Image: Michael Glenwood
Like the firearms industry today, the automobile industry at midcentury was central to American culture and identity. Cars were big and beautiful, throbbing with power. Yet with that power came danger. By the 1960s motor vehicle accidents killed more than 50,000 people a year. The common wisdom, promulgated by carmakers since the 1920s, held that traffic fatalities were exclusively the fault of individual drivers (or, to put it another way: cars don't kill people; drivers kill people). This assertion, of course, was false, but at the time we had no way of knowing for certain, because we lacked data on the proximate causes of accident deaths.
We now find ourselves in a similar state of ignorance regarding gun fatalities. What factors shape the risk that a gun will be used for violence? What technologies (such as trigger locks) and policies (such as waiting periods) work best to reduce injuries and deaths? What is the relation—if any—between violent entertainment and actual violence? Guns, unlike cars, of course, are meant to kill, but why do they kill so many?
In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the nation is engaged in a fierce debate over how to reduce firearms deaths without infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms. A critical first step is to conduct thorough and vigorous research on how to make gun ownership safer.
In autos, the blinders began to come off in the mid-1950s, when physicians suggested that vehicle design was as much to blame for high fatality rates as bad drivers. Through evidence-based work, they found that deaths could be lowered with simple safety devices such as seat belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 mandated many of these improvements. It also set into motion a decades-long federal effort to better understand highway safety. As a result of those studies—and policies based on their findings—the death rate per mile traveled has fallen 80 percent since 1966. If present trends hold, in two years car crashes will no longer constitute the number-one cause of violent death in the U.S. That dubious honor will go to gunshot wounds.
Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has been scandalously successful in suppressing public safety research into guns. The problems began when investigators funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot. Outraged that reality was not falling into line with presuppositions, then representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas added language to federal law in 1996 that barred the CDC from conducting research that might be used “to advocate or promote gun control.” This deliberately vague wording, coupled with a campaign of harassment of researchers, effectively halted federally funded gun safety research.
In January, President Barack Obama instructed the CDC to resume studying the causes and prevention of gun violence. He also asked for $10 million to support gun safety research at the CDC—a request that Congress must pass. But these measures are not enough. If history is any guide, the NRA will attempt to impede these new investigations. Doctors, scientists and ordinary citizens will have to keep up the pressure to protect research (and researchers) from political meddling.
The NRA has cynically framed the debate as a choice between banning all guns and doing nothing. It is a false choice. Congressman Dickey, for one, has recanted; he has publicly stated that firearms research is the best way to reduce the violence. We didn't have to ban automobiles to cut roadway fatalities, and we don't have to ban all guns to reduce gun-related deaths. All we need is a willingness to examine the causes of violence with dispassion—and the stomach to go where the data lead.
This article was originally published with the title Ready. Aim. Investigate.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
66 Comments
Add CommentI'm sorry to see you accuse the NRA of obstruction when the "Truth" is being hidden by our government through HIPAA medical laws and the FDA in collusion with "big pharmacy". While the 2nd amendment explicitly protects legal gun owners the "right to privacy" is only inferred by the 9th amendment. It is my hypothesis that violent criminal behavior with and without the use of a gun is the result of mental illness and/or the usage of mind altering drugs (especially prescriptions) that alter neurotransmitters, affect gentic expression within the brain and changes to neural stem cell proliferation. When you call for transparency be sure to include the concealed data on SSRI's so that correlations can be uncovered. Data and events may not rise to the level of statistical significance as there is such a small number of events as compared to the total doses delivered per year but by the same token you can parse the violent "gun events" against all the estimated firearms in the USA. It is in the public's best interest to know the circumstances surrounding a horrific event including the disclosure of medical records and treatments that the perpetrator received. I have subscribed to Scientific American for over 15 years but, now that my subscription is ending you have made me rethink whether I will renew based upon your political commentary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you
AM
I would prefer my Scientific American magazine to be unbiased on scientific matters, and stay out of politics. That is how you lose subscribers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a proud member of the NRA. I am also a retired law enforcement officer with over 30 years on the job, most of it as a criminal investigator, including homicides and other crimes of violence. There are many different reasons for violence in our society. It is a complex problem. Far too many possible causes to mention here. Violent Crime has been on a 20 year decline in the U.S. Blaming the NRA for preventing research into the causes of crime smacks of a unfair political interest by this publication. Is it Scientific American's intent to violate the NRA members First Amendment rights to have an opinion? SA should stay out of this political debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was gratified to see an article on the current gun controversy which advocated a scientific search (research) for sufficient data on which to base suggestions for a solution. This is much better than the current situation of trying to come to an irrational solution based on no, or very outdated, facts and long held idealogical stances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is pathetic. First of all, why is it "gun" voilence? Is it okay to kill innocents with something else? Or do you just not care?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour analogy with cars of the fifties doesn't work. While the cars had many things about them that needed to be changed if you operated them in a safe considerate manner you were usually okay, unless you were the victim of someone who wasn't. But cars did not kill people, I'm here as evidence of that. Where your analogy breaks down is that there is nothing about a gun that makes it dangerous to operate, and therefore, nothing to fix.
Neither trigger locks or waiting periods (like in Oakland) will do a thing. Show me. And if they were made the law when they changed nothing, as in California, then you would want something else. And then something after that.
Then there is this snide comment, guns are meant to kill. I have, in my 70 years, fired I'm sure well over 100,000 rounds, and except for maybe Viet Nam, have never even hurt any human. I would say that is true of over 99% of the shots fired in this country. Guns are meant to fire a projectile, what that hits is the responsibility of the user.
If you really think that that the object of people like Feinstein and her ilk are not to eliminate firearms then you are just not paying attention. It's freely available on YouTube. You are the one being cynical.
You speak of "ordinary citizens." Just who do you think the four million plus members of the NRA are? Or the many millions more who value their right to protect themselves? The NRA does what its membership wants it to do.
Both Jarad Loughner and Adam Lanza (and all the rest as far as I know) had very obvious problems, but nobody wants to talk about that. Since you are supposed to be a scientist why don't you try looking at what might really help? Since you don't seem to have been paying attention man has been crushing his fellow man's skull with rocks since long before guns. Guns do make it easier, but as Timothy McVeigh showed, there are other ways.
