[raw]
[/raw]
In the wake of the elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, last week that left 19 children and two adults dead, the national conversation has again turned to guns.
National data on background checks required to buy guns at federally licensed dealers suggest a major uptick in the numbers purchased in recent years.
That includes Minnesota, where the number of background checks rose from 682,000 in 2019 to more than 900,000 in 2020 and 2021.
An increase in background checks
In Minnesota, the share of adults living in households with guns was estimated to be 37 percent in 2016, the most recent estimate available, according to statistical modeling by the RAND Corporation, a policy think tank.
That puts Minnesota above the national average of 32 percent. The state with the highest share of adults living in households with guns is Montana, at 63 percent. The states with the lowest shares were New Jersey, Massachusetts and Hawaii, at 9 percent.
[raw]
[/raw]
But there are no precise numbers on how many guns there are in the United States — or in Minnesota, for that matter. The U.S. government does not track gun sales. Some gun owners want to keep it that way, because they say a registry of guns could ultimately lead to government seizure of them.
But there are data that can give us some idea of the pace of gun sales in the nation: The FBI reports the number of background checks completed in the course of people trying to purchase guns by state.
In Minnesota, a person purchasing a gun through a federally licensed dealer, including handguns and military-style assault weapons, needs to have a permit, which requires a background check. People with certain crimes on their records and under some mental health conditions are prohibited from possessing guns.
A background check isn’t a perfect indicator of a purchase of a gun — a person could be denied a background check or buy multiple guns in one transaction following a background check. There’s also a sizable loophole: People buying guns from private sellers are not required to undergo background checks.
Still, the background check data do give some, almost real-time information on interest in buying guns.
These data often show an uptick in background checks following a high-profile mass shooting.
And while the number of background checks has seen a slow and steady increase since 2005 in the U.S., it skyrocketed starting in March of 2020. Minnesota has followed a similar trend line.
[raw]
[/raw]
Anecdotally, some have attributed the uptick in background checks or sales to the pandemic, protests after the police murder of George Floyd, the election of Joe Biden, the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack and stimulus checks.
But experts say we don’t really know what’s behind the increase.
Research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that examined gun-buying during the pandemic found the majority of gun purchases during the uptick of the last couple years were not among new gun owners.
“There was a lot of speculation out there that a huge fraction of people who were buying guns in 2020 and 2021 were new gun owners,” said Deborah Azrael, the director of research of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, an author of the study. “What we found was the fraction of people who were new gun owners didn’t seem to be higher in 2020 as compared to 2019, although the total number of people who are buying guns was greater.”
Shifting demographics, changing rationales
While the majority of gun owners in the U.S. are white males, the demographics seem to be shifting slightly. The research found that of 7.5 million adults who became new gun owners between January 2019 and late-April 2021, roughly half were women, 20 percent were Black and 20 percent were Hispanic. Demographics of new gun purchasers were similar in 2019 and 2020, which suggests this trend did not start in 2020.
People often give the same reason for buying guns. “I don’t think we know why, but if you ask why, people will say — mostly they’ll say for protection,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and lead author of the study. But it’s also not clear what people mean by that, said Miller.
Over time, Azrael said the share of the U.S. gun stock that is handguns — which people typically buy for protection — has risen. “There’s been a shift broadly between what, 50 years ago, or even 40 years ago, might have been a gun culture that was dominated by hunting, recreational use of firearms, it seems now — at least as people describe – it could be more focused on sort of self-defense or self-protection,” she said.
If protection and self-defense is the aim, buying a gun is not — on the aggregate — a good means to achieve that end, research shows. Much research on the prevalence of guns is aimed at understanding how many people in the U.S. are exposed to them, because being around guns creates a higher risk of death by suicide and homicide.
“Deciding whether to own a gun involves balancing potential benefits and risks,” Azrael, Miller and colleagues write. “On balance, when an adult brings firearms into his or her household, the risk for death from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm injury increases substantially, not only for the gun owner but also for all of the other people with whom the gun owner lives.” They estimate the recent uptick in gun ownership adds more than 11 million people exposed to household guns.
