Gallup polling said 32% of Americans owned guns in 2020; Pew Research polling came up with the same percentage this year.
And reports that I’ve seen say it’s higher in Maine, with estimates that just under 50% of adults in Maine own at least one gun. Hunting is big in Maine. But Maine also has one of the lowest death by gun rates in the US. I don’t know how or if last week’s shootings might change that.
See, that's the thing. Mainers who own guns are generally hunters. They're not killing each other, for the most part. But now because they don't have laws that prevent people who've been hearing voices from possessing guns, they've had a mass shooting, and a whole bunch of people went out and bought guns. Something like half -- sorry, I'm not going to look it up -- close to half of gun violence deaths in the US are suicides -- so even if the folks who just bought guns don't kill someone else, the rate of deaths from suicide will go up, because using a gun is such an effective way of killing yourself.
My college roommate made three suicide attempts in the space of six weeks, serious ones, but we didn't have a gun. She lived, eventually got help, and last I heard was happily married with two kids. If we'd had a gun on hand, she'd have died in 1984.
You mean Lewiston? Of course they bought guns. Every time something like this happens, some people buy guns because they feel like there's no other way to protect themselves and others buy guns because they're afraid politicians will actually tighten gun laws in reaction. Gun ownership as a percentage of the population has stayed pretty steady over the years, despite the gun-buying spree of the last few years -- people who already owned guns bought more. Gallup polling said 32% of Americans owned guns in 2020; Pew Research polling came up with the same percentage this year.
What the Gallup poll does not show is how many weapons gun owners have. Most gun owners have.
The number of weapons owned by gun owners varies widely. According to a report by **CNN**, there are approximately **393 million privately owned firearms** in the US, which is equivalent to **120 guns for every 100 Americans** ². However, the report also states that about **half of gun owners own one or two guns**, while **8% of gun owners own 10 or more guns** ². A study by the **RAND Corporation** found that **46.8% of adults in Maine have at least one gun at home** ¹. Another study by the **Pew Research Center** found that **two-thirds of gun owners say they own more than one gun**, with **72% owning a handgun or pistol**, while **62% own a rifle** and **54% own a shotgun** ³. A report by **The Guardian** states that the top 14% of gun owners in America, which is about 7.7 million people or 3% of American adults, own between about eight and 140 guns each, with an average of 17 guns per person ⁴.
I admit I own four weapons myself, but they are all for sporting purposes with two of them having been passed down from my father and grandfather. My weapons are in a locked safe.
“ ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”
The shooting at Lewiston is the tenth-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, as well as the deadliest of 2023 and the deadliest in the history of Maine. 😢
And reports that I’ve seen say it’s higher in Maine, with estimates that just under 50% of adults in Maine own at least one gun. Hunting is big in Maine. But Maine also has one of the lowest death by gun rates in the US. I don’t know how or if last week’s shootings might change that.
Reports are coming out saying the Army and local law enforcement agencies dropped the ball. Even his family were telling the Sheriff's office that they needed to get the guns away from him.
A man armed with guns and explosive devices was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound at a Colorado amusement park, potentially averting “an attack of devastating proportions,” officials said.
The 20-year-old’s body was found in a women’s bathroom Saturday morning before the scheduled opening time of the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park in Glenwood Springs, the Garfield County Sheriff’s Office said. It appears he entered the park illegally after it had last closed.
He was “armed with a semi-automatic rifle and semi-automatic handgun and multiple, loaded magazines for both weapons,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement. “He was wearing body armor and what appeared to be a ballistic helmet. Additionally multiple improvised explosive devices, (IEDs), were discovered with the suspect and in a vehicle associated with the suspect.”
“We are, to say the least, extremely lucky that he did not fulfill whatever plan he may have intentioned,” Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario said during a news conference Monday. “It could have caused a devastating impact on this community, potential for many, many people to be killed and injured.”
Some folks will look at this and regard it as a lack of a problem rather than an indication of several inter-related problems. Also:
At least two weapons Medina had were ghost guns, Vallario said. Ghost guns are kits that a user can buy online to assemble a fully functional firearm. They have no serial numbers, do not require background checks and provide no transfer records for easy traceability.
I believe Maine doesn't have red flag laws - it may not have been legal for the police to disarm the guy solely on reports that he was unwell.
Maine has what is known as a "yellow flag" law. As the name implies it is a lot weaker and more onerous to apply than a red flag law.
Under Maine’s law, a person who is concerned that a family member may be a threat to himself or others must first alert law enforcement, which would then take the family member into protective custody, according to Nick Suplina, the senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, a national gun violence prevention nonprofit.
