Gun control? Americans increasingly see more guns as the solution, not the problem.

[beevul]

Gun control? Americans increasingly see more guns as the solution, not the problem.

By Amber Phillips July 27

Gun control is still going nowhere in Congress. And in fact, with every major mass shooting in America, gun-rights supporters seem to be digging in even further -- and bringing the rest of America along with them.

It's an echo of a familiar theme from NRA head Wayne LaPierre. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said frequently amid the more recent gun-control debate.

And most Americans agree with this logic, according to a 2014 Pew Research Poll. Since the 2012 Newtown, Conn., massacre of 26 people, including 20 school children, the poll found a nine-point rise in the number of Americans who think gun ownership could "protect people from becoming victims of crime."

Increasingly, Americans see guns as the answer -- not the problem -- to mass shootings.

In fact, the pro-gun-rights lobby is so powerful and its voters so active that Democratic senators who support gun laws tend to reverse their positions before reelection, a 2014 research paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/gun-control-americans-increasingly-see-more-guns-as-the-solution-not-the-problem/

"Most Americans agree with this logic"

My comment: Spin that.

[Duckhunter935]

1. They will spin it

Did you see that HUGE gun control rally in Denver?

[beevul]

10. Yes I did. They have increased their membership, it appears.

Heck, if they continue with the membership drive there might be a round dozen next time.

[guillaumeb]

2. A "logic" that is peculiar to the US.

My family is Canadian. We feel no "need" to possess large quantities of guns to protect ourselves. That is the job of the military, the police, and a shared sense of social order.

The US has much larger levels of gun violence than Canada. Given that both North American countries are comprised of predominantly European immigrants, why is the gun logic of the US not shared by your neighbors?

Politicians vote the NRA way because they are bought, or rented, by the NRA. The only people who are truly served by this bizarre obsession with possessing weapons are the gun manufacturers who profit from the fear and violence that gun ownership causes.

[beevul]

4. Individualism, rugged or otherwise, is in the American DNA.

My family is Canadian. We feel no "need" to possess large quantities of guns to protect ourselves. That is the job of the military, the police, and a shared sense of social order.

Individualism, rugged or otherwise, is in the American DNA. I think that's been ignored for so long by people that don't like the idea, that they've forgotten.

The US has much larger levels of gun violence than Canada. Given that both North American countries are comprised of predominantly European immigrants, why is the gun logic of the US not shared by your neighbors?

I'd say the answer to that, is self evident. You guys still deliberately put pictures of monarchy on the majority of your currency, to my knowledge. We on the other hand, are a nation of people that told monarchy - that same monarchy in fact - to "fuck off with extreme prejudice", and put pictures of the people that did the telling on much if not most of ours.

I'd argue that as a nation, we aren't big on authoritarianism, and we are far far more of an individualistic people.

Politicians vote the NRA way because they are bought, or rented, by the NRA. The only people who are truly served by this bizarre obsession with possessing weapons are the gun manufacturers who profit from the fear and violence that gun ownership causes.

None of which addresses the central point of the article:

It's an echo of a familiar theme from NRA head Wayne LaPierre. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said frequently amid the more recent gun-control debate.

And most Americans agree with this logic...

[guillaumeb]

6. Show me the "rugged individualism" sequence in your DNA.

Believing in a mythical US filled with gun carrying marksmen who only kill the evil people does not change one's DNA, it simply reflects a position that is unsupported by reality.

The US does not have pictures of royals on the currency, true, but the 1% are the true US royalty. Many of your founders were the 1% of their day.

If the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, why are so many good people killed in the US?

If having a gun confers any protection, why are so many police officers killed?

If owning and carrying guns are what keeps people in the US safe, why does the US have the highest rate of gun deaths in the world?

The answer to all of these questions is that having a gun, carrying a gun, and having a gun in the home are all actions that make one more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

[beevul]

8. Google 'figure of speech'.

Believing in a mythical US filled with gun carrying marksmen who only kill the evil people does not change one's DNA, it simply reflects a position that is unsupported by reality.

Likewise, attributing the belief of "a mythical US filled with gun carrying marksmen who only kill the evil people", to someone that never expressed that belief, is equally unsupported by reality. And its dishonest, disingenuous and rude too.

The US does not have pictures of royals on the currency, true, but the 1% are the true US royalty. Many of your founders were the 1% of their day.

Which has precisely fuckall to do with discussing why two groups so geographically close are so far apart on the 'individual/collective' scale.

If the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, why are so many good people killed in the US?

2/3 of your answer would be because they chose to take their own lives.

Beyond that, if the reverse is true, that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun, why is it the default response in this country, that when theres a bad guy with a gun we send good guys with guns to deal with it? Say, they do that in your country too. What gives eh?

If having a gun confers any protection, why are so many police officers killed?

Nobody ever claimed guns made anyone invulnerable, I think you know that.

If owning and carrying guns are what keeps people in the US safe, why does the US have the highest rate of gun deaths in the world?

The US has world leading rates, or close, in many 'not so good areas' . We can be a violent people at times.

The answer to all of these questions is that having a gun, carrying a gun, and having a gun in the home are all actions that make one more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

Ah yes. Anti-gun dogma, originating from people that publish anti-gun dogma.

[guillaumeb]

14. Ah yes. Anti-gun dogma, originating from people that publish anti-gun dogma.

Dogma can be based in reality.

And when I wrote:
"The answer to all of these questions is that having a gun, carrying a gun, and having a gun in the home are all actions that make one more likely to be a victim of gun violence."

I noticed that you did not introduce anything to refute what I said.

Yes the US is a violent country, always at war with other nations, or the First Peoples of this country, or with other areas of the country, or with behavior. Perhaps having a state of war as the default behavior is why the people are so violent.

[beevul]

17. "I noticed that you did not introduce anything to refute what I said. "

"The answer to all of these questions is that having a gun, carrying a gun, and having a gun in the home are all actions that make one more likely to be a victim of gun violence."

Refute it? It doesn't actually say anything.

More likely than what?

Winning the lottery? Getting struck by lightning? Meeting the pope? Witnessing Germany bomb Pearl Harbor?

It doesn't actually say anything.

Of course, I didn't actually ignore what you said, I described it, and in doing so, I defined it:

Anti-gun dogma.

[virginia mountainman]

5. The Police, shurely you jest?!

http://www.wcsh6.com/story/news/local/2015/07/22/brittany-irish-state-police-didnt-do-enough-to-prevent-northern-maine-shooting/30513301/

A few selected excerpts:

.....Irish said State Police then told her they did not have enough manpower to send a trooper home with her when she told them she didn't feel safe......

...Irish recounts her boyfriend, and father of their kids, died trying to protect them from Lord.

Irish stated that it was Lord's fault and State Police's fault that Kyle was killed last week. She said she just wants justice for her boyfriend and for everybody else involved.

"Police say I have no injuries, and that's a lie because I was shot first. I was raped, I have bruises all over me." Brittany said "They're [State Police] not willing to tell the truth to anybody. They're trying to bury it like nothing happened, like this wasn't their fault.".....

Interesting that so many put so much faith in the police to protect them, they clearly have not been watching the news lately.. BTW, it is settled law that they have no duty to "protect" individuals.

[guillaumeb]

7. Anecdotal evidence, or a few isolated incidents in a nation of over 300 million

people prove nothing.

The US has the highest rate of gun deaths in the industrialized world. No amount of spin can change that.

The US has the highest number of guns per capita in the world. No amount of spin can change that.

All of those guns do not keep you safer. They make you more likely to be killed by guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I'm bookmarking this post for the next round of articles about accidental shootings.

Don't worry, I'll give you full attribution.

The US has the highest rate of gun deaths in the industrialized world. No amount of spin can change that.

The US has the highest number of guns per capita in the world. No amount of spin can change that.

All of those guns do not keep you safer. They make you more likely to be killed by guns.

What about nations whose gun ownership rate is relatively on par with the US but have lower rates?

What about nations without private gun ownership that have higher rates of violent crime and/or suicide?

They do exist.

[angstlessk]

11. I was just perusing this..and would like to ask

What about nations whose gun ownership rate is relatively on par with the US but have lower rates?

What about nations without private gun ownership that have higher rates of violent crime and/or suicide?

They do exist.

Why not have stats, or facts to back up those assertions?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. If you asked my interlocutor to provide his stats from unedited sources you would see it.

[guillaumeb]

15. Nations like Switzerland and Russia, perhaps? eom

[gejohnston]

19. not Russia,

not legally anyway. However, their murder rate is higher than ours. Actually, Norway, Canada, Finland, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic pretty much on par with ours. France and Iceland to a lesser degree.

Most of our murder rate has to do with drug gangs killing each other over profits and market share. That is how states like Wyoming and Vermont, even though they have more guns per capita, not only lower murder rates but lower percentage of guns being used in murders than places like Chicago, New Jersey, and DC. No, these people don't go into gun stores and buy them.

[guillaumeb]

23. Comparing the US to Canada, for example,

.51 people per 100,000 dies of gun violence in Canada each year, compared to a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 in the US. That is a nearly 600% difference between the two countries.

Also:
"The Small Arms Survey is also useful - although it is from 2007, it collates civilian gun ownership rates for 178 countries around the world, and has 'normalised' the data to include a rate per 100,000 population.
It shows that:
With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison"

Read more:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

No surprise, except to the apologists for the firearms industry, that in a country that possess between 1/3 and 1/2 of all the civilian owned guns, those guns kill a lot of people.

[gejohnston]

28. I read all of those

guns are used in one 30 percent of Canadian murders while guns are used in something like 60 percent of ours. Most of our murders are criminals killing each other like drug gangs who will have guns regardless of any laws. While it is more difficult for someone like yourself to get gun legally in, say, France or Belgium, a thug or mass murderer only has to go to the Brussels train station, see Charlie Hebdo.

The definition of gun ownership I was using was number of households with private firearms. On that, Canada rates higher than Florida. In the US, more people die of heroin overdose than murdered with a firearm.

[guillaumeb]

37. Talking about gun ownership in Canada,

it helps to know that while many households possess long guns, few possess handguns. All of my relatives have rifles, but hunting rifles are the norm, not high velocity, high magazine-capacity military style semi-automatic guns.

A bolt action rifle is fine for hunting game. Given that a hunter will generally have time for one shot, there is no need for a clip. The same applies for bird hunting, where a three round magazine is more than enough capacity.

Plus registration of guns is mandatory under the Firearms Act.

[gejohnston]

46. the typical handgun owner are urban target shooters

long guns are more rural.
Canadian law limits rifle mags to five rounds. High velocity refers to the round, not the gun. Many bolt actions use the same rounds as the AR types, an can be fired as rapidly as as a semi automatic. Most hunting rifles use much more powerful rounds than "military style" rifles. BTW, those bolt actions were also once "military style", in fact military issue. Militaries still use bolt actions for some things. Sniping for one, extreme cold temps for another. For the latter.

"unrestricted" firearms, like bolt action rifles, don't have to be registered. Most of them use far more powerful rounds than what an AR typically uses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_action
The same bolt action designs used in "hunting" rifles were used, and still are to a limited degree, in military rifles. The logical progression of that trend results in rifles like this
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx
Of course, there are semi auto rifles that have been around long before ARs etc ever became popular or designed
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

It seems that I am more familiar with Canadian gun laws than you are with firearms.

[guillaumeb]

50. I am quite familiar with the Firearms Act, thank you.

And what I actually said about guns was:
"it helps to know that while many households possess long guns, few possess handguns. All of my relatives have rifles, but hunting rifles are the norm, not high velocity, high magazine-capacity military style semi-automatic guns."

And yes, my 58 caliber rifle has a much more powerful round, it is .58 caliber after all, but the velocity and the speed with which I can shoot is significantly less than that of a modern .223 or 5.56.

[gejohnston]

55. I didn't say you weren't

I said you didn't know much about guns. There are bolt action and single shot .223s. Your 1861 Springfield isn't relevant to the discussion anymore than my brother's .69 caliber tower pistol, which is not a firearm under the Gun Control Act.

[guillaumeb]

58. Well done. On the make of one of my weapons.

And no, black powder guns are not covered, but they can do a lot of damage. I have not hunted with it, but my grandfather hunted with black powder.

But as to pistols, without a license it is illegal to possess most pistols, except for grandfathered guns. In spite of this, Canadians are not being slaughtered by criminals. The rates of gun death are much lower than in the US. About 1/6th of the rate, in fact.

