A few years ago I wrote a post called The Famous 10%. It became one of my most popular, arousing much animosity from the gun-rights fanatics and frequently quoted and referred to by gun control advocates. I reposted it here.
Almost immediately it became clear that I had been much too generous in the assigning of percentages. Soon I was talking about 35% and not long after that 50%
If you spent as much time as I do reading about gun violence, I think you'd agree with me, unless, of course, you had a personal agenda to protect.
Here's how it breaks down.
Divided into the approximately 65 million gun owners (see the latest Pew Poll) we have the following amounts.
Alcohol abuse is difficult to define, but let's take a study that found that 30% of Americans abuse alcohol. That translates straight across the board to gun owners. Please note that we're not including the regular, normal drinkers, whom some believe should be disqualified as well. These are the binge drinkers and the out-and-out alcoholics. That's 30% of gun owners who need to be disarmed for alcohol abuse.
Drug abuse is also difficult to define, let's take a survey that says 10% of Americans abuse illicit drugs.
That's another 10% of gun owners who need to be disarmed for drug abuse.
Mental disorders afflict many Americans. One conservative estimate says 22% are sufferers. It may sound harsh, but if you have a mental condition that requires medication for you to function in society, you cannot be trusted with guns. That's another 22% of gun owners that need to be disarmed for mental illness.
Rage and anger affects many people. Estimates say 7% of adults suffer from Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED). That's another 7% of gun owners that need to be disarmed for their anger problems.
FBI Crime Stats show us that about 500,000 crimes are committed with a gun each year. Let's say most are committed by criminals and only a small percentage by folks like this guy who had no previous felony convictions. Let's call it 1%. That's 1% of gun owners who need to be disarmed for turning bad.
Stupidity and clumsiness affects many people. We frequently read stories like this one representing stupidity, and this one representing clumsiness. Let's be generous and say another 1% only. That's 1% of gun owners who need to be disarmed for stupidity or clumsiness.
Obviously some of the marijuana and cocaine users also could be binge drinkers, and some of the rage guys are fueled by alcohol, so we will have some overlap.
Let's round it down to a nice even 50%. That's 50% of lawful gun owners who need to be disarmed.
Now, before you attack me for being so anti-gun, please take note of the fact that I believe in the rights of the other 50%. I don't think the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with it, being an obsolete, meaningless and antiquated piece of writing, but I do believe that the other 50% has every right to own and operate guns.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"FBI Crime Stats show us that about 500,000 crimes are committed with a gun each year. Let's say most are committed by criminals and only a small percentage by folks like this guy who had no previous felony convictions. Let's call it 1%. That's 1% of gun owners who need to be disarmed for turning bad."
ReplyDeleteFor the math on this to work there would have to be only 500,000 gun owners in the nation. Otherwise you are assuming that all of the population (gun owner or not) is really criminal - they just haven't committed their crimes yet.
You lost me, man.
DeleteCame here from the Jon Swift roundup.
DeleteI wanted to say that as much as I agree with you on the overall point - there are a lot of legal gun owners who shouldn't be trusted with them - on this particular point Anonymous is correct.
1% of 500,000 is 5,000, while 1% of 65 million is 650,000. Your argument, then, is that because 5,000 gun owners "turn bad" that 650,000 need to be disarmed. Doesn't follow.
On another point, I'm very uncomfortable with the too-common argument that anyone with any mental health issues can't be trusted with a firearm because that amounts to demonizing such folks. The fact is, studies have shown that such folks are, as a group, no more likely to be violent than the rest of those in our society.
So it should depend on what the issue is. Anger management, yeah, that's an issue.
So, we've "generously" rounded off 1% for potential overlap. However, we've added in 7% for a mental disorder after assuming 22% had mental disorders. You've also discounted that a decent number of those using illicit drugs and abusing alcohol overlap, and that many of the mentally ill fit into these categories, using these substances to self medicate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the binge drinkers you talk about are usually fairly responsible people between their binges--heck, a third of my class at law school could be considered binge drinkers. Without condoning their habits, I'd have to say that as long as they put their guns away before partying, there'd be no problem with them owning guns. If you trust most of them enough to not drive while binging, you can trust them not to play with firearms while binging.
There's also the question of how you'd go about disarming people who "binge drink". Is the government going to track all alcohol consumption by every person? Who sets the level for "binge drinking"? Is it set by a person who thinks that 6 beers on a friday night is cool, but a case is a binge? Or a tea-totaler who considers one drink as inadvisable and two a sign of binge drinking?
Suddenly, we have a massive, expensive, and invasive structure tracking how much we all drink, with scolds and "tough on crime and degeneracy" types always cranking down on the number of drinks allowed and setting new restrictions on guns, driver's licenses, jobs, etc.
Your application of broad statistics to a more narrow slice of the population also fails to take into account that the stats can't be expected to stay the same. Some people with mental disorders have so many problems that it's obvious that they qualify as a prohibited person, so people won't sell them a gun. Some people with rage issues, and other minor disorders that don't raise them into prohibited person status already choose not to own guns so as to avoid trouble. Others, and I've seen this several times, will buy guns for hunting, collecting, etc., but will not get a carry permit because they want to avoid the temptation when they're out and about in situations where they might lose their temper.