From there, the family member would need to be evaluated and deemed a threat by a medical professional — an added barrier that is not required under red flag laws, experts said. Only after a medical diagnosis could a judge approve an order to temporarily remove the firearm.
“This is a bit arduous. It’s not fast, and it's not easy,” Suplina said. “The Maine law is unduly narrow. It’s difficult to administer, and for that reason, it’s not an effective way to stop mass shootings.”
The family did report the shooter to law enforcement that he was a danger to himself and others. Problem was, the sheriff's office did not place him in protective custody.
My guess is that law is going to be revisited.
Moreover, there will be a number of lawsuits against the Sheriff's Office.
Won't bring anyone back, but they need to insure it won't happen again.
The family did report the shooter to law enforcement that he was a danger to himself and others. Problem was, the sheriff's office did not place him in protective custody.
My guess is that law is going to be revisited.
Moreover, there will be a number of lawsuits against the Sheriff's Office.
Won't bring anyone back, but they need to insure it won't happen again.
Oh, it'll happen again. And again. Lord have mercy!
Too abstruse for me, but I had the notion that God is more than an idea; a spirit that moves us to do something, or nothing, as it suits us. Doing nothing about guns clearly suits a lot of people.
My daughter and I had the terrifying message from one of our friends that the friend's eleven year old daughter, R, was threatened by one of her classmates. He said that he had a gun in his backpack and that he was going to kill her.
Police were called, and there was indeed a gun in the child's backpack. Now, law enforcement is saying that R is safe to go to school, but they will not tell R's mother why she is suddenly safe! Is the little potential murderer banned from the school? Is he being sent to another school where he could threaten another child?? The police say they can't tell the mother anything because the potential murderer is protected because of his age.
WTH???? If I was our friend, and R was my child, I can't even imagine sending her back to school!
Now, law enforcement is saying that R is safe to go to school, but they will not tell R's mother why she is suddenly safe! Is the little potential murderer banned from the school? Is he being sent to another school where he could threaten another child?? The police say they can't tell the mother anything because the potential murderer is protected because of his age.
That's a bit of a challenge, isn't it? Obviously, the statement "it is safe for R to return to school" without supporting evidence is meaningless, and there is no upper limit to the level of contempt with which that sort of unsupported statement should be treated. But children - even unpleasant violent bullies - do deserve privacy, and whatever sanctions are applied to them shouldn't become the latest school gossip fodder (and whilst some parents of victims would respect being told in confidence what actions were taken, others wouldn't, which makes it difficult to say much.)
In this case, I think the school is wrong. They can't discuss the details of what has happened to the classmate, but they can discuss the school.
The question "is classmate with gun going to be present in the school" is not private information - it's a question about school. Everyone in school will know if this child returns, because they have eyes, and the child is not invisible. So a statement "R is safe; gun child will not be returning to the school" doesn't breach anyone's privacy. Statements about gun child remaining in the school, but being removed from classes shared with R are equally not private information, and could be made.
Statements about gun child's home life and family, about any changes in their living situation, or about criminal sanctions against them, or what schooling provision will be provided to them, on the other hand, are private and aren't related to R.
Privacy rules around school are so weird. My son has gotten in one or two fights at school - nothing anywhere near as serious as JediJudy's friend's situation, just a few slaps back and forth - and when the office has called me, they haven't even been allowed to tell me which other kid(s) were involved. I'm guessing it's because there have been cases in the past where parents have physically attacked each other over conflict between their kids.
Thank you, @Leorning Cniht and @Antisocial Alto. It just seems so wrong to me that the potential murderer seems to have more legal rights than R does.
I found out a little more yesterday. R was sitting at a table with other kids during school lunch when the potential murderer, who was unknown to any of them, told them that he had the gun and specifically said he was going to shoot R.
As far as we know, R was the only child to report to her parent. R's mom contacted the principal right away, who then contacted police.
What is going on with these young kids who can get their hands on guns and carry them to school, and in some cases, actually shoot people!!!! It's just sickening.
Well, quite. I can't get my head around a culture where a child can access deadly weapons, and bring them to school - it's a completely alien concept to me.
If you're going to comment, I think you should first get your head around what you're talking about.
The mass shooting in Prague today took place across the street from where I and my family stayed earlier this year. I wonder if these deaths will bring Czechia around to tightening up their gun laws.
A former PhD student, who for a while shared my flat, works in Charles University, though in physics so shouldn't have been anywhere near the shooting today. I admit, we've not been in touch for many years so probably not relevant at all to giving insight into how Czechs would view guns in the light of the shooting today.