I'm all for common sense gun laws, let's start by eliminating that stupid California drop test. Its only purpose is to make things difficult for "ordinary citizens."
I have no desire to pay to have weak political garbage like this sent to me, so cancel my subscription and refund my money. The number on my label is: SCA0000373571
As an educator and a college professor, I am disappointed to see SA present weakly constructed non sequitur arguments concerning thinly veiled pro-gun control bias and call to action for the liberal agenda. Although an argument can be made for the NRA's vehement opposition to freedom limiting legislation, the same determination can be made for the current administrations willingness to pursue gun control law with little regard for truth or rationality. Although I am not opposed to researching the causes behind violent behavior, I think you will find that there is an inordinate amount of this research that already exists. I agree with an earlier posting that our nation's problems with violent behavior are complex and related to many factors such as poverty, drug addiction, mental and emotional health problems, not to mention our track record in reinforcing these problems through the revolving door of poorly conceived entitlement programs. I don't really believe that you wish to face these issues, but more likely are trying to establish a causality focused on firearms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am saddened that as a magazine that promotes non-biased scientific research methods and you would present a meaningless statistic about gun ownership and increased mortality rates. That same logic and statistic could be used to describe almost anything. Take automobiles for instance, you are considerably more likely to be killed in a car if you own one... You are also more likely to be killed by a tiger if you own of those too... I would be quite surprised if your magazine had the stomach to openly promote the outlawing of corvettes, mustangs, or chargers all of which are unnecessary vehicles whose only design is to burn unreasonable amounts of fossil fuels, promote dangerous driving habits, and contribute to more fatalities per car than safer, slower, and greener counterparts. If you choose to look at statistics, you may also find that the most dangerous cities to live in, have the highest mortality rates due to gun violence, also have the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
I have found to my dismay, that left leaning individuals tend to favor the use of social media to drum up support for socialist agendas disguised as the intellectual elite. I believe that you have demonstrated with this article a complete lack of professional integrity, and more importantly, you have displayed for your readers a prime example of why SA articles should be read with a degree of reservation as the truth within them is evidently filtered by the editors political agenda.
Political agendas? Is there any data at all that suggests that exercising our individual right to go about killing people is safe? No. So, until that situation changes I am all for supporting the scientific community's researching ways to change it. And whether any scientist has a political agenda on either side of the issue is not going to keep me up at night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do we need to spend millions of politically funded moneys unless there is an effort to make locks mandatory for law abiding citizens? On one hand you are in support of spending $10 million on "gun safety research" while calling for "a willingness to examine the causes of violence". Which is it? And you are hoping the research will not succumb to political meddling?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDittos
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The problems began when investigators funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrelation is not causation. That is like saying chemotherapy doesn't work because people who do it are much more likely to die of cancer than those who don't. Obviously, people in areas full of criminals will be more likely to want a gun for protection than those who live in the land of gated communities and a million cops.
The analogy with cars is pathetic. Truly accidental gunshot deaths are pretty rare. The chance that modern guns, if used properly, will misfire is minuscule. Most of the accidental deaths are caused by people who do incredibly stupid things with their guns like firing them in the air, inside their house, or while under the influence of drugs. Accidents still can happen, famously the incident with Dick Cheney, but they are still very rare. In the vast majority of gun deaths, the person was trying to kill someone. You can say that about almost none of the deaths by cars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Editors
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was the last thing I expected from you. I am very disapointed in your politically or emotionally driven view you have chosen to publish. I am an instructor in the safe and proper use of firearms and find your views twisted, lacking substance and incorrect! I suggest before you decide to publish something like this again you get the facts and publish them instead of the trash I was subjected to in this article. I hope you got the points you were looking for from the liberal left and the democratic/communist party? I will take the money i would have spent on renewing my subscription to SA and give it to the NRA to protect the constitution, not tear it down like you would have the knee jerk CDC do. Good ridence!!
I read your magazine to increase my knowledge of things scientific. I am a member of the NRA so I can protect my rights and the rights of other like-minded citizens. The NRA isn't trying to preserve the rights of criminals as your ignorant article claims. The fact that some people are killed by the projectiles fired from firearms, notice I didn't say "gun" as a gun is a crew served weapon firing a projectile greater than .50 caliber, isn't one of my greatest concerns as there are too many people living on this planet anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA firearm merely facilitates a deranged individual's ability to inflict harm which, in their absence, would be accomplished by other means, bombs, arson, motor vehicles, etc...
The actual problem, which everyone recognizes but fails to act upon, is the tragic state of the American mental health system.
I am a former member of the military and the insinuation that I or others of my ilk lack the training or responsibility to own firearms is offensive, and that the government wants to spend $10 million to study the problem is ridiculous and wasteful. Why don't they apply that money to mental health care where it may actually do some good? Or to the criminal justice system, those who's job it is to prevent violence in the first place?
Keep your editorial comments to things scientific, instead of doing an opinion piece siding with the liberal establishment in America. There are far too many problems our government needs to use it's resources for than persecuting law-abiding citizens whom are rarely ever the source of the violence in the first place.
I'm very disappointed that you'd choose to make the statements you have and expect better from you in the future.
You ruined your case with one word "scandalously". You don't seem to understand that unlike cars, guns are meant to kill. We have the right to protect ourselves and our family using guns and no matter how many gun laws are passed, the crimnals and insane among us will ignore the law and be able to get guns. All we NRA members want is the constitutional right to own and carry guns if we feel the need. All the current violence has bee in gun-free zones - these monsters don't tend to go into police stations and shoot people since they want the highest body count and don't want to be confronted by others with a gun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe analogy between automobiles and guns seems to me to be fundamentally flawed, as is the reasoning behind this editorial. First, except for those collisions and accidents which result from mechanical failure, the majority of automobile accidents, and the resulting fatilities, do trace back to driver error (excessive speed for conditions, inattention, unsafe actions, what have you). Where automobile manufactures have excelled, and where gun manufacturers have no hope of success, is in "intervening" after the collision to protect the occupants (crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, side impact protection and building a less deformable passenger compartment). This, in my opinion is where the analogy fails: there is no prospect "intervening" after the trigger is pulled and the bullet is fired - there are no "crumple zones" or "airbags" to protect anyone who finds themselves on the wrong end of the projectile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn spite of this, all drivers must be licensed (why not gun owners?), in order to be licensed, a driver must pass an exam (why not gun owners?), there are systems for registration of automobiles (why not guns?), which must regularly be renewed. Note that none of these suggestion in any way bans guns, or ownership of guns, they simple set what, to me, are reasonable requirements to be met before being able to obtain a potentially deadly weapon - whether that's a gun or a car.
