000,000 = .288802439
My original metric number was: .2663682927 And I DOUBLED the 2016 total. Here are past years:
You will note that suicides are not listed here for some reason. Also, the wiki totals are much HIGHER than the total here even with suicides added in.
Domestic abuse is not tabulated. I will add it here.
Ten million instances of domestic violence per year.
See table 7.
3.7% of domestic violence where the weapon is a firearm.
10,000,000 X 3.7% = 370,000 annually.
Let's round up to 400,000 annual incidents of threatening domestic abuse involving a gun.(Please NOTE these are NON fatal events.)
400,000 + 118,409 = 518,409/41,000,000 = 1.26%
Remember; in this metric, we hang ALL gun incidents on 41,000,000 estimated LEGAL gun owners. In the absolute worst case scenario 98.73 of all gun owners are Responsible.
And 1.27% are liable for all of the listed gun crime.
Given this metric hangs all gun incidents on legal owners (removing the criminal element) IF this were actual reality; 98.73% compliance with current regulation seems like one heck of a return of compliance to me.
Here is the problem as I see it as a moderate.
Much of the 'control crowd' rhetoric demands a course of action that will effectively neuter the Second Amendment to the point of nothing more than meaningless words on paper.
We all know the talking points; and valid at that: Too many deaths, injuries, suicides, etc.
Until you ask yourself; how low is a good number?
I've posed this to several here on NV and no one wants to answer. I get that, you don't want to be 'pinned down'. So, the responses are along the line of; as low as possible, can't we try to get it lower, etc.
1) as low as possible. That is zero. There is only one way to accomplish that and that they say, is not what we mean. Ok, strike it.
2, etc) can't we try to get it lower, etc.
The problem is; and you're not going to like this one bit at all, is for the number of guns and owners in the USA, we're probably pretty close to what could be considered as low as possible.
THAT BEING said; there is some wiggle room for improvement.
Three issues come to mind right off; children accessing guns/accidental shootings, suicide and the wanton/criminal shootings.
Since regulation of adult behavior demands self-compliance in order for the law to be effective, that leaves us (society) with the punishment phase of law as our only avenue of motivation.
There should be a FEDERAL law that states if a minor child accesses your gun (regardless of outcome) your Second Amendment Right is automatically terminated. Length of time/redress can be further discussed.
Suicide; wow, this is a tough cookie. California has a pilot program/law in effect. Let's see how this pans out.
Mandatory minimums issued for ILLEGAL possessors of guns used in a criminal enterprise. How long and how severe can be discussed.
One I've come up with is the number of rounds of ammo shot or in possession of an ILLEGAL possessor of gun(s) bears weight on sentencing.
Upon conviction of a fire arm related crime; in addition to current sentencing of relevant charge, 5 years hard added on per each bullet in possession and/or discharged and served FIRST in it's entirety and then the other sentences will be followed. Also, the other charges will not be plea bargained away in conjunction with the bullet sentence. The criminal charges can be handled as usual. At sentencing the judge/jury hands down the punishment then tacks on the bullet count sentencing.
For example: recently here in central Iowa an 18 year old felon was questioned about a robbery and found with a loaded gun in his possession. An obvious parole violation. He will be found guilty. Probably plead down some what. He'll get about 10 years maybe and out in three at a work release, etc. We know the drill.
Say he had a revolver fully loaded, six rounds. My additional time would mean 30 years. Hard. He's done. Off the streets.
Over a period of time, those in the demographic I mentioned just might, MIGHT start carrying less rounds.
(I know the logic is, well, odd, but does it not attempt to accomplish your end result with more focus on those misusing/abusing a Right?)
[This question was posed to the original individual I was conversing with about magazine capacity restrictions]
Yes, it is terrible 518,409 are terrorized, injured or killed by gun annually.
And we can reduce those numbers somewhat. But the plain fact of the matter is when the fallible human is involved you can not reach Zero without the most aggressive approach.
Since the elimination of 2A is not remotely possible and the confiscation of guns just as remote; (and many claim that is not their goal anyway) we are stuck with other alternatives.
This is called 'common sense' regulation.
The numbers show that with what we have Today; this regulation will only dramatically affect the law abiding.
98.73% using a very unfavorable (to the gun owner) metric.