Czechia has some of the laxest gun laws in Europe, one of only a few nations in the world where self defence is considered a legitimate reason to have a fire arms license and permits concealed carry. Also, legally owned firearms are rarely involved in crime (either in the committing of crime, or defence against crime), so today was a massive aberration - and, hence, will almost certainly result in discussion withing Czechia about gun ownership. Whether that leads to changes in the laws relating to gun ownership is another matter - part of that's going to depend on circumstances of this crime (eg: was there a history of mental illness? there are reports of a large arsenal, does that mean he had illegal guns? what weapons were used?) and whether those offer an option to tighten the laws without affecting too many gun owners.
The Czechs I know (from many years ago) are all sensible people, I would hope that if that's representative of the nation as a whole then there will be a discussion, and not just an exercise of saying "there's nothing we can do" and letting things stay the same. As I said, what that discussion leads to is open.
Big news from New York state. The National Rifle Association and six of its current or former leaders are in civil court for misuse of charitable funds. Wayne La Pierre has resigned as its Chair person. New York State Attorney Lerita Jones is suing for restitution of $64 million and it be placed under an independent overseer.
These past few years, the NRA is a shadow of its former self. Membership is down significantly. The last fund drive brought in half of what had been expected.
A Michigan jury has found Jennifer Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter, Her son, Ethan, had killed four other students at Oxford High School. Mrs Crumbley was accused of giving her son the gun that he used for the shootings. She also refused to take her son home after the school had asked her to take him home. She denied ever thinking he needed mental health services even through he had showed significant decomposition. She was also known to host sex parties and was out of touch with Ethan's needs. More information here
This sets a interesting precedent for parents of minors who cause mass shootings. They can now be charged with contributing to the shooting if it can be shown they had given the minor the gun and are negligent in supervision of the minor.
She also refused to take her son home after the school had asked her to take him home.
Not really a fan of this. If Crumbley was thought to be a danger, then the people who should be taking him away are the police, and not his mother. If he's not thought to be a danger, then it's hard to see why her saying she wasn't going to pick him up was endangering anyone.
She also refused to take her son home after the school had asked her to take him home.
Not really a fan of this. If Crumbley was thought to be a danger, then the people who should be taking him away are the police, and not his mother. If he's not thought to be a danger, then it's hard to see why her saying she wasn't going to pick him up was endangering anyone.
While I'm far from convinced it's evidence of criminal culpability there are plenty of situations where a young person in the pressure cooker of mainstream school can be a danger to themselves or others but be entirely manageable at home.
She also refused to take her son home after the school had asked her to take him home.
Not really a fan of this. If Crumbley was thought to be a danger, then the people who should be taking him away are the police, and not his mother. If he's not thought to be a danger, then it's hard to see why her saying she wasn't going to pick him up was endangering anyone.
As a former high school teacher there were many times when I had to phone a parent to take their child home for things that wouldn't involve the police. They might include persistent disruption, emotional upset, fighting.
I can see why a school, under normal conditions, would want to keep this on the down-low, not involving the police. However, Ethan had drawn some explicit pictures and wrote threats on what he was going to do. Did he present a danger to himself or others? I would say yes. I do think the parents of the victims may have legal recourse against the school.
Thing is, (some) teenaged boys making violent threats and producing violent drawings is "normal conditions". No to say it shouldn't be taken seriously but it's not immediately clear what's actually dangerous and what's testosterone-fuelled teenage angst.
This sets an interesting precedent for parents of minors who cause mass shootings. They can now be charged with contributing to the shooting if it can be shown they had given the minor the gun and are negligent in supervision of the minor.
I wouldn’t overstate this. What charges are possible will vary from state to state. My understanding is that this case presented particularly egregious behavior on the part of the parents. Parents have been and likely will continue to be charged with things like neglect in shooting cases, but I wouldn’t expect to see charges like involuntary manslaughter become the norm.
Relatedly, Hawai'i's Supreme Court has just made its opinion clear re: historical (Founders) arguments in favor of supreme 2nd Amendment rights, saying, among other things, that "History is prone to misuse. In the Second Amendment cases, the [Supreme] Court distorts and cherry-picks historical evidence." Guess we'll see if the SCOTUS agrees, or not.
The most American thing: 1 person shot dead and at least 21 others wounded, including 9 children, at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl victory celebration.
But while we bemoan the mass shootings here, most people who are killed by gun violence don't die in mass shootings. Mass shootings get lots of news coverage, but gun deaths generally take place in ones and twos, and more than half the gun deaths in the US are suicides.
more than half the gun deaths in the US are suicides.