I challenge the assertion in the first sentence that firearms are "central to American culture and identity". I find (admittedly weak) sources indicating that roughly 40% of households have guns, which might mean less than half that percentage are actual gun owners. With 300 million guns in the US, clearly the minority who do own them own a large number of them. I applaud SciAm for promoting real data and research on this issue, but the idea that guns are central to our culture is not a good starting point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the mere mention of gun-violence research sets the gun-rights community into attack mode. People here are reacting with predictable NRA talking points. In the early 90s, a group of well-credentialled scientists did a study to prove whether or not keeping a gun in the home keeps people safer. (Google it: Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home) As a surprise to no one, their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that in fact keeping a gun in the home makes you less safe. Gun advocates reacted as if the studies were a declaration of war. They cried that the research flawed and politically motivated, it launched a campaign to pressure government agencies not to fund further work on gun violence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reactions in these comments are exactly the same type of response that many researchers who dared to challenge the nonsensical propaganda generated by the NRA have received over the past 20 years. When I was a kid, the NRA was all about gun safety. Now the NRA exists to serve our $8 billion firearms industry. Greed over people. That's the American way.
Scientific American's article "Ready. Aim. Investigate." in the magazine's March 2013 issue has me confused.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubject article states, in part, "[The NRA] is suppressing public safety research into guns." And that "[the NRA is framing the gun violence/gun rights debate as a] "choice between banning all guns and doing nothing."
Yet other publications akin to Scientific American have stated "The NRA...[is] the largest gun safety group in the world. NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program is a hugely successful program that has saved lives. ..... Since 1988, the program has reached more than 26 million children in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing officials, law enforcement personnel and other qualified professionals."
And "Since the mid-1960s, the NRA has been urging that government, at all levels, take steps to force the dangerously mentally ill to get treatment or to get them off the street. NRA members have argued that information on those legally adjudicated as mentally ill and potentially dangerous be included in the federal databases checked when one purchases a firearm."
Can you help me reconcile these staements/claims?
I am a long time subscriber to your magazine and have for years enjoyed the quality of your articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, in resent years your editors have increasingly delved into political opinion in the guise of science.
I am neither a gun nut nor a member of the NRA, but I do own guns. This article is designed to sway the reader in the anti-gun direction of President Obama and many, primarily in the Democrat Party. For the Editors to craft such a false analogy regarding cars makes it clear where the editors stand on gun control. Automobile safety studies did not have a ready audience of anti-automobile organizations. Guns do. While the academic community must be salivating over the possible millions of dollars that would flow into their coffers, there is little promise of any useful action coming out of such studies. Better to put the money into research into why government seems incapable of locking up and forcefully treating the millions of drug and alcohol addled, and insane people that are wandering our streets and shouting at lampposts. Also study the dysfunctional minority communities in America that are riddled with a culture of uneducated people having the majority of their babies out of wedlock and saddled with run away crime and murder. Such studies could lead to public actions that would truly benefit all Americans, especially those that are victims of such behavior. Or better yet, study why we as a society seem incapable of even talking about such issues.
Thanks for the comment - and you are exactly correct. This is a topic for "Psychology Today" and not SA. We are fooling ourselves when we call it "gun violence" - the problem today is violence in general. A gun, knife, bat? Nothing but the tools to execute the rage within. How about we address this as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole discussion with the "right" to own a gun is moot, people should read the constitution a bit more closely, there has been no necessity for a militia for quite a while. Only forbidding automatic guns (and basically all guns others than the one used for hunting) will achieve anything. Comparing guns to automobile is a joke. The purpose of a car is to travel from one point to another, Any casualties are due to unintended accidents. The purpose of a gun is to kill, any casualties are due to its normal use. It is only the economic interests of the weapon lobby that drive the defense of guns...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem for many here is that SA only deals in facts. Measured quantities, etc. A scientific inquiry is not supposed to bend to partisan preferences like believing gun ownership is a good thing because of personal hubristic fantasies or NRA propaganda driven by their being tools for firearm manufacturers. These self-serving personal beliefs are irrelevant to the cause and effect relationships found by controlled studies. If you want a gun because it personally makes you feel good, then have one within the confines of whatever laws are currently in effect. Don't try to sell others on it being a 'good' idea by making up non-factually supported reasons and trying to declare them factual or scientifically supported. They're not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am shocked at the tenor of comments on this editorial. I would have expected readers of Scientific American to be more perceptive in their reading skills and scientific literacy. This is woefully evident in the posts which attack the article AND in those which support it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author suggests an idea central to all scientific inquiry - that the true answer to a complicated question is arrived at through careful research. The article advocates identifying the problem, not means to solve it.
The fact that the article mentions the NRA's suppression of research at the CDC is not a political statement, it is verifiable fact. The support of efforts to objectively determine how firearms are misused in dangerous ways is also not a political effort, it supports the application of well established scientific techniques to identify the problem.
Several posters object to the quote of a statistic implying that "having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot". Have you looked for the source article? Have you looked for the statistics on why this is so? My gut feeling is that the statistic is true, and is likely due to issues that the NRA lobbies for - specifically proper training in gun use and cleaning and simple steps to prevent access to children. Of these shooting deaths, is there an overwhelmingly common cause? If we knew, for instance, that these two possible causes were in fact the proximate cause of the statistic, this would support the position of the NRA. That organization is a longtime supporter of proper training and education about firearms, and advocates gun safety. If you support the core mission of the NRA and the second amendment (which I do) wouldn't you want to see your position verified? Wouldn't you like the debate to arrive at the conclusion that enforcement of existing law, or support of education is the proper response?