With many of your categories, there's plenty of reason to believe that the percentage among gun owners would be different from the percentage in society as a whole. There's also reason to believe that some of them would show the same responsibility they show in the rest of life and mitigate the potential hazards--putting away guns before a weekend party, not carrying if they have rage issues, seeking help controlling their anger, etc.
"Also, the binge drinkers you talk about are usually fairly responsible people between their binges" That's comforting. You really want those guys to own guns?
DeleteLook at the rest of my comment, don't just pull a sentence out of context. There are problems with setting the line for what qualifies as binging, impossibilities in enforcement, and even if it were done, the benefits are dubious.
DeleteWhy don't you give me an argument for disarming "binge drinkers" other than "But, dude, they're binge drinkers!"
Tell me why their occasional, intentional loss of personal control disqualifies them from owning or using a gun, but does not disqualify them from owning or driving a car, etc.
Yes, I've known some irresponsible binge drinkers, but that's cause they were irresponsible period. The drinking was just a facet of their irresponsible personalities, not a cause.
Others were responsible and would make sure they had a DD set up--usually me (I'd have one or two drinks, careful to stay well below both impairment and the legal limit) or one of the non-drinkers. Some of these owned guns, but they knew better than to touch them while impaired, and they certainly never carried while impaired, just as they didn't drive impaired. Maybe these wouldn't be binge drinkers under your definition or the definitions of some others, but there are definitions of binge drinkers that would cover them, and they don't deserve to be disarmed for life because some non-drinker wants to set the limit to include those who have 2-4 drinks on a Friday night.
I thought you told us, of all the gun owners you know there were none that you'd worry about? Is that your position really, that binge drinkers and heavy drinkers and true alcoholics are ok with gun ownership? Or are you saying you don't know any of those types who own guns? Or are you just defending the binge drinkers who have periods of responsible living in between their drinking bouts?
Delete"Why don't you give me an argument for disarming "binge drinkers" other than "But, dude, they're binge drinkers!""
Is that what you really thought I said, "but dude they're binge drinkers?"
Alcohol and guns don't mix. If you're going to pretend to not get that and take us back to some kind of a kindergarten question then you can fuck off.
The real question, if you're interested in the discussion and not in turning this into a tedious exercise in obfuscation, is where do we draw the line. I say even occasional binge drinking disqualifies a person from responsible gun ownership.
Being under the influence of substances and handling guns don't mix well, but that does not mean that no gun owner can drink responsibly.
DeleteI didn't say we should disarm every gun owner who ever takes a drink. I only mentioned the 30% he have a problem with it. That means of the 70% there are plenty who drink responsibly.
DeleteMikeb, you've said things like that in the past. Why do you keep expecting us to forget what you say?
DeleteBecause he forgets what he says, so we should too.
DeleteNo, it works something like this. I think that anyone who ever takes a drink or smokes pot even occasionally cannot be considered a responsible gun owner. Texas Colt carry agrees and so do many other abstemious and truly responsible gun owners. But, when it comes to actually disarming people, it takes a bit more than that.
DeleteSmoking pot is a crime. It shouldn't be, but it is. Drinking alcohol is legal. But seriously, why is a gun owner irresponsible for drinking any amount of alcohol?
DeleteI'm going to speculate here. Mikeb, are you someone with addictive behaviors? Are you an alcoholic? I've known addicts of various kinds. They can't see how anyone can use their substance of choice responsibly, so they paint everyone with the same brush. I feel sorry for alcoholics, but at the same time, I know that most people can drink responsibly.
The truth is that a moderate amount of alcohol does not impair judgement to the degree that owning a gun is a bad idea. What I see here is that you hold the same kind of attitude about human beings that Hobbes did, namely that we're all a bunch of sinners who are incapable of rational thought and action and are in need of a controlling government to keep us in order.
Fortunately, your view wasn't the one that our Founders believed--with the exception perhaps of that Hamilton fellow.
So Dog Gone is an irresponsible gun owner.
DeleteJapete is an irresponsible gun owner.
"The truth is that a moderate amount of alcohol does not impair judgement to the degree that owning a gun is a bad idea. "
DeleteNow that's a convenient opinion? I happen to disagree, but please note that I didn't say every drinker should be disarmed. I reserved that sanction for only the binge drinkers, the heavy drinkers and the alcoholics.
Do you also defend their right to own guns?
Mike BJuly 28, 2013 at 12:25 PM
DeleteNo, it works something like this. I think that anyone who ever takes a drink or smokes pot even occasionally cannot be considered a responsible gun owner.
I defend the right of anyone who has not committed a violent crime to own a gun.
DeleteMike,
DeleteI was away for the weekend, so I'll respond to your challenges now:
"I thought you told us, of all the gun owners you know there were none that you'd worry about?"