Which is presumably part of the reason for the fairly high suicide rate in the US, given that guns tend to be associated with "successful" suicide attempts.
The last time the United States had any significant Gun legislation was when a beloved Republican President got shot. Will it take the shooting of another beloved Republican President to pass more legislation?
Remembering my friend Dail, who was murdered a year ago today by a young punk who didn't like the disagreement she was having with his dad, her boyfriend.
Remembering my friend Dail, who was murdered a year ago today by a young punk who didn't like the disagreement she was having with his dad, her boyfriend.
We need stricter laws on buying guns and stricter laws on gun ownership responsibility including being held guilty for not reporting stolen guns.
With that said I like guns. Really started enjoying them while in the military. Small arms training. Gun ranges. I especially enjoy long distance iron site riffle shooting. 250-400 meters. I fall on the side everyone in America should own a gun and go through a course on proper use, cleaning and storage. My fiancee also was in the military, but another country. She enjoys guns as well. Small arms as well. Handguns mostly. She has a 98% target hit within 3-30 meter pop up targets.
That would just drive up the rates at which people are killed and kill themselves at home. I don't hunt, I'm not interested in target shooting (yes, I've tried it) - why should I own a gun?
That would just drive up the rates at which people are killed and kill themselves at home. I don't hunt, I'm not interested in target shooting (yes, I've tried it) - why should I own a gun?
Same here. I have absolutely no desire to own a gun. I definitely wouldn’t have wanted one in the house when our children were young; my wife even less so, probably.
The idea that everyone should own a gun simply mystifies me.
Comments
My college roommate made three suicide attempts in the space of six weeks, serious ones, but we didn't have a gun. She lived, eventually got help, and last I heard was happily married with two kids. If we'd had a gun on hand, she'd have died in 1984.
What the Gallup poll does not show is how many weapons gun owners have. Most gun owners have.
The number of weapons owned by gun owners varies widely. According to a report by **CNN**, there are approximately **393 million privately owned firearms** in the US, which is equivalent to **120 guns for every 100 Americans** ². However, the report also states that about **half of gun owners own one or two guns**, while **8% of gun owners own 10 or more guns** ². A study by the **RAND Corporation** found that **46.8% of adults in Maine have at least one gun at home** ¹. Another study by the **Pew Research Center** found that **two-thirds of gun owners say they own more than one gun**, with **72% owning a handgun or pistol**, while **62% own a rifle** and **54% own a shotgun** ³. A report by **The Guardian** states that the top 14% of gun owners in America, which is about 7.7 million people or 3% of American adults, own between about eight and 140 guns each, with an average of 17 guns per person ⁴.
I hope this information helps.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 10/30/2023
(1) What studies reveal about gun ownership in the US | CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/gun-ownership-numbers-us-cec/index.html.
(2) Gun map: Ownership by state - statistics and rates - CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/.
(3) 1. The demographics of gun ownership - Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/.
(4) Meet America's gun super-owners – with an average of 17 firearms each .... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/20/gun-ownership-america-firearms-super-owners.
I admit I own four weapons myself, but they are all for sporting purposes with two of them having been passed down from my father and grandfather. My weapons are in a locked safe.
The shooting at Lewiston is the tenth-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, as well as the deadliest of 2023 and the deadliest in the history of Maine. 😢
I suspect Maine no longer has one of the lowest death by gun rates in the U.S. I know the town of Lewiston now has the highest homicide rate in the U.S. for 2023.
Some folks will look at this and regard it as a lack of a problem rather than an indication of several inter-related problems. Also:
This also seems problematic.
Maine has what is known as a "yellow flag" law. As the name implies it is a lot weaker and more onerous to apply than a red flag law.
My guess is that law is going to be revisited.
Moreover, there will be a number of lawsuits against the Sheriff's Office.
Won't bring anyone back, but they need to insure it won't happen again.
Oh, it'll happen again. And again. Lord have mercy!
Exactly. God is just an idea -- not an actual entity that can actually do anything.
D'ja think? Thoughts and prayers. Without any actual thinking of course.
Police were called, and there was indeed a gun in the child's backpack. Now, law enforcement is saying that R is safe to go to school, but they will not tell R's mother why she is suddenly safe! Is the little potential murderer banned from the school? Is he being sent to another school where he could threaten another child?? The police say they can't tell the mother anything because the potential murderer is protected because of his age.
WTH???? If I was our friend, and R was my child, I can't even imagine sending her back to school!
I'm still shaking.