Without the ability to do research, the problem will never be solved. If laws are enacted, they will not be based on sound reasoning and an understanding of the problem. Whatever the answer is, it will not be solved without knowledge.
Again, I am shocked that readers of Scientific American would have any other point of view.
Nothing like a good bunch of paranoids to think that gun control means you are going to lose all your rights to purchase and use guns. The car analogy is just that, an analogy, some NRA advocates such as Jesse Venture (incorrectly) used this to defend gun use, the facts is people use this analogies to compare what is going today with what was happening in the past, the car analogy was used to prove how things changed after proper research was done, the perfect example is that today we can discriminate between cars killing people and drivers killing people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell for sure the NRA is a lobbying organization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if we didn't have lobbyists on the other side
trying to ban guns there would be no need for its existence nor would anyone fund it.
You guys make me laugh. You just can't understand how
people could not have your point of view. After all,you
know whats good for us.
Unlike the automobile, gun ownership is a constitutional guarantee. But then you feel that you
know more than Jefferson and Washington and Adams.
Your arrogance is a real burr under my saddle. Find
something constructive to make yourself better as a
person and stop trying to tell others how to live.
Your automobile reference is a good example of what can
happen. You may recall a gentleman named Ralph Nader
that destroyed one of the safest cars of the time by
calling it unsafe. Engineering analysis has proved him
totally wrong but in the interest of selling books and
his righteous cause he was able to kill the corvair and
go on to wrongly attack many other issues. He is a very
interesting case study.
It is a fact that gun ownership is protected by
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby the constitution. There is no science involved and
if there were I would want it to come from a non biased
source.
What seems uncontroversial to me is how much can be done to catch shooters once they fire a gun. Systems like Shotspotter are a start, but the goal should be to locate, identify, and immobilize a criminal firing a gun in public within a few seconds. We have the technologies to do these tasks already, but they're not deployed where they're needed and not integrated with emergency response systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now criminals use guns because they kill quickly and they have time to escape before police show up. If the escape element is eliminated, the gun is much less useful, except for legitimate purposes.
Dirk, I'm very much in agreement with everything you've said, though to some extent, this article was perhaps poorly researched, because little discussion was given to what we already know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake, for instance, the statistic that households with guns have triple the odds of having someone shot. That's remarkably easy to explain much, if not all of. The majority of gun deaths in the country are suicide, not homicides and CERTAINLY not accidental deaths (which are almost insignificant). Suicides are two thirds of gun deaths, and having a gun in the home obviously makes you considerably more like to use one in suicides.
Anyone who knows enough to make that basic extrapolation can take a few minutes to search the peer-reviewed literature to see how well it's really established that that's the reason. Sure enough, papers show, for instance, varying increase in overall suicide rates with gun ownership, and a massive increase in gun suicide rates. Miller et al. 2002 ("Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States") shows a 1.6 fold increase in overall suicide rates, and a 3.8 fold increase in gun suicides, between the areas with lowest and highest gun ownership. Clearly that's where a lot of the government numbers are coming from.
This Sciam contributor didn't bother to do the 5 minutes of research to find that and mention it.
And what of finding ways to "reduce firearms deaths without infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms"? Well factors that affect gun rates are also something that's been researched fairly well. Tighter gun laws correlate weakly, at best, with gun homicide rates, but socioeconomic factors correlate very strongly. Lack of education and economic inequality go hand in hand with homicides, far more than gun-related factors. Guns don't increase crime in the first place; they merely occasionally enhance the lethality of crimes which already occur (Cook 2004, "The Social Cost of Gun Ownership"). If you don't have a massive violent crime problem in the first place, there's nothing to make more lethal, and guns cease being a problem. That's probably why many countries have high gun ownership rates, and easy access to VERY lethal guns, such as in Germany for anyone such as licensed hunters, not almost non-existant homicide rates.
True, these places also have strict laws, in some cases, but at the end of the day, anyone willing to play those games can get, say, an AR-15 and high-capacity magazine, yet there's almost no murder in these places.
This has been rather excluded in this article.
rodestar99,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Not a single word of your comment is related to this article in any way.
2) You misinterpret the US Constitution (I'll agree your particular misinterpretation is statistically very common among NRA supporters.)
3) Your statements about Ralph Nader are factually incorrect. There is no basis whatsoever for them in the history of this topic (except for early Auto industry attempts to suppress the exact type of general safety research and data talked about in this article (Those opposing industry 'reports' were later discredited.)
4) If laughing was a method of dismissing the output of controlled scientific studies, you'd be all set.
I am guessing, but SA never policies their discussions since we have some idiot post a retail website every day, so, hey SA AH's, what is the purpose of this? Do we want to eliminate the most dangerous stuff which kills the most people? Swimming pools kill more kids than guns, cars still kills more people than homicides (more to the point-drunk drivers kill more than homicides do). Oh wait, medications, doctors, medical procedures, shitty prenatal care, and hospitals kill far more people than those killed by someone with a gun (see, not by a gun, but by someone with a gun).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd ask my subscription be canceled, but gauging by the pops asking me to subscribe when I open this page, no one knows that I do.
I know it shouldn't seem funny when it's so sad, but I can't help it. I gigge when I see all the furious NRA members who are breaking up with science at the mere suggestion of basing gun policy on actual data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments are filled with assertions like: "Truly accidental gunshot deaths are pretty rare," and "Neither trigger locks or waiting periods (like in Oakland) will do a thing. Show me."
Guess what -- research would show you. Research might even back you up! If you were truly confident in these assertions, you would welcome and applaud research that you knew would validate what you've been saying all along, and then you could point and laugh at the stupid communists who were wrong.
Back to the "truly accidental gun shots" claim ... that comment goes on to say that most "accidental" gun fatalities are the result of people being stupid. So they're not truly accidental. Stupid people with guns -- or intelligent people who happen to be near stupid people with guns -- deserve to die, I guess.