[gejohnston]

63. the tower pistol isn't likely covered either

since it happens to be a flintlock.

Most of our problems, the slaughter if you will, are states like New Jersey and DC where gun laws are stricter than Canada. Studies by the DoJ show that those doing the slaughtering do not go to gun stores or gun shows. If we remove places like Baltimore, DC, Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, Stockton, Newark, Camden, Memphis, our murder rate would be lower than Canada's. Two of our territories, PR and USVI, have strict gun laws. Their murder rates are also astronomical.
How many Canadian cities have any of the following:
--large number of warring drug gangs
--corrupt city governments with mutually beneficial relationships with criminal gangs
--corrupt mayors who hire incompetent police chiefs to protect said gangs
--crumbling infrastructure because of financial malfeasance
--single party rule
--cities that spend more money on education per student than any OECD country, yet has graduating classes that are 47-60 percent illiterate
--four hour 911 response time, assuming the cops bother to show up to take a report. No, I'm not talking about some rural area of Wyoming or Alaska. That is Detroit and Chicago.
--job opportunities, outside of the drug trade, being nonexistent. They get guns, or have community guns, to protect their profits and sales territory.
IOW, gun laws won't change shit.
--high rates of drug addiction
You know what else you don't see in the infotainment media? In 2013, in spite of being banned for over 100 years, more people died of heroin alone than were murdered with a firearm.

[the band leader]

30. except the incidence of gun violence has been going down for decades

despite having "the highest number of guns per capita in the world". The number of violent crimes has decreased in inverse lockstep with the increase in the number of guns. The majority of gun violence is isolated within large urban areas that are plagued by drugs and gangs and is not in any way shape or form a reflection of the gun control of the state or federal government. Criminals are simply not going to abide by gun control laws.


All of those guns do not keep you safer. They make you more likely to be killed by guns.
That's simply not true as evidenced by the following graphs:

[jimmy the one]

32. BL lying by statistics again, with bogus charts

band leader: .. except the incidence of gun violence has been going down for decades despite having "the highest number of guns per capita in the world". The number of violent crimes has decreased in inverse lockstep with the increase in the number of guns

Despite having been refuted earlier this month on another thread --- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172169435#post26 --- band leader is back at it posting propaGUNda, citing 3 pro gun sources (gun facts, dr go = doctor gun owner = doctors owning guns, and BlogSpot); including BLOG charts which can't even spell 'PROPERTY' correctly (it's not proptery).
Band leader's second chart from DR GO is misleading, since gun ownership rates have NOT risen but fallen over that time period; what the chart represents is the increase in national gunstock rather than any increase in gun ownership rates. The increase in guns has generally been to existing gun owners, that is their 'arsenal guns' have increased, maybe 30% etc..
Band Leader's first chart, note how the greatest decline in violent crime rates occurred from ~1993 to 2000 (gun control Clinton's years), when gun ownership rates simultaneously fell ~35% (approx. 33% personal gun ownership to ~22%). Gun ownership rates fell & violent crime rates fell, but not a tweet from band leader on that.

Incidence of gun violence has fallen dramatically since approx. 1992, when Clinton was elected, & so have gun ownership rates fallen dramatically. The correlation between falling gun ownership rates & falling violent crime rates certainly undermines dramatically what band leader is trying to infer.
Even band leaders' third chart by gunfacts demonstrates how to lie by statistics. Here are the real 'gunfacts', all figures are approximations:
..... Prop crime rate/100k ...... handgun supply millions
1973 ..... 3700 ....................... 36
1980 ..... 5350 ....................... 52
1991 ..... 5200 ....................... 74
1993 ..... 4750 ....................... 78
2009 ...... 3000 ..................... 118

Between 1973 and 1993 the handgun supply rose more than 100% (doubling), while the property crime rate increased about 40% during that time interval.
Between 1993 and 2009 the property crime rate fell about 40% while handgun supply rose about 50%.
What band leader needs to explain to readers is 1) why the property crime rate doubled when the handgun supply increased by 40% - with gun ownership rates remaining near the same.
2) .. why, since the national gun ownership rate has fallen from 1993 to 2009 by approx. 35% - which means the increase in 'handgun supply' is largely going to existing gun owners & not new ones - he credits guns with falling property crime rates. The 'handgun supply' should not be equated to any increase in gun owner rates, since there was none.

In other words, the falling property crime rates from 1993 to 2009 correlate with declining gun ownership rates.

A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet.. data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the UN, the General Social Survey found that the number of US households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns.. A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/

[the band leader]

34. More guns----->less crime. More concealed carry------>less crime.

More drugs and more criminals on the streets----->more crime. Fewer criminals on the streets------->less crime. The number of law abiding citizens with guns-----------> no impact whatsoever at all on the incidence of violent crime.


Between 1973 and 1993 the handgun supply rose more than 100% (doubling), while the property crime rate increased about 40% during that time interval.


Crime was out of control in that period. This is what lead to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the largest crime bill in US history. It is also what lead to the first three strikes and your out law passed in 1993 in Washington. Once we started locking up criminals, the crime rate steadily went down.

Incidence of gun violence has fallen dramatically since approx. 1992, when Clinton was elected...
Yes, because of the three strikes and your out laws and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, not because of the incidence of lawful gun ownership. Only a complete gun control fanatic such as yourself could make that leap of logic.


which means the increase in 'handgun supply' is largely going to existing gun owners & not new ones -

and yet the number of people walking around with concealed handguns is higher than it has ever been. Despite this, violent homicide is down as shown by the following graph:

The number of law abiding people that own guns is not in any way relevant to the incidence of violent crime. The number of people actually exercising their right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self defense is far more pertinent. You and others like you are the ones suggesting that we are less safe because law abiding people are walking around with concealed handguns. This is clearly not true. The fact is, the incidence of violent criminals walking around on the streets has far more to do with the incidence of violent crime in the United States.

[jimmy the one]

135. vcclea 1994

band leader: Once we started locking up criminals, the crime rate steadily went down

Spelman, on band leader's side, attributes only 25% reduction:.. about 25% of the 1990s crime drop can be linked to increased incarceration
rosenfeld: The best we can say is that mass incarceration had a significant but not overwhelming impact on crime, accounting for perhaps 10 to 25% of the reduction.
zimring: Although the incarceration rate went up by 65% between 1990 and 2007, apparently explaining the crime drop, the incarceration rate declined 28% in New York. And guess which city led all others in crime reduction during that time? You got it, New York {City}. New York had major, unprecedented crime declines from the peak rates in 1990.
Blumstein: The impact of increased incarceration was limited because such a large fraction of that growth was associated with drug offenses. About 20% of state prisoners and 50% of federal prisoners were sentenced for drug offenses, and the ability of incarceration to impact drug offending is inherently limited. When a rapist is locked up, you remove his rapes from the street; when a drug seller is locked up, you recruit a replacement, and there is no impact on the transactions, which are driven largely by demand.
Travis: When you quadruple the incarceration rate, as we did in this country over a period of four decades, the key question is whether this big investment in prison resulted in a significant decline in crime. The conclusion of our {National Academy of Sciences} committee was that there is no clear answer from a scientific point of view. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/q-and-a/2014/09/weighing-imprisonment-and-crime

.. if Clinton and Congress reflected the punitive mindset of the American people, what they didn't know was that soaring murder rates and violent crime had already begun {~1992/3, VCCLEA enacted 9/1994} what would become a long downward turn.. Researchers including a National Academy of Sciences panel he led have since found only a modest relationship between incarceration and lower crime rates. "We now know with the fullness of time that we made some terrible mistakes," Travis.. "And those mistakes were to ramp up the use of prison." http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/347736999/20-years-later-major-crime-bill-viewed-as-terrible-mistake

(albeit 1986, prior 1990's): Other researchers reviewed Greenwood and Abrahamse's results and concluded that the original analysis greatly overstated the effects of the proposed selective incapacitation. And, in 1983 the National Academy of Sciences panel on Criminal Careers commissioned a reanalysis of the original survey data. The estimates resulting from this study indicated substantially smaller incapacitative effects than those found by Greenwood and Abrahamse.. [/I https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter9.htm

band leader: This is what lead to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,

One provision therein was the: Federal Assault Weapons Ban or the Semi-automatic Firearms Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

another: One of the more controversial provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act overturned a section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 permitting prison inmates to receive a Pell Grant for postsecondary education while incarcerated.. No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution

another: .. new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms

Which could be circumvented thanks in good part to NRA & fopa, where ex felons can petition to have their 'gun rights' reinstated, generally in states they live in, and is frequently done.

band leader: The number of law abiding people that own guns is not in any way relevant to the incidence of violent crime.

Sure it is; not a week goes by that hundreds of 'law abiding citizens' unravel & get their guns & shoot something, somebody, somebodies, or go on a shooting rampage. About 30% of violent crime is done by law abiding citz, up to the moment they commit a crime.
The decrease in handgun ownership rates ~1993 - 2000 - now, has contributed to the reduction in violent crime rates.

[spin]

82. There are more guns in our nation than people. ...

The lowest estimates are 300,000,000 firearms and 80,000,000 gun owners.

If you live in a nation where there are only a few civilian owned firearms of course your gun violence rate will be lower. In all fairness our gun violence rate is extremely low considering the number of gun owners and firearms we have.

Also despite the skyrocketing number of firearms in our nation, gun violence has decreased dramatically since the mid 1990s. More guns obviously does not necessarily mean more gun violence. In fact some will argue that one of the reasons gun violence has fallen so dramatically is because of more firearms in the hands of honest people and the fact that now many states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws. While I don't feel this is the largest reason, I will concede that it may be an important factor.

Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
By CNN Staff
Updated 5:39 AM ET, Thu May 9, 2013

Gun-related homicides and crime are "strikingly" down from 20 years ago, despite the American public's belief that firearm crime is on the upswing, a new study said Wednesday.

Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years.

"Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago," the researchers say.

A Pew survey of Americans in March found 56% believed gun-related crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% said it's lower. The survey said 26% believed it stayed the same and 6% didn't know.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

That doesn't mean we should not improve our current gun laws to help insure that only honest, responsible and sane citizens can legally buy firearms. Obviously our NICS gun background check program needs some improvements which we can accomplish easily. We can also do better in enforcing existing laws against those caught illegally carrying firearms and making sure they are punished to deter them from doing the same again. Better laws and enforcement would also help reduce the straw purchasing and illegal sale of firearm to criminals especially in our inner cities.

In my opinion one reason we fail to make such improvements to our laws and enforcement policies is the insistence of some gun control advocates that we need to register all firearms and eventually confiscate them. I often read that we need to ban some firearms such as the evil looking semiautomatic rifles that resemble military weapons or to limit the capacity of firearm magazines to ten rounds. Since such legislation is basically mpossible to pass at the national level at this time all that is accomplished by such proposals is to cause citizens to rush out to their local gun stores and clean the shelves of all types of firearms and ammunition. Instead of reducing the number of firearms in civilian hands the effort casues the sale of such weapons to skyrocket. By trying to ban certain firearms, gun control advocates are simply shooting their goal in the foot.

Gun control advocates have been trying to ban firearms since the days of the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) and Handgun Control Inc. (HCI)

Brady Campaign

***snip***

The Brady Campaign was founded in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH). From 1980 through 2000 it operated under the name Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). In 2001, it was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and its sister project, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

In 1974 the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) was founded by armed-robbery victim Mark Borinsky. In 1975, Republican marketing manager Pete Shields, whose 23-year-old son had been murdered, joined NCCH as chairman. In 1980, the organization became Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and partnered with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH). The partnership did not last long; the NCBH, renamed in 1990 as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), generally advocates for stronger gun laws than does the Brady Campaign

***snip***

In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."[13] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[14] In November 2008, Brady president Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association saying, "I see our issues as complementary to theirs." He said, "The Brady Campaign is not just East Coast liberal Democrats."[15](...emphasis added)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

As I read the mission statement of the NCCH I see that over the years while the object of banning handguns has shifted to other firearms such as assault rifles, the basic plan remains the same for many gun control advocates. Of course once assault rifles are banned another type of firearm will be targeted for banning.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Gun control advocates failed with their efforts to ban handguns and have also failed in the effort to ban assault weapons.

