Shots fired near WH

[Labster]

I'm just curious as to what my proposal fails to accomplish in comparison to yours, Labster.
...
Though it needs to be reiterated: not allowing sidearms to be kept by their owners within their own home is going to be a non-starter, even with the large majority of the not-crazy gun owners.  Handguns, the sane gun owners will argue, should be allowed to be kept at home for the purposes of home protection.  Whether or not having a hand gun on the premises actually is effective is of little matter.  What will matter is the peace of mind it will bring that person, as well as the simple fact that most home invaders will immediately turn tail the moment they see a gun.

What it would accomplish is the actual, in-fact safety of gun owners, rather than their peace of mind.  I agree that it's a non-starter politically right now, but that's only because people would rather feel safe than be alive longer.

Let's start with this report on gun violence from Pew Research (pun intended)

In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%. Shotguns were involved in 2%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (30%) involved firearms that were classified as “other guns or type not stated.”

So let's renormalize that to remove the "type not stated" category. Shotguns are 3.4%, rifles and assault rifles are 5.2%, and the remaining 91.3% are handguns.  Handguns are, to a first order approximation, the gun violence problem in the United States. Any attempt to address gun violence without looking at sidearms is not serious and possibly disingenuous.  Which includes attempts made by my second favorite US Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein.

Getting assault weapons off the streets isn't going to help nearly as much as handguns.  Criminals will just switch, you say?  Sure, I guess.  But a five year old can conceal a handgun in his backpack, but they can't even hold a rifle straight.  If I was a bank employee and saw rifles, I'd hit the alarm before they even came inside the bank.  Concealment means a lot.  Sidearms aren't very accurate, and are more likely to kill bystanders who are not the intended target -- this applies to police, too.

And, well, sidearms aren't really even military weapons.  I seem to recall something about enlisted men getting rifles, but only officers being entitled to sidearms.  Which makes it a weapon for policing, really.  A militia would run fine with rifles, assault weapons, and non-lethal police weapons.

The USA has one of the highest suicide rates of the western world. While ease of access to firearms no doubt plays a role in this as does the distinctly lacking mental healthcare system, the biggest component appears to me to be the high stress induced by the USA's culture in general.

While I don't disagree with this on principle, accessibility of a means of suicide is a key driver of suicide, since the feelings that lead to suicide are often quite ephemeral.  Guns are more effective than most other means of self-dispatch, so it means more die on their first and only attempt.  And, from that same article earlier:

Three-quarters of all U.S. murders in 2017 – 14,542 out of 19,510 – involved a firearm. About half (51%) of all suicides that year – 23,854 out of 47,173 – involved a gun.

The majority of the suicide problem is also a gun problem.  In 2010, 61% of suicides were by gun.  If only 15% of people were just really drunk that day and didn't shoot themselves because they didn't have a gun, then taking the guns away would prevent 7.5% of suicides, or 2000 lives, or one 9/11 a year.  And none of this gets into the suicide-by-cop problem which usually includes murder too.

Handguns were used in 70% of suicides a couple decades back, so this is a handgun problem too.