The car analogy is very appropriate here, given the number of auto-related fatalities that are the result of people being stupid (and/or drunk, and/or on drugs, and/or showing off) in cars, resulting in the deaths of themselves, their passengers, and anyone unlucky enough to cross their path. There are many fewer of those deaths now -- not because there are fewer stupid, drunk, showoffs, but because cars are designed to prevent them from killing people. And that's the result of research.
I don't know ... I think stupid people and those who come into contact with them kinda deserve to live, even though they are stupid or unlucky. So I'd welcome research to make supid gun fatalies as rare as stupid auto fatalities. But then having that opinion automatically classifies me as a communist, which automatically renders my opinion invalid. Oh well!
rodestar99,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou state, "It is a fact that gun ownership is protected by the constitution."
And? Seriously, and? What?
An article about promoting the safety of gun ownership and the facts (supported by scientific studies) about the dangers, causes, accidents, etc. is what was written here. That is what is contained in the words making up the sentences which form the paragraphs.
Your 'scientific' contribution is: I advocate gun ownership, therefore nothing should be studied or published about it except those things that promote it. Are there any other of you personal beliefs you think must have only selective and biased study?
Let's quit the honk honk nonsense about all accidental firearms discharges being a result of 'people being stupid' The stupidity is this belief and the believers in it. I've seen accidental discharges by the most experienced and safety minded gun owners. That's the nature of an accident. It's a statistical guarantee against the best self discipline. Blibber-blabber wishful thinking that intent and procedure are foolproof is hubristic nonsense. Anyone who deludes themselves into thinking they can achieve perfection is a greater danger than someone who does not hold such an egotistical fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, the article is about getting the industry on a track (like automobiles) where safety is a leading issue. All fanatical NRA members see is an article that is not just blindly promoting gun ownership before all else, and (eyes shut, hands on ears going la, la, la) just spew out unrelated NRA propoganda (you know, the NRA actually has other, useful points if you ever looked).
Esmertina, in the case of gun accidents, the "NRA people" are correct. 600 people a year die from accidental shootings, which puts that pretty darn far down on the list of cause of death in the US. One's odds of being killed by an accidental gun discharge are just about the same as one's odds of being struck by lightning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the WISQARS database, Accidental gun injuries cause 15,000 injuries a year, which is equally infinitesimal. It may sound like a lot, but that's 0.05% of accidental injuries there.
Now, I'm not saying easy steps shouldn't be taken to correct that; loaded chamber indicators being more ubiquitously presently alone would probably reduce that number drastically, and there's hardly a reason not to include such safety features.
Still, it's correct to note that this is a rare occurrence.
Let's discuss safety, by all means, but if we do, it should be with the recognition that it's not going to measurably change any death or injury numbers in this country. I'm all for safer firearms, but it's a very ancillary issue.
If you want to change death/injury numbers notably, you have to shift focus from guns altogether and look at the socioeconomic factors driving all the violent crime here.
what the article fails to notice is that dispite all the advance in cars, automobile accidents are still the fault of the drive not the car. Just like those who kill with a gun the gun is not the killer it is just one of the many tools that can be used to kill. Millions of people were killed before the gun was ever invented
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdrafter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best kind of comment is one that has a point. Your point is?
Are you suggesting the risk of a serious injury or fatality is equal for an encounter with stick as opposed to a large caliber firearm? (hint: that would be nonsensical)
Did you think people would be fooled when you switched the subject from (the article's statements) automobile fatalities to automobile accidents? Of course human cause accidents are caused by humans (did you think people were thinking something else?). What else could be the cause?
The issue is about changes in devices to make them less likely or inherently preventative of accidents. It changed drastically for cars since the 1960. Do you wish it to not improve for firearms? If a 1% improvement meant it was not your spouse or child who was the one accidentally shot in your home, would it be worth some study?
Those of you who are whining about SA taking a political position should read the article again more carefully. If there is anything factually incorrect, feel free to point it out. Of the 30 comments thus far, some of which are quite long-winded, no one has cited any actual data that contradicts the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this article is an editorial (hence opinion not based in fact) clearly the statement "Guns, unlike cars, of course, are meant to kill" is most clearly false as the shooting sports such as target shooting clearly attest. Any sane person would agree that this mass murder by sociopathic individuals must be stopped and there does exist methods to address this behavior, but we cannot make any meaningful advances in this direction until unfounded and emotion-driven rhetoric is removed from the argument and true unfettered science can be advanced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a real easy solution to this problem. It is called an ammo tax. And use the revenue from taxing bullets to fund gun safety education, public physiologist for mentally ill people, and put armed cops in schools. We already have an additional tax for alcohol, and tobacco, so why not ammo? Also, there is lead in bullets, which is bad for the environment, so we could call it a lead tax as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI automatically suspect anyone who is opposed to research and data of ulterior motives. I just can’t help myself. I also think the NRA influence is radically inflated compared with the number of Americans who are members. Less than 2% are NRA members. The NRA is the lobby front group for the gun industry. It is the gun industry that opposes research and data. It is the gun industry that gives the NRA so much power. It is the money that the gun industry provides that has so much influence on Republican members of Congress. It is because of the gun industry that even background checks are opposed by Republican Congress members even when the majority of Republican voters support background checks. The gun industry does not want to have to appear in public at Congressional hearings so NRA front man LaPierre does that for them. It is not a fight with the NRA it is a fight with the entire gun industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, SA editors, the title of this piece is abysmal. Slow death? You want to slow the deaths or do you want to reduce the deaths? I always have been of the opinion that slow death involves a lot of suffering.
And why should funding "public physiologist for mentally ill people ... and armed cops in schools" be a responsibility of those who purchase ammunition? It makes no sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, I believe you would find the most gun related problems are caused by those who use very little ammo. The kids in Chicago killing each other are not doing much target shooting at the range. This is just another liberal idea to transfer responsibility from the irresponsible to the responsible.
Soccerdad said, "transfer responsibility from the irresponsible to the responsible"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou meant to say, "transfer responsibility from the let's-think-about-this-as-we're-all-in-this-together to the I-got-mine-you-can-go-to-hell-for-all-I-care"
I am sorely disappointed in the editors’ lack of scientific integrity. The whole notion to support statistics that show correlation, as support causality is appalling. This tells me I should not trust conclusions drawn by the editors of this magazine. It tells me not to trust that their editing does not result in slanting of stories that they present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should be ashamed that you have allowed your bias get in the way of science. It is apparent that Scientific American is not really scientific after all.
