Why do guns exist

But in some cases, counter-militias are composed of fighters resisting violent, repressive governments, Brooks says. Should guns disappear, there also would be mixed results for animals. On the one hand, the poaching and trophy hunting of endangered species would decline greatly. On the other, control of problem animals — whether rabid raccoons, stampeding elephants, venomous snakes or charging polar bears — would become more difficult.

If guns disappeared, there would be extra potential challenges for both hunting and agriculture Credit: Getty Images.

Guns are also integral for invasive species management , he continues. Thousands of cats, pigs, goats, possums and other harmful non-native species are shot each year to try to preserve delicate ecosystems, especially on islands. Doing away with guns would make that already-steep uphill battle all the more difficult — and less humane.

Mercy killings of injured livestock and other animals likewise would be made more brutal without guns. Guns are made for killing, but their influence extends to additional facets of life and society, all of which would change. In terms of the economy, the US stands the most to lose if guns disappeared.

In fact, there would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared. Indeed, while the overall impacts to the economy would be negligible, Miller points out that the less tangible gains would be significant. For one, many people would feel safer. Americans of all ages are increasingly terrified of being attacked in a public place, Gabor adds, whether at school, a movie theatre, a nightclub or on the street.

Many would be able to breathe easier with guns no longer in the picture, but some gun owners would experience the opposite effect and feel more vulnerable without their weapons. Whether guns actually help people stay safe and defend themselves is a controversial subject. But the limited research available on this topic tends to indicate that guns have the opposite effect.

A study of 1, homicides found that the presence of guns in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance, for example. A meta-study likewise found that access to firearms is associated with homicide and completed suicide attempts. In India, some women are learning self-defence and shooting to protect themselves — but whether guns actually help people stay safe is controversial Credit: Getty Images.

Gun culture also would be something that many firearm owners would miss. For their part, NRA members are largely satisfied with the amount of influence the organization has over gun laws in the U. Gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to have ever contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy.

Chapter 1 looks at the demographics of gun ownership and the reasons people own guns. It also explores early experiences with guns, such as growing up in a gun-owning household and participating in hunting or sport shooting. Chapter 2 focuses on the role guns have in the daily life of gun owners, including whether they carry a gun outside their home, how often they engage in gun-related activities or consume gun-oriented media, and their social ties to other gun owners.

It also looks at negative experiences some people have had with guns. Chapter 4 explores what Americans see as contributing factors to gun violence. Those who did not grow up with guns in the home includes those who say, as far as they know, there were never any guns in their household when they were growing up or they are not sure if there were guns in their household when they were growing up.

Those who are said to have children in the household or at home are those who are a parent or guardian to a child younger than 18 who lives in their household. References to whites and blacks include only those who are non-Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race. All references to party affiliation, excluding one reference in chapter 1, include those who lean toward that party: Republicans include those who say they lean toward the Republican Party and Democrats include those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

For a more detailed explanation of how community type was coded, see the Methodology section of the report. In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data.

Please support our research with a financial contribution. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics. Gun use also varies along key demographic, social and attitudinal dimensions.

Gun owners are divided when it comes to how important owning a gun is to their overall identity. One-in-four say it is very important, while the rest view this as somewhat important or not important. Those who say being a gun owner is very important to their identity are nearly unanimous in their belief that the right to own a gun is essential to their personal freedom.

Many, but not all, gun owners exist in a social context where gun ownership is the norm. Roughly half of all gun owners say that all or most of their friends own guns.

In stark contrast, among the non-gun owning public, only one-in-ten say all or most of their friends own guns. These social connections are strongly tied to gun use, as gun owners who say all or most of their friends own guns engage more frequently in hunting and sport shooting than those with fewer friends that own guns. The broader gun culture in the U. About a third or more of gun owners say they often or sometimes watch TV programs or videos about guns or visit websites about guns, hunting or other shooting sports.

Younger gun owners are among the most likely to consume some types of gun-related media. Among all gun owners, about one-in-four say they often or sometimes attend gun shows. Men and women who own guns interact with them in different ways — with male gun owners hunting and shooting more frequently than their female counterparts and consuming some forms of gun-oriented media at higher rates.

There are also differences by age and educational attainment in the extent to which guns are a part of the day-to-day lives of gun owners. Constitution in terms of its personal salience. Gun owners and non-owners tend to agree on other top-tier constitutional rights.

Roughly equal shares say freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to privacy and freedom of religion are essential to their own sense of freedom. Views on the essential nature of the right to own guns are linked both to current gun ownership and personal history. Partisanship and ideology are strongly correlated with views about the importance of gun ownership as a guaranteed right.

And those differences hold up among gun owners and non-owners alike. For Republican gun owners and independents that lean Republican, gun ownership is nearly on par with free speech, the right to vote, the right to privacy and freedom of religion. While gun-suicide rates are higher in rural states, which have proportionally more gun owners, the gun-suicide link plays out in urban areas, too.

It was entirely attributable to an increase in suicide by firearms. The scientific study of suicide has partly been an effort to erase myths. Perhaps the biggest fallacy is that suicides are typically long-planned deeds. While this can be true—people who attempt suicide often face a cascade of problems—empirical evidence suggests that they act in a moment of brief but heightened vulnerability.

Asked how much time had passed between when they decided to take their lives and when they actually made the attempt, a startling 24 percent said less than 5 minutes; 48 percent said less than 20 minutes; 70 percent said less than one hour; and 86 percent said less than eight hours.

The episodic nature of suicidal feelings is also borne out in the aftermath: 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive do not go on to die by suicide later.

A central tenet of public health is that environment shapes individual behavior. In the realm of suicide, this truth has played out dramatically in recent history. When widely used lethal means are made less available or less deadly, suicide rates by that method decline, as do suicide rates overall. In Sri Lanka, for example, where pesticides are the leading suicide method, the suicide rate fell by half between and , after the most highly human-toxic pesticides were restricted.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom before the s, domestic gas derived from coal contained 10 to 20 percent carbon monoxide, and poisoning by gas inhalation was the leading means of suicide. A source of natural gas virtually free of carbon monoxide was introduced in ; over time, as carbon monoxide in gas decreased, so did the number of suicides overall—driven by a drop in carbon monoxide suicides, even as other methods increased somewhat.

But it does save lives by reducing the deadliness of those attempts. Though these basic facts are known, there is a striking dearth of research on guns and suicide. In the U. The survey asked questions about gun ownership in , and, for the last time, in It was HICRC investigators who analyzed this state-level data to show that suicide rates run in tandem with gun ownership rates.

Today, the U.