The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.
If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target. All kinds of real questions come up. One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that. There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen. After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe.
We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law? Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.
I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.
Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.
That is correct. My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths. I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount.
I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish. Which, quite honestly is very small. From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it. Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small. 0.008/100,000 persons.
My point is accidents are not the problem. The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified.
If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders. I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.
Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles. That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations. If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.
It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’. I personally care greatly about this problem. But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.
From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
- Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
- Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
- Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
- Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
- Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.
If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully. Everything else is cherry picking- including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.
Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order. Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO. But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.