SciAM... if only you knew what you were talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CDC was banned from further 'firearms research' after shpwing they were incapable of doing it without a political bias. To wit...the following:
"...ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.” - Forbes
"They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.” - Dr. Katherine Christoffel, of the “Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan”, a CDC-funded organization.
"Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” - Washington Post
The CDC and other government sponsored institutions are incapable of delivering 'science' on a political topic.
Editorials like this simply convince me I was correct to let my subscription to this magazine lapse.
The most frightening thing about this are many of the responses by readers. I would urge you to go back and read this article again, carefully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt calls for scientific research into the causes of gun violence. It states that such research lowered automobile deaths dramatically. It states that the NRA has and does oppose such research and has and will pressure Congress to prevent any government funding of such research. All of these statements are absolutely true and in the public record.The article does not predict any possible outcome, it does not suggest any course of action other than to do the research.
Yet many of the responses here are so far removed from the text of the article, are so totally irrational as to make me wonder about the grip on reality that their authors possess. How could it be that even here, on a Scientific American site, so many of you are behaving like ignorant, irrational, unjustifiably terrified extremists?
To paraphrase: guns may not kill people but people like you who oppose common sense approaches to reducing the death toll do! You bear a share of the responsibility for every gun murder, gun accident, gun suicide; all of it. How can you sleep at night? How can you bear to look at yourself in the mirror?
For SHAME!!!
Well done Scientific American! We definitely need scientific research into gun violence and the mental instability that leads to gun fetishes and violence. I suspect we will find out that gun ownership is a deep-rooted psychological reaction to being circumcised. Stop circumcising babies, and they won't feel the paranoid need to compensate for their loss when they grow up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpencer60 in comment 44 has put it in a nutshell as to why the NRA opposes CDC research into firearm issues. The study that says you are more likely to be killed by a gun in your house than to kill a burglar with it was at best flawed, and at worst rigged to show that conclusion. The "researcher" chose a sample of people that were more likely to misuse firearms. They were known petty criminals, and their family members. The people studied were NOT a random sampling from the general gun owning population. The CDC has shown conclusively that it has an anti-gun agenda, and should NOT waste be allowed to waste taxpayer monies in pushing that agenda. There is plenty of unbiased research on the subject of firearms and the uses of them available. People such as Gary Kleck and John Lott, Jr. have written excellent works regarding firearms, private ownership of them, and their legitimate uses in reducing violent crimes against people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NRA is a powerful lobby bcause it represents close to four million citizens, PEOPLE, not industries or businesses.
Sincerely, HandyMan Hugh
The NRA is so afraid of research they don't do any broad based studies of their own. Targeted, obviously biased, set pieces is all that is produced. You can tell when someone (or a group) know they are on soft ground when every time an issue is brought up, they try to switch it to another issue, or just scream bias. Sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCatamount -- 600 accidental shooting deaths a year seems awfully low to me. That's less than 2 a day. I had no problem finding 10 news stories on Google from around the country about accidental shootings over the past few days:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGun-cleaning accident leads to injury in Clark
Powell Tribune-Mar 12, 2013
Police: Teen critical after accidental shooting
WJXT Jacksonville-Mar 13, 2013
Frostproof Boy In Critical Condition After Accidental Shooting -
The Daily Ridge-5 hours ago
Easter family is close, devastated by accidental shooting death of 3 ...
The Jackson Citizen Patriot-Mar 13, 2013
Man sentenced to 10 years in girlfriend's accidental shooting
Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette-Mar 12, 2013
Man critical after 'accidental' shooting
Philadelphia Inquirer-Mar 9, 2013
Wichita 5-year-old injured in accidental shooting - KCTV5
KCTV Kansas City-Mar 11, 2013
Emergency crews respond to accidental shooting
KSBY San Luis Obispo News-Mar 11, 2013
Toddler Critically Injured In Accidental Shooting
NewsChannel5.com-Mar 11, 2013
Woman treated at hospital after accidental shooting
Bellefontaine Examiner-Mar 11, 2013
Granted, may of these are "just" injuries ... but not everyone who was in a car accident before the safety laws tightened up was killed. I have a scar on my face from a Jeep rollover when I was 15. It wouldn't have happened in today's safer Jeeps. It didn't kill me ... I would still rather not have gone through life disfigured. I bet the people injured in accidental shootings feel the same.
The NRA is a powerful lobby because It Represents The Entire Firearms Industry. Four million is a pathetically small number in a nation of over 300 million. Triple A has more than 12 times that membership and not all car owners are members. NRA money comes from the gun industry and it is because of that industry that they have so much influence over Republican members of Congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEsmertina, it's not me you're arguing with; it's the CDC. You can look at the numbers yourself on their WISQARS database. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html This databse shows 606 deaths for the most recent available year, 2010
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonfatal data is here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Are you seriously suggesting that your 5 minutes of armchair research is more rigorous than what the CDC has compiled?
What you've compiled there is basically a collection of anecdotal cases, with no statistical context, whatsoever. It certainly isn't evidence that the CDC is wrong. Even if that many incidents happened every single day, that's 3,650 gun injuries a year, and the CDC already reports about 15,000 (about 600 of them fatal), just like I said.
I'm still in favor of better safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that accidental injuries are extremely rare.
Catamount -- I am not arguing with you or the CDC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am saying that the perhaps the reason the statistic sounds low is that it only takes into account fatalities -- ie, people lucky enough not to be killed by an accidental shooting. I am stating that personally, I care just as much about those who are injured in accidental shootings, and that the numbers there seem to be significantly higher, based on my 5 minutes of armchair research (which, if only ... uncomfortable coffee-stained office chair research. I can only dream of the comforts of an arm chair! :)
And, indeed, the link you provided (thank you) shows there were 14,675 accidental firearm injuries in 2011 (intent: unitentional ... firearm ... all, all, all) and an additional 14,115 accidental injuries from BB and pellet guns.