In the wake of the Uvalde shooting, President Joe Biden is urging federal legislation to ban assault-style weapons like the one used by the gunman there, as well as to impose a “red flag law” that would allow the temporary removal of guns from people who are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
The gun control debate has reignited in Minnesota too, as some lawmakers call for stricter background check measures, while others argue for addressing mental health.
[raw]
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-bckgrd’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.columnOptions, { legend: { enabled: false }, xAxis: { categories: [‘2002′,’2003′,’2004′,’2005′,’2006′,’2007′,’2008′,’2009′,’2010′,’2011′,’2012′,’2013′,’2014′,’2015′,’2016′,’2017′,’2018′,’2019′,’2020′,’2021′,’2022’]}, yAxis: { title: { text: ‘Firearm background checks’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) +”; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘Background checks’, data: [192392,229728,227846,224165,224712,248086,277175,285130,297390,337534,440992,525774,481112,519244,651599,683544,604078,682356,958391,945299], }
] }));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-rand’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.lineOptions, { legend: { enabled: true }, xAxis: { categories: [‘1980′,’1981′,’1982′,’1983′,’1984′,’1985′,’1986′,’1987′,’1988′,’1989′,’1990′,’1991′,’1992′,’1993′,’1994′,’1995′,’1996′,’1997′,’1998′,’1999′,’2000′,’2001′,’2002′,’2003′,’2004′,’2005′,’2006′,’2007′,’2008′,’2009′,’2010′,’2011′,’2012′,’2013′,’2014′,’2015′,’2016’]}, yAxis: { title: { text: ‘%’} }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) +” +’%’; } }, series: [
{ name: ‘Minnesota’, data: [47,49,47,49,48,48,47,45,45,46,46,46,45,45,44,44,43,43,41,43,42,42,41,41,40,39,39,39,40,40,41,40,41,39,37,36,37], }, { name: ‘U.S.’, data: [45,46,45,45,44,44,44,44,46,46,46,45,45,44,43,42,40,39,38,37,36,35,33,33,33,33,32,32,32,32,32,33,33,33,32,32,32], }
] }));
[/raw]
The permit could be to buy or permit to purchase
I wonder how many new first time gun buyers are people from the more liberal reality based community who are looking around at the Radical Rightists who are arming themselves and stockpiling ammo and thinking “Oh my god these folks are nuts, I need to protect myself.” I know I’ve thought it. Of course I am already a gun owner.
I wonder how many first time gun owners were created after the peaceful protests , destruction of personal property , looting , car jackings , increased crime / murder rates and the defund the police movement. This is the new reality that created first time buyers and drove record gun sales.
You wouldn’t be alone in that thought.
Another very informative article.
If, under the Second Amendment, the government is not allowed to set policy with respect to guns, who is allowed to set gun policy?
Where does it say that?
The Second Amendment is about the right of states to form “well regulated militias” such as the national Guard, not about individual gun ownership. It was only DC v. Heller in 2008 that rewrote it to refer to individual gun ownership.
A militia is not an entity formed by a government so the National Guard doesn’t apply.
It is a citizen formed group that can either support an existing army or against their country.
The amendment is there so that the citizens have the means to fight a government or group of people that limits the liberties and freedom of people by force.
Totally wrong and ahistorical. The “militia” of the Second Amendment were state-run military forces. Those militias and their function were totally subsumed by the creation of the National Guard, which is at the disposal of the state governors. This rendered the Amendment nugatory and an archaic remnant of the past. Even the 5 “conservative” activists that created the disastrous gun “right” in 2008 understood this.
Your interpretation also would completely read the phrase “well regulated” entirely out of the Amendment. Who do you think was responsible for the “regulation” of the militias, the head honcho of the 18th Century Proud Boys? Sheesh.
“The amendment is there so that the citizens have the means to fight a government or group of people that limits the liberties and freedom of people by force.”