Perhaps if they ever decide to simply ban the use of the word "ban" we might eventually make some real progress in improving our gun laws. It may not happen overnight but eventually it might. I feel it is worth a try and is better than trying to pass legislation that would make our gun laws like those in Great Britain.

[guillaumeb]

95. Defining insanity:

When you wrote:
"One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Gun control advocates failed with their efforts to ban handguns and have also failed in the effort to ban assault weapons."

Every time that there is a mass shooting, a paid shill for the gun industry, generally Wayne LaPierre, will state that if only there had been armed citizens at the site of the mass shooting everything would have been better and the shooting could have been prevented. So apparently only when every US citizen is walking around armed 24/7 the mass shootings will stop.

The very definition of insanity is to suggest that in a country where 30,000 citizens are shot every year, arming more citizens would somehow reduce gun violence.

[spin]

105. Then why don't we have far more gun violence today than 20 years ago? ...

Last edited Mon Aug 3, 2015, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)

During those twenty years not only did the sale of firearms absolute skyrocket but the dreaded AR-15 became the most popular rifle in our nation. Semiautomatic handguns replaced revolvers as the handgun of choice for gun owners. Shall issue concealed carry laws swept across our nation and today in Florida over 1,000,000 residents have concealed weapons permits and a fair percentage carry on a daily basis.

Surely if more guns and looser gun laws that allow honest, sane and responsible citizens to buy semiautomatic weapons and legally carry firearms in public actually did lead to a higher level of gun violence, we would have seen this by now.

I find it interesting that so many mass murderers pick gun free zones to attack. Is this just sheer coincidence or is it because they realize that they can rack up a high score of kills before the police arrive. In my opinion any gun free zone that has a large number of people should have armed security. That includes schools, theaters and mega churches.

Mass murders may be insane but they are not stupid. Firearms can be a deterrent. It isn't just that an armed person can possibly stop a mass murderer but that the mass murderer may decide it's foolish to attack a gun friendly zone or one with armed security.

I do feel we can make improvements to our gun laws. The insanity that I describe involves the gun control advocates who try to ban all civilian owned firearms in our nation. They have been trying to do this for decades and so far have totally failed. It's time for them to realize that attempting to pass gun laws such as exist in Great Britain is a futile Quixotic effort much like tilting at windmills.

[guillaumeb]

107. Gabby Gifford was shot in a public space. Not a gun free zone.

30,000 people are the victims of gun violence every year. Are they all in gun free zones?

I would not advocate a ban on firearms ownership. Simply a US version of the Canadian Firearms Act that keeps Canadians safe while providing access to firearms for recreational purposes.

[branford]

109. A USA-version of the Canadian Firearms Act would clearly be unconstitutional.

It would effectively ban firearms outside the home, and even severely restrict them inside. The fact that you disagree with the relevant jurisprudence would not matter. In addition to the Second Amendment issues, the surprise inspection and firearms seizures and forfeiture would also eviscerate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, respectively. Since two-thirds of firearms deaths are suicides, and Canada has a comparable suicide rate to the USA, I don't see how your suggestion would even deal the majority of American gun deaths.

In any event, while I certainly have nothing against our neighbors to the north, Canadian and American cultures and history are distinctly different. While Canada may be more firearm friendly than some of Europe or elsewhere, they still do not have the cultural affinity for firearms that exists in the USA. Simply, nothing even close to the Canadian Firearms Act has any chance of passing Congress in the foreseeable future, and a great many Democrats would risk electoral suicide for even proposing such a law. When Democrats are trying desperately to dissociate themselves with gun bans and similar talk to garner political support, using Canada, Australia and Europe as models really doesn't help the cause for purported "gun safety" legislation or the electoral prospects of our party outside of a few urban enclaves.

Lastly, the fact that Gabby Giffords was not shot in a gun-free zone does not change the fact that virtually all other mass shootings did indeed occur in such areas. Nevertheless, I have no objections to private landowners determining if they wish to prohibit firearms on their premises. However, if they fail to protect their tenants, patrons, customers, employees, etc., they could reasonably expect to suffer civil damages in court, regardless of whether any injuries were caused by firearms. This is standard premises liability law. I believe that the free market and established tort law will ultimately resolve the private property gun-free zone debate. The rules concerning government and public property are a whole lot more complicated, and beyond the scope of this post, although I would note that firearm restrictions in places such as courthouses, statehouses and most public agencies is largely uncontroversial among most gun owners.

[spin]

112. I hold a different view as I don't wish to see our nation adopt gun control laws similar ...

to those in Canada. It might work in Canada but we are not Canada. Apples and oranges.

However I will admit that my view is influenced by the fact that my mother stopped an attacker who was hiding behind some bushes and rushed her as she was walking home. She fired two shots over his head from a .22 caliber S&W LadySmith revolver that she fortunately had in her purse. (This happened in Pennsylvania in the 1920s.)

My daughter stopped a guy breaking into our home in Tampa and was halfway through the sliding glass door in our kitchen which he had managed to force open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he also ran. The surprising fact was that a burglar alarm was sounding and there was a 60 pound black lab in the house. Neither deterred him. The dog decided to hide and let my daughter handle the situation.

I enjoy recreational shooting but I also realize that firearms are excellent weapons for self defense.

[pablo_marmol]

114. I believe you meant to say "Why *don't* we have far more gun violence........."

I'm aware that you are well aware at the drop in all crime in the U.S. starting in 1993.

Edited to add: I recall reading that the theater in Aurora CO was the only one in the vicinity that was a "gun free" theater. Coincidence? Perhaps.

[spin]

116. Thanks much. I should learn to proof read.

As I remember the theater the shooter chose in Aurora was further than the nearest theater showing the same movie. To the shooter the big advantage was it was a gun free zone.

[the band leader]

13. Here in the US, the police murder people over traffic violations.

we also have a major drug and gang epidemic which fuels the vast majority of our violent and non-violent crime. We are not Canada.

[guillaumeb]

16. The question becomes why?

Why the high rates of gun violence?

Why the reluctance, the absolute resistance from some to attribute any causality or relationship between the high rates of gun ownership and the high rates of gun violence?

[beevul]

18. "Causality"

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The thing about 'causality' where inanimate objects are concerned, is that it doesn't discriminate.

What 'causes' something in Vermont, will also 'cause' the same thing in Kansas, where inanimate objects are concerned.

If an object has 'causality' in Chicago, it has the same 'causality' in Montana.


As far as your 'causality' and 'high rates' are concerned, factor this in:

There are 300 million+ firearms in the hands of 80+ million people in America, and there are 10 thousandish firearm homicides here annually.

The 'high rate' argument is an argument of relativism. As in 'compared to country X'. Objectively looking at it, it becomes clear that 99.9 percent of guns are not misused, and 99.9 percent of gun owners do not misuse firearms to hurt others.

Theres just no arguing against that, because its factually true and accurate.

Also, you have a ways to go to prove your point on 'causality'. A tenth of a percent of people misusing firearms, and/or a tenth of a percent of firearms being misused, is pretty much the point that 'causality' is farthest from.

[beevul]

26. Thats true of many things...

Guns enable people to easily escalate things.

Thats true of many things. And of those many things, its more true about some of them, than it is about guns.

See: Alcohol.

Take away the guns and there are no drive by shootings, no mass killings in theaters, schools, public meetings.

The guns aren't going to be taken away. You may as well have said 'if I found a lamp that contained a genie and was able to get three wishes'...

And even if 99% of guns are not misused, given that there are, by some estimates, over 100 million guns in the US. 1% of these guns equates to 1 million guns used in a crime equals 1 million violent incidents.

It isn't 1 percent though. Its less than a tenth of a percent.

And a related point is that there is no legitimate need for everyone in the country to have a gun.

This is where I get to say that my needs are defined by me, not by you. Worry about your own needs and keep your nose out of mine.

You don't get to define or decide whats 'legitimate' for me or anyone else in America, in fact, those things are none of your damn business.

100 million guns floating around is 100 million chances that any particular gun will be used in a violent crime.

And people like you say things like the above, without mentioning that in spite of your '100 million guns floating around is 100 million chances' rhetoric, that the chances never seem to materialize into anything that might resemble 'causation'.

[guillaumeb]

36. If by causation you mean the "why" that determines why any particular shooter decides

to shoot someone, there are probably 30,000 reasons each year in the US. One for each gun fatality.

As to individual freedom to decide, any particular person's freedom ends at my door. You may decide that you have a need to carry a handgun, but, even of you commit no assault, if another person steals your gun and kills someone with your gun, your decision was a link in the causality chain that ends with a death.

As to guns not being taken away, Australia is an excellent example of a former frontier colony that essentially banned gun possession after a gun massacre. It can be done, given the political will to actually do something. The same thing was accomplished in Canada, another former frontier colony, without a massacre.

[Straw Man]

83. Eh?

Take away the guns and there are no drive by shootings, no mass killings in theaters, schools, public meetings.

I'll grant you the drive-bys, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

... these are some of the most deadly mass killings in US history, and they weren't carried out with firearms.

[gejohnston]

86. no drive by shootings?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/100-shootings-and-counting-merrylands-tops-driveby-list-20120911-25psc.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sydney-shooting-spree-continues-as-bullets-fired-into-auburn-home/story-fni0cx12-1227170946764

[the band leader]

20. why the reluctance to attribute any causality between drugs/gangs and gun violence?

or the high incidence of violent crime in the urban areas of most every state as compared to the rural areas? For example, 78% of the violent crime in Maryland Occurs in the city of Baltimore. The highly restrictive gun laws of Maryland are just as restrictive in the city of Baltimore as they are in the rural areas outside of Baltimore. So why the higher incidence of violent crime in the city? For the most part, the same correlation is observed in every large city in every state in the country. The word correlation is the operative word here. There is a tendancy on the part of the anti-gun crowd to confuse correlation with causation when doing so supports their agenda and to ignore correlations and causations that conflict with their agenda as, for example, you have just done. There is also a tendancy to greatly exagerate the gun violence situation in America by conflating suicides and justificable homicides with gun violence statistics. The actual incidence of gun violence in America has been steadily decreasing for decades depite the fact that more law abiding people are walking around with concealed firearms under their shirts than ever before and despite the fact that there are more guns in america than every before. The vast majority of the gun violence is concentrated in urban areas and revolves around drugs and gangs and is not in any way shape or form attributed to a lack of gun control

[guillaumeb]

25. If gun violence is steadily decreasing, as FBI statistics seem to indicate,

why do so many US citizens feel such a strong need to possess so many guns?

[the band leader]

27. Why do some Americans feel such a strong desire to own so many gold coins?

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

or stamps? or cars? There are many reasons.

Owning multiple firearms is an old tradition in America however. They have always been and remain a decent tangible asset investment. Plus, what happens when you threaten to ban something in America? Americans inevitably go out and purchase as much of that something as possible. Honestly, the rise of the "assault rifle" is your fault. They started flying off the shelves after the AWB of 1994 and then really picked up steam after the second attempted AWB in 2012/2013.

[beevul]

29. Why do you ask? N/t

[guillaumeb]

38. If people purchase guns as a means of defense,

why this need to purchase guns when the purported reason, to defend against an attack, no longer applies?

The NRA, working as salespeople for the arms industry, has been using the "fear of attack" meme for so long that even though the actual rate of violent attacks has fallen, the fear if being a victim of an attack has risen.

Who benefits? The arms industry.

[branford]

40. The need for self-defense will not exist when the threat of being a victim

of violence reaches 0. We undoubtedly both agree that decreasing crime rates is positive, but we are hardly at a point of perfect safety, with or without reliance on law enforcement. Moreover, individual circumstances affect the potential need for self-defense, including geography, profession, age and infirmity, etc. As I indicated earlier, firearms also have uses widely recognized as legitimate besides self-defense, and unless the 2A and state equivalents are repealed, the RKBA is constitutionally protected.

Also, why does it matter if the firearms industry or even the NRA benefits from anything? Constitutional rights or the determined need for self-defense is not correlated or dependent on whether you or I like certain industries, groups or individuals.

[guillaumeb]

41. You start with an impossible situation, a world without violence,

and insist that personal possession of firearms is the only solution. The rest of the world disagrees with you, and the statistics comparing rates of violent death in the US versus the rest of the world proves that gun possession does nothing for actual personal safety.

My point is that the NRA, and arms manufacturers generally, profit very well from the current situation in the US. People are fed a continual series of stories by the media about violent crime even though the incidence of violent crime is falling. Given that much of the media is owned by the same large corporations that also manufacture arms that is no surprise.