That's a bit of a challenge, isn't it? Obviously, the statement "it is safe for R to return to school" without supporting evidence is meaningless, and there is no upper limit to the level of contempt with which that sort of unsupported statement should be treated. But children - even unpleasant violent bullies - do deserve privacy, and whatever sanctions are applied to them shouldn't become the latest school gossip fodder (and whilst some parents of victims would respect being told in confidence what actions were taken, others wouldn't, which makes it difficult to say much.)
In this case, I think the school is wrong. They can't discuss the details of what has happened to the classmate, but they can discuss the school.
The question "is classmate with gun going to be present in the school" is not private information - it's a question about school. Everyone in school will know if this child returns, because they have eyes, and the child is not invisible. So a statement "R is safe; gun child will not be returning to the school" doesn't breach anyone's privacy. Statements about gun child remaining in the school, but being removed from classes shared with R are equally not private information, and could be made.
Statements about gun child's home life and family, about any changes in their living situation, or about criminal sanctions against them, or what schooling provision will be provided to them, on the other hand, are private and aren't related to R.
I found out a little more yesterday. R was sitting at a table with other kids during school lunch when the potential murderer, who was unknown to any of them, told them that he had the gun and specifically said he was going to shoot R.
As far as we know, R was the only child to report to her parent. R's mom contacted the principal right away, who then contacted police.
What is going on with these young kids who can get their hands on guns and carry them to school, and in some cases, actually shoot people!!!! It's just sickening.
But I forget myself - that would interfere with his "rights" under the Second Amendment, wouldn't it?
You might want to keep in mind that this is a child. Children able to get their hands on deadly weapons are themselves in great danger.
The mass shooting in Prague today took place across the street from where I and my family stayed earlier this year. I wonder if these deaths will bring Czechia around to tightening up their gun laws.
Czechia has some of the laxest gun laws in Europe, one of only a few nations in the world where self defence is considered a legitimate reason to have a fire arms license and permits concealed carry. Also, legally owned firearms are rarely involved in crime (either in the committing of crime, or defence against crime), so today was a massive aberration - and, hence, will almost certainly result in discussion withing Czechia about gun ownership. Whether that leads to changes in the laws relating to gun ownership is another matter - part of that's going to depend on circumstances of this crime (eg: was there a history of mental illness? there are reports of a large arsenal, does that mean he had illegal guns? what weapons were used?) and whether those offer an option to tighten the laws without affecting too many gun owners.
The Czechs I know (from many years ago) are all sensible people, I would hope that if that's representative of the nation as a whole then there will be a discussion, and not just an exercise of saying "there's nothing we can do" and letting things stay the same. As I said, what that discussion leads to is open.
These past few years, the NRA is a shadow of its former self. Membership is down significantly. The last fund drive brought in half of what had been expected.
NPR Report here.
I wonder what this will do to the gun rights movement in the US.
Improve it?
This sets a interesting precedent for parents of minors who cause mass shootings. They can now be charged with contributing to the shooting if it can be shown they had given the minor the gun and are negligent in supervision of the minor.
Crumbley now faces up to 60 years imprisonment.
An interesting sentence.........
Not really a fan of this. If Crumbley was thought to be a danger, then the people who should be taking him away are the police, and not his mother. If he's not thought to be a danger, then it's hard to see why her saying she wasn't going to pick him up was endangering anyone.
While I'm far from convinced it's evidence of criminal culpability there are plenty of situations where a young person in the pressure cooker of mainstream school can be a danger to themselves or others but be entirely manageable at home.
As a former high school teacher there were many times when I had to phone a parent to take their child home for things that wouldn't involve the police. They might include persistent disruption, emotional upset, fighting.
But while we bemoan the mass shootings here, most people who are killed by gun violence don't die in mass shootings. Mass shootings get lots of news coverage, but gun deaths generally take place in ones and twos, and more than half the gun deaths in the US are suicides.
Which is presumably part of the reason for the fairly high suicide rate in the US, given that guns tend to be associated with "successful" suicide attempts.
I use the term beloved advisably, btw.
This still sickens me.
Stay strong.
We need stricter laws on buying guns and stricter laws on gun ownership responsibility including being held guilty for not reporting stolen guns.
With that said I like guns. Really started enjoying them while in the military. Small arms training. Gun ranges. I especially enjoy long distance iron site riffle shooting. 250-400 meters. I fall on the side everyone in America should own a gun and go through a course on proper use, cleaning and storage. My fiancee also was in the military, but another country. She enjoys guns as well. Small arms as well. Handguns mostly. She has a 98% target hit within 3-30 meter pop up targets.
The idea that everyone should own a gun simply mystifies me.