Kind of like the Black Panthers did, back in the day before they scared St. Ronald of Burbank into signing a restrictive gun control law when he was Governor of California.
I think you and the 10th Amendment answered your own question. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.”
So does the 10th amendment mean that, since the Constitution does delegate the power to regulate abortion to the federal government or the statea, that that right is retained by the citizens? Or just guns?
The 10th Amendment has never been considered to answer any question.
I hope someone reading this can tell me that providing personal information around purchasing or owning guns, providing liability insurance against harm caused by one’s owning guns, providing a sane explanation around the assault weapon conversation and how that even applies to the Constitutional Second Amendment, and (there are lots of others). The subject of PUBLIC safety as it relates to the use of guns in our communities is completely missing. Personally, I have no objection to the Second Amendment as it was adopted in the early days of our Democratic Republic. If I need a gun to defend my country against enemies, sign me up. I’m all in for guns so I can do that if called upon to do so. The Strict Constructionists who comprise a vast majority on the Supreme Court of America have yet to tell us that the AR-15 category of assault weapons has any relevance whatsoever to the Second Amendment as written. How could it? No one human being, high judge or not, could have envisioned a war weapon designed to kill human beings rapidly and with extreme violence. So let’s change the conversation. The conversation in a 21st Century America needs to be centered around a community in which you and I are free to move about the community free from fear of a gun toting sane or insane person. What does the Second Amendment have to do with my personal safety and your personal safety? It doesn’t. It allows for a well regulated militia — in case our country is attacked and we need to grab our weapons and go out to get the bad guys. I’m willing to do that. And I won’t be needing an Ar-15, thank you very much. I’ll take that 18th Century long gun, load it manually with iron pellets and gun powder, and head out to conquer the enemy. Let’s create a data-driven public safety policy and make weapons part of that policy. It’s upside down — topsy turvy — and we’ll never create policy solutions until we’re willing to create a public safety zone for all Americans.
“The Strict Constructionists who comprise a vast majority on the Supreme Court of America have yet to tell us that the AR-15 category of assault weapons has any relevance whatsoever to the Second Amendment as written.”
I’m going to say out loud what most on the Right won’t. The AR-15 is the People’s Rifle. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Antonin Scalia’s opinion notwithstanding, it’s reasonable to assume that whatever armament would be necessary to repel enemies of the state, (foreign or domestic) would be included in such an arsenal held by the citizenry.
I’ve owned mine for 20 years.
If the citizens of Ukraine had been as armed as we are, there probably wouldn’t have been a Russian invasion.
First you tell us that no army uses or would have any use for the AR-15, now you say if the Ukrainian citizenry had been armed with them like American gun nuts, that itself would’ve deterred Putin.
Both can’t be the case. You’ve got to get your narrative straight!
AR-15s only because I can’t buy an M4.
And why couldn’t the arms for a “well regulated militia” be kept at the local armory? You know like when the country was formed, please note “militia stores”.
“When the war began, American soldiers used the weapons from their state’s militia stores or from home. Recognizing a shortage, the Continental Congress and the individual colonies placed orders with American gunsmiths to make as many flintlocks as possible. Muskets were also bought from European manufacturers. “
That armory building would be number one on the bombing target list.
“If the citizens of Ukraine had been as armed as we are, there probably wouldn’t have been a Russian invasion.”
The Conservative mind entertains and inordinate number of fantasies and it makes me wonder at what point their psyche stopped developing. Maybe there is a developmental psychologist reading this that can explain to us at what stage of the human mind develops the ability to separate fact from fiction. Also too, maybe speculate on what may have gone wrong with the 30% or so who are unable to grasp reality.
Given that modern invasions are almost always done using aircraft bombing runs I’m going to have to insist that I get to play with, er defend myself from invasion with surface to air missiles. You know, to make sure my militia is well-regulated. Good luck taking down a bomber with an AR-15.