So we have a situation where the arms manufacturers/media conglomerates conspire to create a scenario of the poor US citizen in constant danger of violent crime. The poor citizen can only hope to escape this crime by purchasing large quantities of arms.

A related meme is the poor citizen who must purchase firearms to defend himself/herself from the black UN helicopters which are coming to enslave the US population and put the gun-owning patriots in FEMA camps for indoctrination into the new socialist US.

[branford]

44. I never posited that firearms are some perfect or only solution to violence.

They are, however, a legitimate too for self-defense.

Guns are not the reason why people are violent in the USA. Seeing or touching firearms don't magically make normal, peaceful people into ranging homicidal psychopaths. It also doesn't explain why countries with stricter gun control are more violent, or countries with similar levels of firearm possession are generally less violent. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the USA are from suicides, yet our suicide rate is comparable to other similarly situated countries. Would you suggest that if guns were banned, America would suddenly have one of the lowest suicide rates anywhere (unlike Japan with very strict gun control, a severe suicide problem, and deceptive statistics that count suicide/murders as just suicides)?

You've made clear you hate the firearms industry and the NRA and their purported "memes." I still fail to see the relevance to the discussion, particularly as a constitutional matter. People make choices and vote for candidates for a variety of reasons, and the NRA, the firearms industry, Brady, Bloomberg, you, me and everyone else have an equal right to discuss the topic, even for commercial gain. It's not like gun control proponents don't have billionaires, celebrities and political figures constantly advocating their cause. Unless and until both the First and Second Amendment are repealed or altered, those with opinions you hate or find offensive will be allowed to speak. I certainly would be terrified of having it any other way since the fight for broad free speech was pioneered by liberals to protect discrimination against the left (and everyone else).

[guillaumeb]

45. Ad hominem volley came in. I respond.

First attack:
"You've made clear you hate the firearms industry and the NRA and their purported "memes."

My response:
The NRA is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers disguised as an association of average citizens. The arms industry is trying to sell more product by playing the fear card. Your sentence ignores the inconvenient fact that approximately 30,000 Americans are the victims of gun violence every year. Fear sells.

Second, conflating money with speech is another of the Roberts SCOTUS decisions that further tilt the playing field in favor of the 1% under the guise of promoting speech. While you and I do have the right to speak freely, and we also have the right to write letters to the editor, or post on DU, to compare these individual rights with the right of billionaires to purchase politicians via direct contribution and outside independent groups is ridiculous.

As Anatole France once commented: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

So all free speech arguments that insist that money=speech basically mean that the 1% have more First Amendment rights than all others. Is this the new equality?

I missed your comments in reference to my stating that guns provide the illusion of safety, as well as my comments about the difficulty of actually shooting another person.

[gejohnston]

47. fact is

The NRA is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers disguised as an association of average citizens. The arms industry is trying to sell more product by playing the fear card. Your sentence ignores the inconvenient fact that approximately 30,000 Americans are the victims of gun violence every year. Fear sells.

It is in fact an association made up of five million dues paying members, similar to your National Firearms Association, who represents the interests of tens of millions citizens.
The gun control groups are funded entirely by three billionaires and a corporate foundation, hires a former Monsanto PR executive as their face and has fewer facebook likes than even the most obscure Industrial music group.

[branford]

49. Fear sells, and so does sex, power, and many other things. Who cares.

It is irrelevant whether you like or approve of why anyone wants to buy, sell or use any product, or if industries you disapprove of financially profit from products you don't like. I cannot even imagine how many industries liberals support that would be crushed if that was a legal standard. It is similarly irrelevant whether you believe guns provide an "illusion" of safety or if you believe someone "needs" to own or carry a firearm. Neither you nor I determine someone else's needs, and it cannot be disputed that firearms are in fact effective self-defense tool.

Money has been part of speech since the dawn of our republic. I don't recall Congress providing free quills, parchment and soap boxes to the citizenry. This was so well before the Roberts court, and it will continue to be so after he's gone. You essentially want to prevent anyone with ideas you oppose concerning guns from reaching the American people using their own money. I don't see you complaining about Bloomberg's billions or the time, notoriety and millions of dollars of anti-gun celebrities (all while they own guns or are protected by armed private security), no less the money spent by various gun control groups. You appear to want free speech, but only for ideas and products you approve or think you fellow citizens "need."

I don't belong to the NRA (nor own firearms) and care not one iota what they say, who they lobby, or who supports them. I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion, and as a practicing attorney, am fully aware of the constitutional and other legal issues involved with the debate. They have their right to free speech and so do I. Unlike the NRA, I can also vote.

All the incessant and shrill complaints about the NRA reveal little more than juvenile fear and loathing of the actual democratic process. It's no different that conservatives and Planned Parenthood, if not worse. The NRA is no different institutionally than Planned Parenthood, the WWF, or the Brady Campaign. They represent millions of gun owners, but reflect to views, to varying degrees, of tens of millions more. Attacking the NRA is just assailing the messenger when you've lost much of the debate concerning the actual message.

If you believe everything you wrote about guns, you need to actually convince the American people, and given the state of the law and current polling trends, it will be a herculean task. You have numerous organizations and infrastructure, ample funding sources, celebrity and political spokespeople, and determination.

All you need to do is change hearts and minds...

I suggest less complaining and more compromise.

[guillaumeb]

52. Polls have shown that the average gunowner is much more likely than the NRA

to support registration, regulations on gun show sales and private sales. The NRA is a lobbying group for the arms industry.

When you wrote: "... and it cannot be disputed that firearms are in fact effective self-defense tool. " if firearms are such an effective self defense tool, why does the US have such a high rate of firearms deaths? If they are so effective, no armed policeman should, ever be killed.

What I would like to prevent, if I had the power, is 30,000 Americans dying from gun violence every year.

Now, enough of my shrill whining, complaining, and would be censorship of all ideas that do not fit with my viewpoints.

What are your ideas regarding compromise? What, in your view, would represent a sensible approach to dealing with the epidemic of gun violence in the US?

[gejohnston]

54. polls paid for Bloomberg

done by Frank Luntz.
BTW, no NRA members support registration. There is only one gun owner I know of that supports registration, and I only know him through DU.

[guillaumeb]

56. I am certain that you can back up your ststement:

Because I can back up mine:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

and here also:

"The results appeared to show Americans have lost faith in gun control.

But drill down into specific policies, and you’ll find a broad base of support, Barry said.

The Hopkins 2015 study found large majorities favored gun regulations that are stronger than those currently seen in federal or most state laws.

For example, support for background checks for all gun sales stood above 80 percent for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent.

“The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said.

They just don’t support gun control in the abstract.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/03/support-for-gun-control-isnt-dead-new-poll-shows-it-just-matters-how-you-frame-the-question/

It all depends on how one asks the question. Apparently there are far more gun owners than you know who DO support gun regulation.

[gejohnston]

57. look at the actual poll

if you word it like a push poll, yes. If you "do you want more gun control" the answer is no. It pays to read the link provided.

Guns in the US are not unregulated. We have five federal gun control laws currently on the books, six if you count the one Gun Control Act repealed and replaced. State laws vary from stricter than Canada, New Jersey, to Vermont.

"how you frame the question" means "push poll".

Chances are, most people don't know what the current gun laws are, nor do they understand "mentally ill", who are more likely to be victims than murderers.

[guillaumeb]

60. Push polling, or effective framing in the part of the NRA?

Polls have consistently shown that while people are against "Obamacare" they are for the Affordable Care Act, especially when the provisions of the act are explained.

in my view, the NRA has won the public relations battle, while the 30,000 yearly US victims of gun violence are the losers.

[gejohnston]

64. when you say 30k

that is dishonest. Without guns, 20K would be rope violence victims. BTW, suicide is not violence. Out of the remaining less than 10K, 8450 to be exact, all but two thousand were criminals killing each other. The rest or self defense, crazy people etc.
BTW, heroin killed 8500.

[branford]

59. I don't care about the NRA, or who you believe they represent.

They have the right to say anything they want, lobby whomever they want, and spend their money however they want. This will not change so long we have the First Amendment, and it and centuries of related liberal speech and advocacy jurisprudence will not change anytime soon.

You talk of compromise. That requires concessions on both sides. Right now, gun rights advocates have supporting Supreme Court law, are ahead in polling, and have the advantage in a clear majority of statehouses. The proper question is what are you willing to concede and give up that gun right proponents want in order to trade for what you believe will actually have a demonstrative effect on gun deaths, two-thirds of which are suicides. The gun control argument is an old fixture of the culture wars. No one is going to agree to some gun control now to simply set the stage for more later. Only banning some guns now is only a "compromise" in the minds of blind ideologues and is a nonstarter. Any compromise must also pass constitutional scrutiny.

Gun rights advocates currently strongly oppose waiting periods, want concealed carry reciprocity among the states, and state preemption of gun laws within states, "shall issue" rather than "may issue" for permit applicants who meet objective standards, etc.

I believe that many gun rights advocates might support universal background checks, more mandatory time for such checks, training and proficiency certifications, harsher sentences for guns used in crime, better funding for mental health screening and treatment, support for "smart gun" technology, etc.

There is more than ample room to comprise, if you really mean it. You want new laws and regulation, and you can make the first comprise overtures.

[guillaumeb]

61. check post number 54 for an alternate viewpoint. eom.

[branford]

62. Huh? I don't care about the NRA, Bloomberg, Frank Luntz, or anyone else, on DU or elsewhere.

Although I may generally agree with getjohnston concerning guns, I'm quite capable of independently evaluating and supporting reasonable compromise.

My post was in response to yours discussing actual compromise, the type where no one ends up happy.

The issue in Post 54 was registration. If you want registration, fine, what are you willing to give up? It's usually something that most gun owners and supporters strongly oppose (and I personally doubt will have any real effect of gun crime rates).

What are you willing to offer? I suggest a centralized national registration system of handguns (not rifles or shotgun), tightly controlled without public access or electronic records (similar to current background check data), and mandatory jail terms of no less than 15 years for employee disclosure per name or item of information, and in return, federal concealed carry reciprocity, federal preemption of any firearm waiting periods and local registration requirements, and mandatory "shall issue" laws.

I think you'd be surprised about what the generally silent middle in this country would be willing to support. However, I cannot stress enough that demanding some gun control legislation without accompanying concessions to gun rights advocates is not comprise, it's surrender, and will not be considered. Offering partial bans and seemingly less comprehensive regulations that you may want is not really a concession to your opponents.

[guillaumeb]

65. I think that compromise has already been achieved, given that the Robert's SCOTUS decision

basically gave the gun crowd all that they wanted.

When you mentioned some of your suggestions, I noticed that all of them infringe on states rights in favor of Federal oversight. Given that the GOP is always in favor of states rights as opposed to federal regulation, would not these "pre-emptive" federal rules outrage the GOP southern base?

As to surprise about the silent middle, the gun crowd might be shocked at what regulations the silent middle would accept in return for a cessation of the endless series of so-called isolated incidents involving guns and dead civilians.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. "I think that compromise has already been achieved..." I don't. Again, what will you give up?

[guillaumeb]

67. How many people must die to satisfy the gun crowd?

Guns provide the illusion of security. But armed police are killed every week. The illusion is helped by a constant stream of movies that promote the illusion of the gun carrying hero who always and only kills the bad people. But many people do not realize that these movies are not reality, they are movies.

I would suggest that absent a clearly defined occupational need, all handguns be banned for personal possession. Long guns would be acceptable, but the guns would need to be kept locked or safed. Magazines could be limited to 5 rounds. That is enough for hunting, enough for target shooting, enough for personal home defense.

In addition, gun insurance policies should be required. Such policies would specify the types of firearms covered.

Finally, all sales would require a FOID card, including gun shows and private sales.

What do you think?

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Your definition of 'compromise' seems to be different from mine

com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun
noun: compromise; plural noun: compromises

1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

verb
verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising

1.
settle a dispute by mutual concession.

I see no concession on your part, only a modification of demands with nothing offered in
return.

Given the demonstrated mendacity and self-righteous moralizing, there's no reason
for gun owners to regard their opponents as honest,

[guillaumeb]

71. The compromise was my acceptance of the Robert's SCOTUS decision,

a decision I consider to be ridiculous and against the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, that ther is a personal right to privately own firearms.