But we're in violent agreement here, right? We both favor improved safety features, and we both presumably believe it is worth saving 606 lives if it can easily be prevented ... or preventing 14,000 injuries. After all (and I think this is paraphrasing Jon Stewart, I can't take credit for it) we'll recall a playpen that kills 6 kids ... hell, we'll recall a stroller that pinches a kid's finger.
There Is no point at looking at how to make guns safer. there are just too many out there already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is the people who want to pull the trigger, and kill someone.
Criminals don't have a problem obtaining weapons anyway.
The world is flush with them.
How many murders are carried out using other means ?
Poison, knives, hammers, screwdrivers, strangulation, telephone cords,drownings,and yes autos etc.etc.
Guns are used because it is easier. If they are not available. Then another way is found.
Let's put it in perspective.
But what about all the other guns out there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world is flush with them.
Humans are the top predator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe this is nature's attempt at reducing the population.
It won't work of course.
We are out of control.
When nature takes a hand in reducing the human population.
it will be very ugly !
Generally I would agree with you. Particularly if such "studies" were done in an impartial, truly scientific manner. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. In the case of this subject, which is more of a political issue than a scientific one, such studies would more likely be fodder for those who would like to see more governmental control over firearms. Just like the NRA, who I believe is an honest broker on the issue, the anti-gun organizations have deep pocket legal resources to achieve a favorable judicial outcome as opposed to the proper legislative outcome. No amount of "scientific" evidence or studies are going to cause a wit of change in the fundamental beliefs of such groups. And America today is awash with single purpose groups and organizations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen one considers the problem solving process, and the first step, Identifying the Problem, one may forcefully argue that the problem is not with fire arms ownership per se, or with fire arms safety (after all, fire arms are designed to injure and kill, and to remove or modify that ability is to redefine the concept of a "fire arms"), but that rather the problem is one primarily of a cultural nature. There is small, if any chance, that the fire arms studies would ever focus on that issue amid the inevitable cries of "racism" that would follow.
A good look at Switzerland where many, many households have real, fully automatic assault weapons issued by the government, and that in 2010 had a total of 40 murders in a country of 8 million people, while at the same time Chicago had over 7 times as many murders, would be enlightening. And about one half of the Swiss murders were committed by foreigners residing in the country, mainly from southern Europe and Africa.
Because of these factors, I, and apparently many others, view President Obama's call for studies with deep suspicion, and I don't think that this is being anti-scientific.
LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY (LLE) DUE TO VARIOUS RISKS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTable 1
Activity or risk*......LLE (days)
Living in poverty......3500
Being male (vs. female)......2800
Cigarettes (male)......2300
Heart disease*......2100
Being unmarried......2000
Being black (vs. white)......2000
Socioeconomic status low......1500
Working as a coal miner......1100
Cancer*......980
30-lb overweight......900
Grade school dropout......800
Sub-optimal medical care*......550
Stroke*......520
15-lb overweight......450
All accidents*......400
Vietnam army service......400
Living in Southeast (SC, MS, GA, LA, AL)......350
Mining construction (accidents only)......320
Alcohol*......230
Motor vehicle accidents......180
Pneumonia, influenza*......130
Drug abuse*......100
Suicide*......95
Homicide*......90
Air pollution*......80
Occupational accidents......74
AIDS*......70
Small cars (vs. midsize)......60
Married to smoker......50
Drowning*......40
Speed limit: 65 vs. 55 miles per hour*......40
Falls*......39
Poison + suffocation + asphyxiation*......37
Radon in homes*......35
Fire, burns*......27
Coffee: 2 cups/day......26
Radiation worker, age 18-65......25
Firearms*......11
Birth control pills......5
All electricity nuclear (UCS)*......1.5
Peanut butter (1 Tbsp....../day)......1.1
Hurricanes, tornadoes*......1
Airline crashes*......1
Dam failures*......1
Living near nuclear plant......0.4
All electricity nuclear (NRC)*......0.04
*Asterisks indicate averages over total U.S. population; others refer to those exposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The problem is the insane person, not the gun. Everybody should have to take the MMPI in high school. That would be a better background check. The MMPI [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory] is a test consisting of hundreds of true-false questions, used as a diagnostic tool by psychologists. The MMPI can be given en mass and machine graded.
2. In many cases, the family cannot afford psychiatric care. Make Medicaid work for these cases before the shooting.
3. In one case, the shooter had a brain cancer that had caused other symptoms. His doctor failed to order an MRI [NMR]. Make the doctors and judges responsible.
If the MMPI had been available in 1750, would the Constitution have been different? Lawyers are too hung up on waiting for a crime to be committed before doing something. In the case of schizophrenics such as Jarad Loughner, the American arrested for the 2011 Tucson, making it easier for his family or friends to get him to a psychiatrist would have made all the difference. Same for several other cases.
A gun is just a tool. When a drunk driver kills somebody, do you put the car in jail? The anti-gun people have a bigger psychological problem with guns than the NRA does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI neither like nor dislike guns. They are as boring as wrenches. Hunting is boring. Target shooting is boring. But there is one issue that gets me off the fence. Suppose that in Germany in 1930, every Jew had had an unregistered gun. Would the holocaust have been possible? Maybe our Founding Fathers did have a clue. You might note that a missile fired from a drone works pretty well, but the missile is expensive and destroys a lot of real estate.
What about what is happening now in Syria? Syria is self-destructing. It can't fight an external war while fighting a civil war. Bashar al-Assad may loose the civil war because he was unable to enforce gun control. Gun control worked for Hitler.
I am writing this slowly so the editors will possibly comprehend: Guns are designed to shoot a projectile very fast. What the gun is used for is decided only by the user.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe that any of the editors even gave any real thought to what they were writing or they would have seen their collective stupidity on the subject.
Unlike the Board of editors, who think guns are only designed to kill, I recognize there is a human factor in their use. The amount of accidental deaths is around 600 for the last year reported by the CDC. A VERY small number compared to various other types of accidents. What we should be worried about is purposeful VIOLENCE. Suicides in the United States should not be included in gun death statistics as we have a significantly lower rate of suicide than (almost) gunless Japan. Bridges, tall buildings, gas ovens, pills, knives, etc. are sufficiently available to 'satisfy' those with suicidal intent.