Notice to all, if you have a hammer in your house, you are more likely to be injured by a hammer than a household without a hammer… The same goes for tablespoons…. Responsible gun owners understand this and don’t buy into the irrational fear of non gun owners.
Crooks and crazies do not follow laws, that is well known. Having more laws, that crooks and crazies will not follow, does no good. That doesn’t seem to bother the “you gotta do something even if it doesn’t work “ crowd.
Not sure if your scenario bothers me or not. What does bother me is knowing there are people who derive satisfaction from 10 year olds getting blown apart by a legally purchased assault rifle. I understand Republicans have some very disgusting perversions, but really, fetishizing dead children seems unthinkable even for them. But alas, it’s not.
If this is truly the mentality of most gun owners, good luck to them and their families. The ERs are of course full of life-threatening hammer injuries. And tablespoon!
More private ownership of guns in a society means more gun-inflicted deaths and injuries, both intentional and accidental. That’s inescapable. The Gun god will obtain his sacrifices…
Spoons and hammers have uses other than killing.
“I have a student in my class that keeps hitting other kids with a hammer – over and over. I can’t get anything done, the other kids are getting hurt, and they hate it.
Have you tried taking the hammer away from that student?
No, no, it’s not the hammer’s fault.
Everyone knows that kids have the right to have hammers! I want to buy a bunch of hammers and give them to all the other kids, and then no one will ever have problems with hammers again!
More hammers will definitely fix everything for sure.”
Funny as it is, I think you’ve proven the point actually. If a kid has a problem being violent, by the argument on the Left, let’s ban the hammer. Doesn’t matter that the vast majority of people use the hammer for good. But get someone with a problem, their solution is to ban the hammer.
How about drunk driving. A vast many more people die from impaired drivers than mass shootings. Well, by the Left’s argument, ban the cars.
Here’s where your broad bush thinking falls down: regulating is not banning.
Have you no grasp of nuance?
Ok. Let’s go with the point you claim was made. Let’s assume that as many households own hammers as those that own guns. And then let’s look at the data (see, here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/)
Looking just at homicide, rather than accidents, there were about 17,800 murder victims in 2020. Of those, about 13,200 were killed by some sort of gun. That’s 74% of all murders. If we assume that hammers make up ALL the rest of the murders and give you the benefit of the doubt that only as many households own a hammer as a gun, then that’s a 3-fold risk of being murdered by a gun than a hammer (74% by guns, 26% by everything else). And yet, I bet that more households own a hammer, let alone some other blunt instrument (which only make up 2.2% of weapons used in murder), which means that a gun is WAY more likely to be used as a murder weapon. Yet, I’m sure violent people have WAY more access to hammers than guns. So, perhaps, there’s something to be said about the tool that makes it possible for a violent person to do more harm.
Let’s face it, the hammer argument is silly. Unless and until you implement the Thought Police (and probably a number of other abhorrent policies that even the most ardent of conservatives have nightmares over), you can’t prevent violence entirely. It is ONLY guns that are regularly used to kill people because they are the only unregulated tool that enables it with such efficiency and intent. Can we agree that violent people shouldn’t have access to a tool designed ONLY to kill people?
Oh for Pete’s sake, Joe. Is that the best you’ve got?
“Responsible gun owners understand this and don’t buy into the irrational fear of non gun owners.” As always the theory is very flawed, all gun owners are theoretically responsible until they aren’t anymore, your conclusion suggests that there are white hat gun owners and black hat gun owners and never the twain shall cross. Kind of like the guy from Twin Falls, executed 2 teens, suspect he was a very responsible gun owner until he executed those 2 kids, wouldn’t you agree Joe?
We are in a mental health crisis in this country. Why do we insist on arming ourselves with assault weapons?
All you have to do is look at Mr Tester’s fantastical world of well-armed citizen soldiers repelling the 9th Guards Tank Army or deterring Putin for your answer. These “conservatives” have swallowed this Price of Liberty nonsense hook, line and sinker.