But I will accept that flawed decision in return for sensible regulations.

Mutual concession. But many in the gun crowd will accept no limits or regulations on gun ownership and possession.

Is this YOUR idea of compromise?

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. That's no concession, that's acceptance of the status quo

I will be blunt- you do not have the political capital to achieve what you want, and
gun owners have no good reason to work with you

Mutual concession. But many in the gun crowd will accept no limits or regulations on gun ownership and possession.

Is this YOUR idea of compromise?

That's MY idea of a strawman argument. If you can show me any DUer who advocates
"...no limits or regulations on gun ownership and possession." I'll argue with them myself

[guillaumeb]

74. check out post 54

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Not supporting registration =/= "no limits or regulations on gun ownership and possession"

Once again, "not wanting the gun control *I* want" is conflated with "not wanting any gun control
at all"

[branford]

75. Offering to allow people to keep what they already have,

when you have no power or political capital to take it away, in return for regulations you lack the legal or political ability to enact, is a demand for surrender from a superior foe, the very opposite of compromise and definition of bad faith. Your belief in the ill will or bad character of your opponents is entirely irrelevant to the simple political and electoral calculus.

As for you assertion that there are "no limits or regulations on gun ownership and possession," it is so absurd on its face as to engender nothing but scorn and contempt. We even have a background checks system due to the original political support of groups like the NRA, an entire federal agency primary dedicated to firearms, the BAFTE, and the list of federal, state and local laws, both civil and criminal, concerning firearms is immense and unlike any other product, no less one that is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Again, you are free promote your own theories as to the intent of the framers or language of the Constitution (although your interpretation asserts a protection for "militia rights," and would be a conspicuous exception to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the rights of the People), as well as insist gun rights advocates yield to pervasive and burdensome demands on gun ownership, possession and use, all without offering anything they want in return. However, you should not be surprised when no one accedes to your demands, gun rights continue to be liberalized throughout the land, more guns are sold, and you are left doing little more than complaining anonymously on the internet about what allegedly went wrong. Do not forget that with each new court win or pro-gun law, the leverage of gun control advocates for any comprise diminishes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Our interlocutor has not offered any argument that hasn't been seen here before

Said arguments have failed before, were seen to have failed, and are still failing as we speak.

As is common among true believers of every stripe, they would rather cling to them to
the bitter end rather than say to themselves "This isn't working, maybe I/we ought to
try something different"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. "against the clear intent of the framers"

The opening battle of the American Revolution was fought when the British were marching to seize a weapons cache.

[guillaumeb]

96. The Second Amendment links bearing arms to a well regulated militia.

Why do you think it was written in that way? Why mention a well regulated militia first, if not to demonstrate the linkage between bearing arms and serving in a well regulated militia?

[gejohnston]

147. no, this is a compromise

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/04/swiss-arms-cz858-prohibition-reversed-canadian-timeline-gallery/

Gun owners and the Crown won and lost something.

[Straw Man]

84. Illusions.

Guns provide the illusion of security. But armed police are killed every week.

So why do the police persist in arming themselves?

I would suggest that absent a clearly defined occupational need, all handguns be banned for personal possession.

So guns can be used to earn a living ("occupational need&quot but not to defend one's person? Let's hear it for sacrificing lives on the altar of capitalism.

Long guns would be acceptable, but the guns would need to be kept locked or safed. Magazines could be limited to 5 rounds. That is enough for hunting, enough for target shooting, enough for personal home defense.

But how is one to defend one's home with a rifle that is locked or safed? That requirement certainly hands the advantage to the criminal. I can see it for homes with small children, but as a universal requirement it makes no sense.

As for the five-round limitation, would you require that of police as well? Or are their lives worth more than ours?

[guillaumeb]

97. If a gun is protection against violence,

why does violence strike armed people every week?

As to locking and/or safing your weapon, how often are you threatened with imminent violence in your home? Hourly? daily? Every week?

[branford]

98. See my full responses in Posts 31 and 40.

Just because someone is statistically unlikely to be victim of violent crime does not mean everyone forfeits one of the best tools for self-defense if they indeed become a victim. Note also that each individuals risk profile is decidedly different, and changes based on geographic location, class, race, profession, age, disability, etc.

Moreover, no one has ever stated that owning or carrying a firearms immunizes people to violence or crime. That is absurd. A firearm simply is a means of self-defense, and provides a choice under certain circumstances. Your comment appears to ignore that unarmed people similarly face violence every week, or that firearms are actually used successfully for self-defense, often without firing a shot.

Here's a fairly balanced article from Slate reviewing the recent CDC report concerning firearm violence, including defense gun use, that you might find enlightening. It (and the CDC report) has someone for all sides of the debate

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

[Straw Man]

100. It's a matter of degree.

If a gun is protection against violence,

why does violence strike armed people every week?

And I ask you again: If a gun is not protection against violence, why do police carry them?

No protection is absolute. I would still rather have a gun when facing a violent threat to my life than not have one.

As to locking and/or safing your weapon, how often are you threatened with imminent violence in your home? Hourly? daily? Every week?

It's a ludicrous question. Do you only recommend fire extinguishers for people who have already experienced a fire? Do you tell drivers that have never had an accident that they don't need to wear seatbelts?

There are devices for securing firearms in such a way that they are still fairly accessible. People with children and frequent guests in the home should make use of them. But there is no reason that a person who lives alone should not have ready access to a firearm whenever he/she is at home. A gun that is under one's immediate control is safe, whether it is locked or not.

This assumes, of course, that one is not a violent criminal. That notion the such people would keep their weapons locked is laughable.

[guillaumeb]

102. Here is a specific scenario that is repeated many times every year.

Person A is walking on a street when confronted with Person B, who is holding a gun. What response would you make if you were Person A?

Assume for the point of argument that this is a face to face confrontation, with a handgun pointing at Person A.

Does Person A:
Attempt to draw a weapon, hoping that Person B will not really fire?
Attempt to comply with Person B's demand?
Another option of your choosing?

[Straw Man]

103. One scenario? Please.

We can construct scenarios until the cows come home. Nothing is proven one way or another.

In that scenario, much would depend on reading the intentions of Person B. Some assailants may kill regardless of compliance. Others are only looking to take the money and run. I would probably hand over the money -- if the robber beats a hasty retreat, the encounter is over. If not, it's time to start shooting because that's what he probably intends to do.

One thing is certain, though: If person A decides to draw a weapon, he or she must not hesitate to fire quickly and repeatedly.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.

[guillaumeb]

104. Please repeat the questions. Thank you in advance.

[Straw Man]

117. Repeating.

Please repeat the questions. Thank you in advance.

If a gun is not protection against violence, why do police carry them?

Do you only recommend fire extinguishers for people who have already experienced a fire?

Do you tell drivers that have never had an accident that they don't need to wear seatbelts?

[guillaumeb]

144. A gun can be a protection against violence.

It depends on the people involved. A lunatic may not be deterred by a gun.

[Straw Man]

146. Well ...

A lunatic may not be deterred by a gun.

Being shot tends to be a deterrent to anybody.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

150. No pun intended but ^^^ thread killer n/t

[pablo_marmol]

113. Wrong question to ask, IMO.

There will always be a small, bold percentage of the population that will attack armed officers. How much more frequently would LEO's be attacked if they weren't able to defend themselves with batons, chemical agent, tasers and firearms? We live in a violent nation.

As to locking and/or safing your weapon, how often are you threatened with imminent violence in your home? Hourly? daily? Every week?

Again, wrong question. Depending on where one lives, the chances of being assaulted in or out of one's dwelling will vary. Even in a relatively crime-free area, the chance of being assaulted over the course of one's adult life is more that zero. Consequently, some citizens will exercise their right to be prepared. They know how to safely handle firearms, keep their perishable skills intact, practice safe storage, and will never pose a threat to another citizen.

You seem to be better able to challenge your biases than others who visit "The Gungeon". Would you be up to reading a book, or two, or more by liberal and left-leaning authors who began their careers assuming a relationship between the raw number of guns in the U.S. and gun violence?

[branford]

68. Again, I don't care about about the GOP's stance on state's rights.

Both parties support state's rights when it suits them, and federal supremacy the rest of the time, regardless of whether the issue is abortion, guns, gay marriage, religious accommodation, etc. Politicians, D's, R's and everyone else, are all hypocrites and panderers.

As you requested, I offered some suggested compromises that I believe would pass constitutional scrutiny and offer benefits to both sides. Of course, you are free to disagree with my ideas, but you haven't offered viable alternatives you believe could muster bipartisan support.

If the only "comprises" you and others will really accept involve increasingly strict gun control without any actual concessions to gun rights, the current situation where gun rights are consistently expanding, more guns are being purchased, and courts continue to support broad second amendment jurisprudence (and gun rights being used as an electoral wedge against Democrats), will be the norm for the long foreseeable future. I simply don't understand how making the perfect the enemy of the good is a viable political or legal strategy.

I'm a lifelong liberal NYC Democrat, attorney and former DOJ / NIJ employee, and I don't own firearms or have any desire to do so. If you can't reach an accommodation with people like me, you might as well forget the firearm issue entirely.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. "Compromise", here, means "we're willing to settle for a little now, without anything in return,...

...and with no believeable guarantee that we won't seek more later"

I've been reading DU for over a decade, and and a member for nearly as long.

AFAICT, not one gun control advocate on DU who has called for 'compromise' has been
actually been willing to concede *anything* when pressed for examples.

[pablo_marmol]

115. "AFAICT, not one gun control advocate on DU who has called for 'compromise'.......

has been actually willing to concede *anything* when pressed for examples.

Absolutely truth. And this dynamic pertains to Facebook "debates" and "debates" on other discussion boards as well.

[branford]

31. Nobody wants to be a statistic.

Citing statistics about (thankfully) decreasing crime rates overall, including gun crimes, ultimately offers very little consolation to actual crime victims and their families.

Whether you like it or not, firearms are one of the best self-defense equalizers currently available. It makes the very old, weak, infirm, disabled or outnumbered generally able to defend themselves against most younger and stronger criminals, often without firing a shot. So long as this is the case, people will want guns for the defense of themselves and their friends and family.

In any event, it's not for you or I to judge why someone else feels the need to own or use a product that is not only legal, but guaranteed by an enumerated constitutional right. As a liberal I find such potential government intrusiveness abhorrent, and the firearm issue often sadly makes otherwise smart progressive people shockingly authoritarian.

It is additionally important to note that firearms are not only used for self-defense purposes. Sport, hunting and other endeavors are also perfectly legal and legitimate uses that Americans have historically enjoyed and unwilling to give up. These too constitute "needs."

Lastly, I never understood the complaint about the numbers of gun people may own. I personally do not and have never owned a firearm. It's a choice I'm comfortable with in my very safe work and residential neighborhoods here in Manhattan (and since I'm an attorney with ample political and criminal justice connections, acquiring a license for a firearms would not prove difficult). However, guns are tools, and different types, sizes and calibers of firearms serve different purposes for different people, including the simple desire to collect, not unlike cars, stamps, coins, or anything else. Owning multiple guns appears to shock only those who believe one gun is too many. Regardless, a single person can only hold and use so many firearms and accessories at one time.

[guillaumeb]

39. To address your contentions:

1) Citing statistics about (thankfully) decreasing crime rates overall, including gun crimes, ultimately offers very little consolation to actual crime victims and their families.

This shows the power of advertising to shape peoples' opinions in spite of fact. The arms industry is using a fear of crime to influence behavior for the sole purpose of the bottom line of the arms manufacturers.

2) Whether you like it or not, firearms are one of the best self-defense equalizers currently available. It makes the very old, weak, infirm, disabled or outnumbered generally able to defend themselves against most younger and stronger criminals, often without firing a shot. So long as this is the case, people will want guns for the defense of themselves and their friends and family.

There is a huge difference between pointing and firing. That is why it takes much training in the military to be able to actually point a weapon knowing that you will shoot. Plus the ability to defend oneself depends upon actually recognizing that there is a threat, getting access to a weapon, loading a weapon, pointing the weapon and actually hitting the target.
Unless of course the potential victim is always walking around with the loaded weapon and the attacker approaches in an overtly threatening manner.

3) In any event, it's not for you or I to judge why someone else feels the need to own or use a product that is not only legal, but guaranteed by an enumerated constitutional right. As a liberal I find such potential government intrusiveness abhorrent, and the firearm issue often sadly makes otherwise smart progressive people shockingly authoritarian.