Denying people the right to bear arms, which is affirmed as an already existing right by the Second Amendment and by the recent Heller decision from the Supreme court is unlawful and foolish.
Guns are an EXCELLENT defensive weapon. From the website http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually."
One should realize that a defensive gun use is often done just by presenting the weapon without firing a shot. It is difficult to estimate, but my guess is that these uses deter far more than the approximatly 11,000 murders committed by bad guys using guns and stop many oother kinds of violence (rape, assaults, robberies, etc).
I certainly welcome research on the roots of violence and how to prevent murders, but not by people who automatically think the problem is guns.
Bob Langenbach
It’s fortuitous that the article immediately after your opinion piece on United States gun-related deaths there was on critical thinking: ‘What is Your Question?’. That article primed the following response:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the opinion references accidental automobile fatality statistics, it lumps all gun-related fatalities together; both accidental and criminal. An apolitical/scientific research policy recommendation would instead hone in on accidental gun-related fatalities which are relatively small compared to accidental auto fatalities: 606 Unintentional Firearm Deaths to 35,332 Unintentional Motor Vehicle Deaths in 2010 (Source CDC: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe).
Firearm deaths that are violence-related are the purview of the criminal justice system and public policy prescriptions that should take into account foundational principals like the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Coincidentally, the Violence Related Motor Vehicle Deaths in 2010 was 153; on the same order of magnitude as Unintentional Firearm Deaths of 606. Logical consistency on your part would advocate research into criminal abuse of motor vehicles as well.
fact: guns are tailored to kill things, from varmint to enemy soldiers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfact; gun sales in USA are highly dependent on sales to smugglers that send those guns to mexico (where I live) and to people that later uses it to hurt other people.
Hypothesis: if we investigate the guy who is buying that AK47 lot, chances are that we wont sell it to a crook (he can steal it later anyhow, but that requires more effort)
Hypothesis: if we sell ammo that is tailored to disable a target instead of killing it, chances are that less people will die, even if the gunshot wounds keep the same, (try rocksalt loaded shotgun shells before saying a drugged assailant won't notice a less than lethal shot)
conclusion, we need research on such subjects, even if to reject the hypothesis, that is all the article says.
I am puzzled by discussions of gun use for self-defense which never seem to include discussion of non-lethal weapons like tazers and tranquilizer dart guns. I realize that non-lethal weapons can be dangerous and rarely even lead to death, but I would think that police, security guards, home owners, and anyone else faced with making split second decisions under a rush of adrenaline about the intentions of another person in situations where they often lack crucial information would prefer an option that would not make a mistake in the heat of the moment permanent and irreversible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy cursory research on tranquilizer dart guns shows that differing body weights of human targets, unknown in advance, make their use much more problematic than TV shows like Alias would lead viewers to believe. I would fully support more research into finding a chemical agent and dosage that could definitely disable the largest human targets without being a potentially lethal overdose for smaller human targets.
Having obtained an airplane seat belt in 1953 and installed it in my own car, as protection for my safe and at times enthusiastic travel, I was pleased when I could buy later models already so equipped. I suggest that gun owners would similarly like to have protection for their own safe and at times enthusiastic use of the guns in their possession. But it is too late for anything but regrets when the top shelf or the hidden key has been found and their property has been misused by others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere do exist means of protection of guns from unauthorized use, as discussed here:
Trigger Locks - A False Solution? at http://hematite.com/dragon/gctriglock.html,
and here: How good are gun locks? at http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51065. Better than nothing, but with many drawbacks. The SciAm editors are entirely correct to call for “thorough and vigorous research on how to make gun ownership safer.” Starting with guns already responsibly owned.
It hurt the pride of the car makers to add even safety belts, under the pressure of public opinion; now the safety they provide is a bragging point. Without any changes in design by the the gun makers, the gun groups and the protection manufacturers are in a good position to go and do likewise for all owners of guns now in use. They might prefer to do so voluntarily, before Washington does it for them.
We didn't have to ban any automobiles to cut roadway fatalities, and we don't have to ban any guns to reduce gun-related deaths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought I would fix that part of the statement for you, you're welcome.
This article lacks some logic and proposes fallacies to the gun safety argument. Comparing an automobile to a firearm and using the statement that cars/guns don't kill people, people kill people is ludicrous. The car kills due to many factors including operator error, mechanical malfunction, weather, or any number of outside factors cannot be compared to a gun owner that must physically and mentally point and pull the trigger. Not comparable! The statement that "having a gun...tripled the chance that a family would get shot." logically a gun in the home increases the chance SOMEONE will get shot. Did the CDC differentiate between legal and illegal gun owners? As a legal gun owner, have never had an incident, educated myself and family in proper gun handling, store and transport in a safe manner. I cannot suppose illegal owners of firearms are as diligent. The media reports most gun violence when criminal activity has occurred. Now, the liberal agenda to rewrite our constitution, have taken to reporting with great satisfaction the few incidents where due diligence of firearm ownership have been ignored rabidly. Research is necessary! Unbiased, logical research must be completed. All American citizens must also have our constitutional rights guaranteed. It is the reason we have taken arms to protect this land, as I would to protect my family and rights. If research is to be conducted and solutions found, make sure it includes ways to keep the guns from entering the hands of the criminally minded. If this cannot be done, and I suppose it cannot, don't limit the capability to defend ourselves from that element. The research should also include the misnomers placed on certain guns. Semi-automatic rifles are not "assault rifles" unless the criminal using it is committing an assault. The weapons available to the general public are not able to purchase fully automatic weapons issued to the military. There really is no difference between the mechanisms on semi-automatic rifles and semi- automatic handguns. Those misnomers subconsciously impart fear of the firearms and create mass hysteria, just what liberals want to have happen. Our tax dollar are to support research on firearm safety, protections, and limits, it needs to be accurate and productive. All that occurred with the previous gun control laws was an increase in gun violence perpetrated by illegal gun owners. The best gun owner can slip, as can the best driver lose control of his car, but there is evidence that most gun violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by criminals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this