Was this regarding the people I mentioned with tempers or those who drink? Regarding those with tempers--they know they have a temper and they don't carry a gun because of it--hence, I'm not worried about them shooting someone in a fit of road rage, etc. Regarding those who drink on occasion--They unload and put away their guns when they drink--they don't mix guns and alcohol.
"Is that your position really, that binge drinkers and heavy drinkers and true alcoholics are ok with gun ownership? Or are you saying you don't know any of those types who own guns? Or are you just defending the binge drinkers who have periods of responsible living in between their drinking bouts?"
I never said heavy drinkers and alcoholics made good gun owners. They also don't make good drivers. I was discussing binge drinkers. I just tried to find definition for us to use, but the wikipedia article said that the definitions vary from 5-8 or more drinks for a man, up to considering days long benders binge drinking. The one thing common across definitions is that it's episodic drinking--hence the idea of responsible living between binges. For our purposes, I was considering the most common form of binging I see--folks who get drunk on Friday night, but are fine the rest of the time. Some of them don't even drink during the week.
"Alcohol and guns don't mix. If you're going to pretend to not get that and take us back to some kind of a kindergarten question then you can fuck off."
Way to pretend not to get what I was saying. I completely agree that alcohol and guns don't mix. Same with alcohol and driving. In my earlier posts, I noted that responsible people, if they went drinking, had someone drive them. I also noted that if someone is going to be drinking, it's responsible to unload their guns and put them away. Where, in such a discussion, do you get the idea that I was saying that alcohol and guns were a great combination?
"The real question, if you're interested in the discussion and not in turning this into a tedious exercise in obfuscation, is where do we draw the line. I say even occasional binge drinking disqualifies a person from responsible gun ownership."
You, however, haven't said why. Merely that it does. Hence my summary of your argument as "Dude, they're binge drinkers." However, as you discussed this over the weekend, you revealed that you don't think that anyone is a responsible gun owner if they drink anything, at all, ever. I'm assuming from this that you're a non-drinker yourself since you seem to think that a single drink, or giving in to the impulse for such, forever calls into question a person's responsibility.
You do say that something more is needed to legally disqualify someone--something such as occasional intoxication. Of course, this gives us little comfort that you wouldn't, if you got your way, start ratcheting down what was considered alcohol abuse. After all, people will still be dying, so we'll need to crank it down to 4 drinks, then 3, then 2, and maybe we'll get down to 1 eventually.
Instead of setting limits that can be ratcheted down like this, follow the example of the laws regarding alcohol and cars--two other things that don't mix. If someone is intoxicated, they should not drive, and they should not be using or handling a gun. If they do so anyway, stiffen the penalties for them. Don't let intoxication excuse their crimes, if they commit them, or their negligence. It's a voluntary state, use it to enhance the penalty. This encourages responsible behavior and discourages and punishes irresponsible behavior.
I'll also add that it's interesting that you set the number of stupid and clumsy gun owners at 1%, and that you set the number of "hidden criminals," to use one of your terms, at 1%.
ReplyDeleteIn your other posts you like to tell us that these percentages must be much higher and that the statistics look so low because of some kind of manipulation of the justice system and the media.
This 1% is not the entirety of hidden criminals. This is the ones who are caught doing felonies.
DeleteThe stupid and clumsy 1% is way lower than it should be, I'd guess.
But you claim that may issue licensing would prevent those who aren't caught from getting guns, so your figure should include most or all of them, not just those who get convicted.
DeleteEither the may issue would get a much larger number and you would be disarming more than 50% of the population, or your system would catch a tiny number of people who are slipping through the system.
Ok, you’ve completed Step 1- identifying how many people you want to disarm, and for what reasons. Now comes the considerably harder Step 2- figuring out who belongs in which bucket. How do you know someone is a binge drinker? And you need prove, you can’t just disqualify them because they frequency post on Facebook about how wasted they were last night. I won’t even ask about how you intend to accomplish Step 3- physically disarming the identified targets, which will be a total nightmare task.
ReplyDeleteThen what do you do when you know someone to be a binge drinker, but don’t know if they own guns? Get a warrant to search their house? This affects a lot more than just the 65 million people who you say own guns.
But you shouldn’t say those remaining 50% still have a right. What you are talking about is “given permission”. That’s like saying women have a right to their bodies so long as they didn’t drink too much last night when they got knocked up.
This post is only about step 1, as you said. The fact that you want to so quickly get into steps 2 and 3 means what, that you agree with my post, that these types have no business with guns?
DeleteNo, I don't agree with your post. But if you are stopping at Step 1, and not doing anything about it, I don't have a lot to complain about. It's only natural to think about HOW you can accomplish disarming ten of millions of people.
DeleteI went to my local department store the other day. They had some $10 shirts that were advertised at 50% off, and then an additional 50% on top of that. The idiots wanted to charge me $2.50 for the damn shirt. Why couldn't they just see it my way and give it to me for free?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, these categories are not mutually exclusive. You cannot act as though they are without establishing the truth of that and expect people to take you seriously. That's assuming that the numbers presented here have any basis in reality to begin with. All in all, this article is a failure of logic in the absence of evidence.
ReplyDelete