The key phrase here is "enumerated constitutional right". Only the Robert's SCOTUS has found that individual possession of a firearm to be such a right.

And if the Second Amendment does/did indeed enumerate such a right, what is the limit? Mortars are also firearms, as are bazookas, heavy machine guns,and other heavy ordinance. Are there, in your view, ANY limits to the claimed right to own firearms and weapons?

[branford]

42. In rebuttal,

1. Your dislike of the firearm industry is totally irrelevant to the issue of self-defense, constitutional rights or anything else. You also really didn't address the fact that generally decreasing crime rates does not equal overall perfect or near perfect levels of safety or whether any particular individual may have a heightened need for self-defense or require a tool to provide more reasonable opportunity for self defense, such as individuals who are weak, old or infirm, engaged in high risk professions such as those dealing with large amounts of cash or valuables, or people living in dangerous neighborhoods or well away from law enforcement.

2. I really don't understand you point, other than a vague demand that people who own guns should receive some training, a point neither I nor most gun rights supporters would generally dispute.

Your statement that "Unless of course the potential victim is always walking around with the loaded weapon and the attacker approaches in an overtly threatening manner," is really nothing more than a justification or concession for concealed or open carry, although that obviously is not your intent.

I would also note that no one has claimed that owning or carrying a firearms is a perfect means of self-defense or immunizes someone from being a victim. That would be ludicrous. A firearm simply provides an option or choice under certain circumstances that you personally believe some or all people do not need or deserve, regardless of real or perceived need.

3. It would be unproductive to engage in a lengthy dissertation about constitutional history or intent concerning firearms or the distinctions between arms and ordinance. Much of what you contend is opinion masquerading as fact due repeated assertions by various gun control groups to change public opinion. You should read some Laurence Tribe, a liberal gun opponent and one of the most distinguished constitutional scholars of our time, for the basics of the defects in your argument. In any event, despite your dislike of the Roberts court, the RKBA has indeed been held to be a broad individual right, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.

More importantly and far more relevant, the Second Amendment is not currently the obstacle to pervasive gun control. It could disappear tomorrow, and not much would change federally or in the clear majority of states. First, virtually all state constitutions have Second Amendment analogs, and their precise language and related jurisprudence is often even more protective of gun rights that anything from the Supreme Court.

Much of the recent proposed gun control legislation, such as UBC's, could also likely withstand constitutional scrutiny. However, gun control advocates lack the simple democratic mandate through our elected representatives to pass such legislation. UBC's couldn't even pass the Senate when Democrats were in charge, no less now when Republicans control all of Congress and the clear majority of statehouses and governorships. Whining about the NRA or firearms advertising doesn't change electoral math (or their First Amendment rights), and as for related complaints about money and political spending, I would remind you that in the recent Colorado recall elections, gun control groups outspent the recall proponents 6 to 1, and still lost badly.

[guillaumeb]

43. Rerturning service:

1 and 2) There is no such thing as perfect safety. But the issue should be framed "do guns provide such safety", and clearly they do not. Guns provide the perception of safety. They give a feeling of safety to people who are being persuaded by the corporate media that safety is a massive issue.

People who live in houses with guns are far more likely to be involved in instances of gun violence, far more likely to commit gun-suicide. These facts are ignored by those who promote gun ownership as the panacea for violence.

My point about training, a point that is common knowledge in the military, is that it is difficult to teach people to point a gun and attempt to kill another person. It is also difficult to teach people to shoot well in stressful situations. So again, the ownership of a firearm does not provide any real safety, it gives the illusion of safety.

Finally, arms manufacturers do an excellent job of buying politicians. Claims that money=First Amendment protected speech aside, follow the money.

[gejohnston]

48. still wrong

People who live in houses with guns are far more likely to be involved in instances of gun violence, far more likely to commit gun-suicide. These facts are ignored by those who promote gun ownership as the panacea for violence.

those are not facts. Those are claims made by gun control activists based on shoddy studies that failed peer review.

Finally, arms manufacturers do an excellent job of buying politicians. Claims that money=First Amendment protected speech aside, follow the money

Bloomberg, Gates, and the Joyce foundation have more money than all of the gun manufactures in the US and Canada combined.

My point about training, a point that is common knowledge in the military, is that it is difficult to teach people to point a gun and attempt to kill another person. It is also difficult to teach people to shoot well in stressful situations. So again, the ownership of a firearm does not provide any real safety, it gives the illusion of safety.

Yet is is done many times in the US. Another point based on assumptions you might have read written by people who are either clueless or lying.

[guillaumeb]

51. Do you define "shoddy studies" as those with results that challenge your beliefs? eom

[gejohnston]

53. no, but I'm certain you do

I define "shoddy" as studies that have any of the following characteristics:
poor methodology without controls
done by nonscientists
if scientist, not in relevant field
funded by advocacy groups
not peer reviewed
if published in peer reviewed journal, not in the relevant field
wouldn't likely pass peer review in relevant journal.

The study you mention hits four of those. The Johns Hopkins hits five of those.
What is your opinion of this study?
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X

[guillaumeb]

69. Addressing your points:

You stated:

Whether you like it or not, firearms are one of the best self-defense equalizers currently available. It makes the very old, weak, infirm, disabled or outnumbered generally able to defend themselves against most younger and stronger criminals, often without firing a shot. So long as this is the case, people will want guns for the defense of themselves and their friends and family.

My response:
That assumes first, that the criminal does not also have a firearm. If he/she does, all bets are off.

Second, you stated:

In any event, it's not for you or I to judge why someone else feels the need to own or use a product that is not only legal, but guaranteed by an enumerated constitutional right. As a liberal I find such potential government intrusiveness abhorrent, and the firearm issue often sadly makes otherwise smart progressive people shockingly authoritarian.

My response:
enumerated constitutional rights have evolved or been modified depending on SCOTUS composition. If I felt a need to own a mortar, is this also a need that must be allowed?

Third:
It is additionally important to note that firearms are not only used for self-defense purposes. Sport, hunting and other endeavors are also perfectly legal and legitimate uses that Americans have historically enjoyed and unwilling to give up. These too constitute "needs."

My response:
I have no problem with hunting, as long as hunters follow regulations when applicable. My family hunts.

As to ownership, the papers are filled with stories of straw buyers who purchase large numbers of forearms only to resell them to others. Many in the gun crowd are averse to ANY restrictions on sales and registration.

[jimmy the one]

33. more & more people do NOT own guns

band leader: The actual incidence of gun violence in America has been steadily decreasing for decades depite the fact that more law abiding people are walking around with concealed firearms under their shirts than ever before and despite the fact that there are more guns in america than every before.

Specious; Band leader does not mention that during those very 'decades' (both of them), gun ownership RATES have declined by approx. 35%, which would undermine his nonsensical inferences.
Then band leader contends 'more law abiding people are walking around with concealed firearms under their shirts than ever before' .
Well la dee da, more americans than ever before do NOT own guns due population increases. Duh, you exploit population increases. You could only say there is a slight rate increase in people carrying guns, but you cannot validly say there is an increase in gun ownership rates, since they have been falling.


The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our {PEW} surveys largely confirm the {GSS} General Social Survey trend. In our Dec1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan2013 Pew survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/ --- pg4;

I wouldn't pay much attention to band leader's spin, guillaume.

[the band leader]

35. More and more people do own guns every year

and more and more people are carrying guns every year.

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership

Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) are more likely than Democrats (including Democratic leaners) to say they have a gun in their household: 55% to 40%. While sizable, this partisan gap is narrower than that seen in recent years, as Democrats' self-reported gun ownership spiked to 40% this year.


The percentage of women who report household gun ownership is also at a new high, now registering 43%.


One in Three Americans Personally Own a Gun

Since 2000, Gallup has asked respondents with guns in their households a follow-up question to determine if the gun belongs to the respondent or to someone else. On this basis, Gallup finds that 34% of all Americans personally own a gun

Jimmy the one says: I wouldn't pay much attention to band leader's spin
You're the one spinning bro.

EDIT: oh, and what I actually said was: The actual incidence of gun violence in America has been steadily decreasing for decades despite the fact that more law abiding people are walking around with concealed firearms under their shirts than ever before and despite the fact that there are more guns in America than every before.


So, people who misquote others really can't accuse the person they misquoted of "spinning".

[jimmy the one]

127. republican leaning gallup, those years

oct 2011, Gallup: 47% of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere..

I prefer the other two reputable polls as being more correct - GSS & Pew, which corroborate each other that gun ownership rates have fallen over the past ~20 years. I find Gallup suspect on gun polls, due it's recent rightwing bias. Any republican lean or bias would also translate into a more 'pro gun' result in gun polling:

1). Gallup has if anything been less accurate in the past than other pollsters in presidential elections
2). Gallup in 2010 also had a Republican tilt and it was wildly off-the-mark
3). Gallup leans more Republican than you think
sep 2012: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/gallup-rasmussen-polling-outliers-lean-republican

Nate Silver, 538, jun2012: Conversely, Gallup’s polls have been leaning Republican this year, by about 2.5 points.
6/2012: ... Over the past few years, however, polling junkies have noticed something curious: Gallup's polls have produced results that appear slightly but consistently more negative to President Obama than those produced by other firms. .. Huffington Post has conducted an independent analysis that confirms the phenomenon and points to a likely explanation. The problem lies in the way that Gallup handles the racial composition of its samples.. Gallup's weighting often falls short when it comes to hitting the targets for race and Hispanic ancestry... when we applied the actual weights used by Gallup, the weighted values for black and Hispanic identification fell slightly short of those targets in all but one instance. The weighted Hispanic percentage fell below the target in all seven cases. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/gallup-poll-race-barack-obama_n_1589937.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster

nov 2009: the truth is that the Gallup Poll has for the past several months consistently shown a smaller Democratic advantage in party identification than other national polls.The average Democratic advantage in party identification in the Gallup Poll since June, +6, is substantially smaller than the average in every other major national poll. In fact, no other major poll has shown that small a Democratic advantage even once during this time period. This is significant, of course, because party identification is very strongly correlated with opinions on other questions such as presidential approval, attitudes toward health care reform, and the generic ballot question {AND GUN CONTROL}. For example, Gallup recently showed Republicans leading on its generic ballot question for the first time this year. Of the other major polls that have asked this question, all except Rasmussen have continued to show a Democratic lead on the generic ballot question.
Gallup’s results with party leaners included have shown an even smaller Democratic advantage recently. Most other national polls do not report party identification results with leaners included, but the WP/ABC does, and it has consistently shown a substantially larger Democratic advantage than Gallup. Now there is nothing unusual about “house effects” in polls but until fairly recently Gallup was considered to be in the mid-range when it came to house effects. Based on these recent results, however, it appears that Gallup now has a significant Republican lean compared with most other national polls. And because of its prestige and the frequency of its polls, Gallup also has a disproportionate influence on public and elite perceptions of the state of public opinion on major issues. http://www.frumforum.com/does-gallup-poll-have-a-pro-gop-bias/

[sarisataka]

132. Yet it is Pew, not Gallup

Reporting in the OP that more Americans are seeing guns as the solution instead of the problem.
It was alsoa Pew poll that showed Americans favoring gun rights as more important than gun control.


Seems odd that with more looking at guns in a positive fashion that less are actually owning them.

[jimmy the one]

137. flaw in poll wording

sarisatake: Yet it is Pew, not Gallup Reporting in the OP that more Americans are seeing guns as the solution instead of the problem. It was also a Pew poll that showed Americans favoring gun rights as more important than gun control

Thanks for giving Pew respectability, tho I now tend to undermine your cited poll, with reservations.

I think you knew of this & coyly disregarded it, didn't you?: Pew Admits Flaw In Poll Being Used To Attack Stronger Gun Laws Pew Research Center released the results of a survey that asked respondents whether it is more important to "control gun ownership" or to "protect the right of Americans to own guns." The poll showed increased support for the gun rights answer and a drop in support for regulating guns. But academics from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research criticized the poll question saying that the query forces respondents to choose between two options that are not mutually exclusive and pointing out that polls consistently show broad public backing for specific gun regulations, such as expanding the background check system to make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to obtain weapons.
"Pew's question presents one side emphasizing the protection of individual rights versus restricting gun ownership. The question's implicit and incorrect assumption is that regulations of gun sales infringe on gun owners' rights and control their ability to own guns,"
.. Mother Jones reported: Carroll Doherty, PEW's director of political research, acknowledged the flaw. "Is it a perfect question? Probably not," "This is in no way intended to say there's not support for background checks and some measures aimed at specific policies either [in Congress] or in the states. Mr. Webster {JH} is right to put it in context."

sarisatake: Seems odd that with more looking at guns in a positive fashion that less are actually owning them

Why? makes sense that non gun owners, whether children or relatives in families of gun owners would feel that way. Rethink your above remark which I think sophomoric.