It’s very likely that for two-thirds of the Repub base preservation of the Right to Gun Mayhem is the single issue they vote on. That’s why no elected Repub can risk anything other than a 100% rating from the NRA.
A deeply sick society, as anyone looking at it from the outside can clearly see.
As I stated before, Kenosha man killed 4, injured 40 with a car, should cars be banned? More gun laws will do nothing to stop criminals and crazies from obtaining an illegal gun and hurting others. The ridiculous statement that “homes with guns have more of a chance to have someone hurt with a gun”, Lefties love to tout, has nothing to do with a crazy person shooting up a school. The biggest reason for nightly shootings, yes nightly, in cities across America is the breakdown of values. When life is not valued, people will take it away without a second thought.
Unfortunately our society is breaking down and Lefties want Government to step in and fix it. When Government decides what is acceptable and what is not, you get anarchy, as you are seeing today. Burning our city was deemed “ok” by woke elected officials because people were upset with police brutality and “needed space to grieve”. 500 hundred businesses burned out and nearly a billion dollars in damage later, same elected officials decided that was not a good idea. There is good and evil, right and wrong in the world, we surely don’t need elected officials deciding which is which for Americans.
Hallelujah!
I’d say America’s sick obsession with guns has at least as much to do with the “loss of regard for life” that you imagine.
As for this novel idea that enacted criminal law itself produces anarchy, one hardly knows what to say. Suffice it observe that this is not standard conservative doctrine, so you are indeed thinking outside the box!
And call me when there are 700 “Kar in Kenosha” incidents across America per year, because that’s how many mass shootings per year that our “well regulated militia” are at!
There are licensing requirements for driving a car. You have to be able to pass a test to prove that you can use a car safely. Put that into place for guns and maybe we can drop this violence by an order of magnitude.
You’ve never applied for a gun permit, apparently. You not only have to pass a course, but pass a live fire exercise.
You don’t need a permit to own or shoot a gun, can’t you folks be a little honest?
Rather deceptive, since I’d guess you know that 22 states don’t require a permit to carry a weapon (this is the NRA Gold Standard) and 32 states don’t require any “live fire” to get a permit.
Or does this mean you’d support federal legislation requiring both conditions to buy or “carry” a gun nationwide, since you are quick to assure us that our handgun and assault weapons owners are so well trained?
You’re talking about a permit to carry a handgun. I think that level of training should be required to possess ANY gun. Anyone who wants to possess a semi-automatic weapon should have to go through additional training, similar to the 12 hours of classroom training and field experience required to get a hunting license in MN. Anyone who wants to possess a handgun or a magazine larger than 5 rounds should require additional evaluation for competence. There is a reason Massachusetts has gun death rates 5 times lower than Missouri.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state
You know that ONLY applies to conceal and carry and ONLY in certain states. There are pretty much no restrictions to purchase/own/carry/operate a gun in many states, and certainly the bar to ownership, LEGAL ownership, is much, much, much, much lower than a car. And guns now kill more kids than car accidents do. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/guns-now-kill-more-children-and-young-adults-than-car-crashes/ That’s pathetic.
Strangely, Mr Tester seems to have gone rather quiet on this particular point…
Mr. Tester doesn’t have a point. He thinks that running through all the logical fallacies, and making up some new ones, constitutes a fine argument.
The more Joe drags in these declarations of overarching philosophy, the less he seems aware that they are violated by our “conservative” enthusiasm for regulating “right and wrong” via bans on abortion. Why are only the desires of the American right to regulate morality legitimate under your precepts, Joe?
One can’t have it both ways if one wants to be coherent.
Dude, pro-gun dogma is not Christian.
There is good and evil, right and wrong in the world, we surely don’t need elected officials deciding which is which for Americans.
Nope, apparently we need Joe Smith. Tell me, if you and I don’t agree on what is good and evil, who wins?