[sarisataka]

139. The question was phrased the same

For 25years IIRC. Why is it suddenly an issue? It may not give as accurate a result but by using the same phrasing it can be deduced that the trend is away from control.

You also did not dispute the OP poll conducted by Pew.

[jimmy the one]

149. unfamiliar voters

sarisataka: The question was phrased the same .. For 25years IIRC. Why is it suddenly an issue? It may not give as accurate a result but by using the same phrasing it can be deduced that the trend is away from control.

Unwittingly increases the margin of error, by swaying to the pro gun position.
It is an issue to those unfamiliar with the gun control issue, or those disinterested. To you & I the question is familiar & we know which way to answer to define our positions. Unfamiliar or disinterested responders will be swayed by the wording to answer to the pro gun position.

You also did not dispute the OP poll conducted by Pew.

To dispute I need only point to that poll which found that a significant portion of Americans thought violent crime was rising, within a few years back. Wonder what the poll would be if they were aware it had been declining for 20 years.
What does it prove anyway? both the belief that guns can prevent or stop crime is not disparate with gun control for those very guns & gun owners.

[jimmy the one]

131. rise & fall of gallup methodology

band leader cites gallup: 47% of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property .. Gallup finds that 34% of all Americans personally own a gun

As we've seen in my previous post, gallup has tended towards a republican lean during the 21st century.

The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend.
In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household;
in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home.
A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home,
as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

Pew survey conducted Feb. 13-18 {2013} 37% of adults reported having a gun in their household: 24% say they personally own a gun, and 13% say the gun or guns in their home are owned by someone else. These figures are not significantly different from the 2012 General Social Survey estimates that 34% of households have guns, and 22% of individuals own a gun.

So, ~2012................ Pew ......... GSS ........... Gallup, biased right
gun in home: ......... 33% ........... 34% .................... 47%
gun personally: ...... 24% ........... 22% .................... 34%

I'll take more stock in pew & gss, rather than gallup due its 21st century rightwing bias.

Hmmmm: June 2003, Gallup's CEO James Clifton gave $2,000 to a very right-wing Republican who was running for Senate, Herman Cain..
wiki: Key people George Gallup (Founder) Jim Clifton (Chairman & CEO)

Any comments band leader? poppet?

analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result (Obama/Romney); 2008 U.S. presidential election, Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision

Alleged violations of the False Claims Act and the Procurement Integrity Act In July 2013, Department of Justice announced that Gallup had agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act and the Procurement Integrity Act for conduct involving several of its federal government contracts and subcontracts. The complaint alleged that Gallup knowingly overstated its true estimated labor hours in proposals to the U.S. Mint and State Department for contracts and task orders that were to be awarded without competition. Because of Gallup’s conduct, the complaint alleged, the two federal agencies awarded Gallup contracts and task orders at falsely inflated prices. The settlement also resolved allegations that Gallup engaged in improper employment negotiations with a then Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) official, Timothy Cannon, in order to obtain a FEMA subcontract at an inflated price and additional FEMA funding after the subcontract had been awarded. The allegations against Gallup were originally brought in a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Michael Lindley, Gallup’s former Director of Client Services. As a result of the settlement with Gallup, Lindley will receive $1,929,363 as his share of the government’s recovery. Under the settlement, there was no prosecution and no determination of liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)

[Lizzie Poppet]

108. You actually trust unverified phone surveys on an increasingly sensitive topic?

Seriously? That's priceless.

FWIW, I don't know ANY gun owners who would admit to a complete stranger that they possessed firearms, regardless of any assurance of confidentiality.

Not one.

[jimmy the one]

122. unverified phone surveys

poppet: You actually trust unverified phone surveys on an increasingly sensitive topic? Seriously? That's priceless.

I'll redirect your concern towards band leader, his 'priceless' gallup survey from 2011: Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region.
Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Do poppet & band leader fit in here?: Middle-aged adults -- those 35 to 54 years of age -- and adults with no college education are more likely than their counterparts to be gun owners.

poppet: FWIW, I don't know ANY gun owners who would admit to a complete stranger that they possessed firearms, regardless of any assurance of confidentiality.

Maybe if you asked them after a recent birthday, en espanol.

[Lizzie Poppet]

125. I'm very well aware of survey methodologies, actually.

I do this sort of thing for a living (that is, review of scientific publications is a part of what I do).

The rather well known (in the field) problem with surveys in which there is no physical verification of the accuracy of responses is that when the subject matter is sensitive and/or controversial, respondents are motivated to lie to the survey taker. Assurances of confidentiality don't greatly ameliorate that tendency. For this reason, conventional margin-of-error estimates (which are based on a rather simple objective calculation that doesn't account for those motivations) are not reliable.

Where do I fit in? Well, I am middle aged...but I have a PhD.

[jimmy the one]

129. pejoratively priceless

poppet: I'm very well aware of survey methodologies, actually.

That wasn't my concern, which was why you admonished my post for relying more on gss & pew, while not realizing gallup had the same methodologies. Then here you equivocate, without admonishing band leader for the very same thing re gallup's survey methodologies.

You had written: You actually trust unverified phone surveys on an increasingly sensitive topic? Seriously? That's priceless.

Is band leader's gallup posting pejoratively 'priceless' as well?

poppet's equivocation - uh, brava, so to speak, nice tapdance to self exonerate yourself from your dilemma:
The rather well known (in the field) problem with surveys in which there is no physical verification of the accuracy of responses is that when the subject matter is sensitive and/or controversial, respondents are motivated to lie to the survey taker. Assurances of confidentiality don't greatly ameliorate that tendency. For this reason, conventional margin-of-error estimates (which are based on a rather simple objective calculation that doesn't account for those motivations) are not reliable.

[Lizzie Poppet]

134. Consider learning what words actually mean before attempting to employ them.

Start with "equivocation."

I didn't refer to posts by band leader because my response to your nonsense about fewer Americans owning guns had nothing to do with band leader's posts. They're completely irrelevant to the point I was making to you. Consider also looking up "disjuncture" while you're at it. If he's making the same error, then feel free to apply my points to his claims, as well. I'll be glad to help you with the more challenging aspects of statistical analysis if you like.

Full disclosure: I responded less because I thought you would grasp the point (to say nothing of actually respond to it in a substantive manner), but more because I suspected whatever wharrgarbl you did respond with would be amusing.

And it was...

[jimmy the one]

148. equivocation was used properly, ms phd

poppet: Consider learning what words actually mean before attempting to employ them. Start with "equivocation."

▸ noun: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language
▸ noun: intentionally vague or ambiguous
▸ noun: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
http://www.onelook.com/?w=equivocation&ls=a

American heritage, equivocation: 1. The use of equivocal language.
2. An equivocal statement or expression
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=equivocation

equivocal: an equivocal statement has more than one possible meaning and is made in order to avoid saying something clearly more... not clearly showing the real situation or providing a definite result

For someone with a phd you don't know squat about what equivocation means. I used it properly & correctly, while you blundered.

poppet's equivocation - not clearly showing the real situation, & made in order to avoid saying something clearly more: In somewhat synonymous terms, tap dancing.
The rather well known (in the field) problem with surveys in which there is no physical verification of the accuracy of responses is that when the subject matter is sensitive and/or controversial, respondents are motivated to lie to the survey taker. Assurances of confidentiality don't greatly ameliorate that tendency. For this reason, conventional margin-of-error estimates (which are based on a rather simple objective calculation that doesn't account for those motivations) are not reliable.

And you only equivocated more in your post 134, to which I will ignore, since it's just 'piled higher & deeper' - which is what a lot of phd's stand for.

[Lizzie Poppet]

151. No, it wasn't, actually.

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 09:51 AM - Edit history (2)

There was nothing even remotely "vague or ambiguous" about my post. You may have preferred that I incorporate something about band leader's posts (given that it would deflect from your beginner's error in citing unsound research), but there was absolutely no logical or contextual requirement that I do so. There was no avoidance (given that at the time, I hadn't even read band leader's post: nothing to avoid). And there was nothing remotely vague about my statements, unless you are having difficulty comprehending them, which would be unsurprising.

There is, however, considerable irony in all this. Your desperate, bafflegab-laden flailing to avoid addressing the arguments against the methodologically-unsound surveys you cite is a vastly better illustration of equivocation than anything I posted. Re-read the definitions you copy-pasted (sans comprehension). Let me know if you need help with any of it. Of course, you'll have to stop desperately deflecting to do that...and I'll not hold my breath.

Sweetie, I've forgotten more about proper use of language than you will lever know. Your every cringeworthy, hideously misconstructed mess of a post makes that abundantly clear. You can (ineptly) string together all the copypasta you like in "response" to the evisceration of your childish arguments, but that's not gonna change.

Face it: surveys on sensitive matters that lack physical verification of the truthfulness of the replies are useless. That was the sole point of my reply (thus making your claim of equivocation on my part laughable), and you've managed fuck-all in terms of refutation. You're hiding behind a transparent deflection in order to avoid addressing your demonstrated error.

Quelle surprise!

Your ghastly, ill-reasoned word salads might fool some of the less-gifted, least-educated readers here...but trust me, they don't fool anyone else.

[jimmy the one]

153. poppet's poor preparation

poppet: There was nothing even remotely "vague or ambiguous" about my post

Not that those were the only criterions for my criticism, but yes there was.

poppet: You may have preferred that I incorporate something about band leader's posts, but there was absolutely no logical or contextual requirement that I do so.

Therein lies the vagueness, since you replied to my post 122 about BL/gallup's phone surveys being the same method as the surveys which I posted, with a tangential explanation of why respondents are motivated to lie to the poll taker. In context, who cares why they lie? band leader rested his case on the gallup poll, yet you only admonished myself - there lies your hypocrisy. You indeed equivocated with a tangentially ambiguous reply to my post 122, since it did not address the concerns therein.
As well, another definition of equivocation via 'equivocal' speak is: .. made in order to avoid saying something clearly more... not clearly showing the real situation or providing a definite result

poppet: There was no avoidance (given that at the time, I hadn't even read band leader's post: nothing to avoid).

I'm to know this, how? and what difference does it ultimately make? aww, poor poppet didn't read what I replied to & based my reply on, who's to blame for that? I presumed you had at least done background research to prep yourself, but you didn't so you gaffed. Don't blame me for your own sloppiness - you should be apologizing for not reading it rather than being sanctimonious.

poppet: Your desperate, bafflegab-laden flailing to avoid addressing the arguments against the methodologically-unsound surveys you cite.. Your every cringeworthy, hideously misconstructed mess of a post makes that abundantly clear.

I must horn toot here, for being 'the one' to expose ms poppet's ugly nature when wrong, since she devoted more than half her malicious reply to ad hominem, simply because she had been sloppy & hoisted herself on her own petard.

poppet: Face it: surveys on sensitive matters that lack physical verification of the truthfulness of the replies are useless.

No - you need to face it that you are wrong; You refer to unscientific internet polls; but polls such as GSS & Pew on gun ownership are not 'useless', they are revealing within a reasonable MOE just like all polls are. And since they tend to closely corroborate each other over the past 20 years, your remark is patently self serving & wrong in this instance.
FYI, all 3 polls allow a 1 or 2% allowance for non replies or false replies, I'm surprised ms smarty pants phd didn't know that.

poppet: That was the sole point of my reply (thus making your claim of equivocation on my part laughable), and you've managed fuck-all in terms of refutation. You're hiding behind a transparent deflection in order to avoid addressing your demonstrated error.