“As I stated before, Kenosha man killed 4, injured 40 with a car, should cars be banned?” The hysteria is getting old. Can we agree that unstable and irresponsible people shouldn’t be able to operate dangerous machinery, like cars? I mean, that’s why we take away their license if they drink and drive. And if they can’t follow that, they end up in jail. Regulation doesn’t mean “ban.” And it’s reasonable to regulate access to dangerous machinery. Like cars. And guns.
I know many people I presume are Democrats and live in Highland/MacGroveland in St Paul, my old neighborhood, who asked my lots of questions in the last two years about buying a handgun and about purchasing. Many of them got their permit to purchase and permit to carry.
In the colder months I shoot indoors at Stock and Barrel in Eagan. I’ve seen a massive increase in the number of women, and minorities, both shooting and taking classes.
With more and more girls participating in the high school clay target league, that means more girls are getting their MN DNR Hunters Safety certificate and owning firearms. I’d presume more are hunting, shooting clay targets, and owning a firearm for protection.
Is your personal experience to be taken as scientific data?
I shoot at Bill’s Gun Shop and Range in Hudson. It seems like when I go there’s more women and especially Black women than ever. I think they don’t trust the government to protect them in their violent neighborhoods and have taken matters into their own hands.
Personally I just want the same right to own a gun as what we turned over to the Taliban in Afghanistan. I already paid for those, why shouldn’t I be able to have one?
Yeen ager logic got us into this mess, it won’t get us out of it.
As an antidote to glibness on this topic, I suggest reading some of the horrific reports of the innocent Uvalde school kids being shot into pieces by this military-grade weapon, one that has no business whatever being in any civilian’s hands.
What I’m reading are two groups of people on opposite sides of a canyon, shouting at each other, and mostly shouting opinions that only occasionally have a basis in fact.
Because it’s something of a masterpiece of imprecise language usage, there are many plausible interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, just as there are many plausible interpretations of the Bible. Every Christian denomination, in the end, believes the other denominations are wrong and they have the only “true” interpretation. Regarding guns, whose sole purpose is to kill or maim, people who like to call themselves “conservative” are just as guilty of the same sort of closed-mindedness as are some of those on the far left who are equally intolerant. Unless we develop time travel, not to mention some way of invading the mind of another human, it’s not possible to know what the Founders were thinking when the amendment was written and adopted. As one of the shouters above noted, the notion that that anyone should be able to carry a handgun (or a long gun, for that matter) while shopping or going out for dinner without connection to the military is a recent one. The cowboy movie stereotype of people having to leave their sidearm with the town sheriff, while not universal, has some basis in fact, especially in those towns that had seen unusual levels of violence. Most American cities qualify. Oddly enough, most cities elsewhere on the planet do not.
With the vast majority of the country’s people living in metro areas, The portion of the population that actually needs to hunt to put food on the table is vanishingly small, though there are obviously plenty of people who hunt for recreation, though they can more easily obtain their protein and calories at the local store. Handguns are mostly worthless as hunting weapons, though – at some expense – there are a handful of models and modifications that can make one usable in that context, though even there, the vast majority of those handguns are typically large-caliber revolvers or single-shot specialty weapons, reminiscent of dueling pistols of the 18th century. Legally purchased handguns are fairly expensive, and the expense of ammunition, consumed often enough to develop some proficiency in their use, is even greater. Most people who own or carry a handgun are not proficient in its use (ask your local police officer, who has to practice to keep his/her job), which always leads me to wonder how effective that handgun might be at actual self-defense.
My guess – I’ve done no research on this – is that the number of people killed by suicide or accident each year with a handgun is far, far greater than the number of people who successfully foil a robbery or home invasion. I have no idea if the FBI or some other government agency keeps track of those differing circumstances or situations in which a handgun is used. If my hunch is correct, the notion that a household is “safer” with a handgun than without one simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
My own opinion is that, if you feel the need to carry a handgun on a frequent basis, and it’s not connected to your employment, it’s because you’re either A) afraid; or B) a bully; personality traits that often blend in a quite unappealing way