I haven't made any error, your ad hominem rant is simply your smokescreen to save face. Face it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

156. You poor thing.

It must really sting, to you've your reliance on shit-tied research exposed. Enough so that you started teh snark and ad hominem, then wallow in hypocrisy when you whinge about getting it back in return. Enough so that you make up shit about what I posted ("You refer to unscientific internet polls" - I, of course, did nothing of the sort). Enough so that you double down on your nonsense about MoE without ever addressing the one and only point of my initial response: that these kinds of surveys fail spectacularly to account for false responses. Enough so that you still fail to grasp that my response had nothing whatsoever to do with band leader's assertions and everything to do with your claim that the number of US gun owners is declining.

I'm happy to keep hammering home that point, regardless of whether you ever demonstrate the character to address it...but this is getting almost as boring as your word salads. Do you have anything whatsoever of substance to contribute, or are you just going to keep desperately tapdancing to deflect from your mistake?

[jimmy the one]

158. snake in the grass

poppet: You poor thing. It must really sting, to you've your reliance on shit-tied research exposed

Translation please, ye who has 'forgotten more about proper use of language than you will lever know'.

poppet: Enough so that you started teh snark and ad hominem, then wallow in hypocrisy when you whinge about getting it back in return.

Tack on demonstrated liar to the hissing sound coming from the corner.
Poppet's first reply to myself was referring to 3 reputable pollsters which I cited - pew, GSS, & gallup (1993-2000) - as being untrustworthy unverified phone surveys, asking if I 'seriously' believed them, & then she snarked that my post was pejoratively 'priceless'. Not so bad, but poppet started it nonetheless.

Poppet's first reply was not so bad, a snarky scoff, where I'll take her use of 'priceless' as from American heritage: 2. Highly amusing, absurd, or odd: a priceless remark:

poppet, 108: You actually trust unverified phone surveys on an increasingly sensitive topic? Seriously? That's priceless.

I parried in 122 to poppet's snarkiness in 108: Do poppet & band leader fit in here?: Middle-aged adults -- those 35 to 54 years of age -- and adults with no college education are more likely than their counterparts to be gun owners.

I posted, 129: poppet's equivocation - uh, brava, so to speak, nice tapdance to self exonerate yourself from your dilemma: Her dilemma wrt band leader also posting gallup in his 35.

Which set poppet off: Consider learning what words actually mean before attempting to employ them.. I'll be glad to help you with the more challenging aspects of statistical analysis if you like... more because I suspected whatever wharrgarbl you did respond with would be amusing. And it was...

I replied: For someone with a phd you don't know squat about what equivocation means. I used it properly & correctly, while you blundered... your post 134 -- it's just 'piled higher & deeper' -- which is what a lot of phd's stand for.

the rattler struck: Your desperate, bafflegab-laden flailing to avoid addressing the arguments .. Re-read the definitions you copy-pasted (sans comprehension). Let me know if you need help with any of it... Sweetie, I've forgotten more about proper use of language than you will lever know. Your every cringeworthy, hideously misconstructed mess of a post makes that abundantly clear. You can (ineptly) string together all the copypasta you like in "response" to the evisceration of your childish arguments... you've managed fuck-all in terms of refutation. You're hiding behind a transparent deflection in order to avoid addressing your demonstrated error... Your ghastly, ill-reasoned word salads might fool some of the less-gifted, least-educated readers here...but trust me, they don't fool anyone else.

You, poppet, first snarked about a 'priceless' reply; then there were typical light jabs; but you, poppet, ranted malicious venom, not me.

[jimmy the one]

159. another poppet petard hoist

poppet: Enough so that you still fail to grasp that my response had -- everything to do with your claim that the number of US gun owners is declining.

Cite exactly where I wrote that 'the number of US gun owners is declining'. You can't, since what I've been saying is that gun ownership RATES have declined (since ~1992).

poppet: .. my response had -- everything to do with your claim that the number of US gun owners is declining. {juxtaposed} these kinds of surveys fail spectacularly to account for false responses.

You act as if I pulled figures out of a hat, rather than cite 3 reputable pollsters, Pew, GSS, & Gallup, which all corroborated that, from ~1992 to 2000, gun ownership rates indeed declined approx. 35%: Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our {PEW} surveys largely confirm the {GSS} General Social Survey trend.
After ~2000, gallup deviated upward from both GSS & Pew. See graphs my post 131.

poppet: I'm happy to keep hammering home that point, regardless of whether you ever demonstrate the character to address it...

Your point is a false premise to begin with, since I have NOT contended the number of US gun owners has declined since ~1992, but that gun ownership RATES have declined. You evidently don't know the diff or you messed up in reading comprehension. You are 3rd in line to receive that great book 'statistics for dummies'.

poppet: Do you have anything whatsoever of substance to contribute, or are you just going to keep desperately tapdancing to deflect from your mistake?

I'm not nor have I been tapdancing. You're obviously trapped, hoisted on your own petard again. An apology is warranted but not expected, I'm too familiar with snakes in the grass. More equivocation or a clam up is what I expect - quelle surprise!

[jimmy the one]

160. scientific internet polls

poppet: Enough so that you make up shit about what I posted ("You refer to unscientific internet polls" - I, of course, did nothing of the sort).

Didn't make anything up. You referred to characteristics of unscientific internet polls, not reputable polls such as gallup, pew, & GSS (General social survey); gallup has been leaning to the right this century so a bit faulty but still generally reputable in most apolitical polls, readers can see my post 131.

poppet: 1) Face it: surveys on sensitive matters that lack physical verification of the truthfulness of the replies are useless.
2) that these kinds of surveys fail spectacularly to account for false responses.

I wrote: You refer to unscientific internet polls; but polls such as GSS & Pew on gun ownership are not 'useless', they are revealing within a reasonable MOE just like all polls are.

Internet polls exhibit the faults which poppet noted above, since they are not randomly selected but rely on whomever wishes to reply on the internet, gun owners more motivated than other respondents; indeed some internet respondents can vote several times using different computers.

[jimmy the one]

154. ms P does it again

poppet: Sweetie, I've forgotten more about proper use of language than you will lever know.

I sort of believe you dearie, that you've forgotten so much; but do reread your above sentence where you hoisted yourself on your own petard again, albeit only a small 'bang' this time. Typo alert, typo alert, try sticky keys if the problem persists.

poppet: FWIW, I don't know ANY gun owners who would admit to a complete stranger that they possessed firearms, regardless of any assurance of confidentiality. Not one.

Does band leader contradict poppet? another petard hoist for the high minded msP? or is she just barking up a dated tree?

gallup: Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws.
band leader citing gallup: the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership.

[the band leader]

152. The Band Leader puts little stock in any telephone surveys actually

and only posted the Gallup poll because you seem to put a lot of stock in telephone surveys as your entire argument revolves around a telephone survey that suggests individual gun ownership is down despite strong evidence to suggest otherwise.

It is well known that gun owning respondents are inclined to lie when asked about gun ownership. Gallup even stated this in the poll I linked to: Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership. People lie on these kinds of surveys for all kinds of reasons and pollsters, as you have already noted, introduce their own biases into their polls as well which further decreases the credibility of telephone surveys in general.

What we need are concrete numbers and what we have are NICS background checks. Looking at the number of NICS background checks performed by the FBI between 1998 and 2013, we see that there was more than a 2,200% increase in NICS background checks. But that doesn't translate into increasing individual gun ownership because you have your telephone survey that suggests otherwise.



We also have concrete numbers that show dramatic increases in the number of concealed carry permits being issued in nearly every state. Finding actual nationwide numbers is somewhat challenging but we can easily find individual state data that supports this conclusion, for example:





So, we have an irrefutable 2,200% increase in NICS checks and equally dramatic and irrefutable increases in concealed carry permits across the nation ....but gun ownership is on the decline because you have a telephone survey and that is what your hypothesis (that decreasing gun ownership equals decreasing crime rates) rests on entirely. That is weak.

[jimmy the one]

155. please drink the water

band leader: Looking at the number of NICS background checks performed by the FBI between 1998 and 2013, we see that there was more than a 2,200% increase in NICS background checks. But that doesn't translate into increasing individual gun ownership because you have your telephone survey that suggests otherwise.

You need remove the hands covering your eyes & ears, even tho it's been posted several times you apparently remain unaware that the increase in national gunstock is largely to existing gun owners. Thus the decrease in gun ownership RATES is plausibly obtainable.
And two reputable surveys GSS and Pew, corroborate each other on the decline in individual & household gun ownership rates.

Well, try again, but as we all know, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink:
A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet.. data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the UN, the General Social Survey found that the number of US households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns.. A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/

band leader: We also have concrete numbers that show dramatic increases in the number of concealed carry permits being issued in nearly every state. Finding actual nationwide numbers is somewhat challenging...:

I doubt 'dramatic increases' in 'nearly every state'; just dramatic increases moreso in those states which circa this century switched from prohibited or may issue, to shall issue. This doesn't necessarily translate into 'more gun owners' by rate. As much of a novelty item, fetish, curiosity, or status symbol among gun owners, as anything else.

[the band leader]

157. Your telephone surveys are laughable and meaningless

for most gun owners, the question "do you possess a firearm" falls squarely into the category of things known as "none of your god damned business". This is especially true in this era of registration and confiscation schemes. It's much like calling someone up and asking them "have you ever cheated on your spouse" or "have you ever had an abortion". Answer: "It's none of your god damned business. Click." The only people that would be inclined to participate in such a survey would be people that did not own firearms. their answers would be disporportionately represented in the final numbers and, as such, your telephone surveys come with a built in bias.

NICS checks have increased 2,200% since the NICS went into effect. The number of concealed carry permits issued increases every year. Firearm sales are setting records every year. This, unlike your telephone surveys, is all concrete data which strongly suggests that personal firearm ownership is increasing.

[Eleanors38]

3. The Wapo is hoisted by their own spin...

By couching their own argument as "solutions vs. problems." Given that crude, blunt-force dichotemy they set their own outlook up for a fall. The question Pew asked was more limited and goes to self-defense; WaPo chooses to cast the controversy as social policy. This has been the halmark of the Gun control outlook, and the main reason why it fails to communicate with the American people.

[angstlessk]

21. HUH?

You use big words to say nothing...unless you can translate into real language?

I hate ...ese, the language produced in order to keep outsiders OUT

[Eleanors38]

22. I'm not sure to what level I must translate, but here goes:

1). WaPo, like others in the gun control outlook, sees the RKBA in terms of social policy, those actions and common belief systems held and empowered by major institutions, chiefly governments. This is evidenced by the OP's headline (please review).

2). The Pew organization asked a very specific and narrow question of its surveyed sample which goes to an individual's belief in whether possessing a gun can be useful in saving or protecting lives. This question does not go to social policy per se, merely to a possibility of someone(s) in some situation (including the individual who was asked) who could be protected. The Wapo (again, the OP title) chose to couch the data in terms of social policy.

3) Most 2A defenders (John Lott the chief exception) see weapons in terms of self-defense, or perhaps family defense. This is eminently an individualist expression of need, and does not go to social policy, though the WaPo force-fits the survey into that mold.

4). The WaPo is in short not even on the right wave-length (a metaphor describing radio broadcasts of a certain category or frequency which, when not matched by a receiver, renders the broadcast useless or unreceived). So not only has this publication mischaracterized the debate, but chooses to see some big trend away from its rigid ideology that guns cause more problems than they solve. If they choose to believe that, so be it, but they seem to have created a political "loss" for themselves; hence, hoisting themselves by their own "spin" ("petard" or in some quarters "fart" in the original expression).

You seem to have a problem with brevity, choosing to call it "______ese," whatever that is. But you are welcome to comment further.

[samsingh]

76. i guess they want to see more gun deaths.

[DonP]

77. Except gun deaths keep falling - tough for the grabber to spin the "more guns more death" lies

Be sure and let us know when the FBI UCR finds that violent crime is actually rising, then all you control minded folks can celebrate something or other.

[branford]

78. Small addendum...

Gun deaths, and all violent crime, are consistently falling all while the number of guns is steadily increasing, ownership and carry laws pervasively liberalizing (along with the expiration of the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban), and the DOJ's own research indicating that most current gun control strategies are ineffective.

Courtesy of the DOJ (BJS and NIJ) and Pew Research:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-kispbj31jpD1LvnFSDevryH2RmVvoLw1slOBZTe-suuy96Qq69nF9BhTmcw/edit

[DonP]

79. Thanks, but you forgot one condition - "There are no new gun owners"

It's an article of faith among the control minded folk that "there are no new gun owners".

According to them (and their cartoons), it's the same handful of old, fat, white guys just buying more guns.

We even have one control fan here that immediately leaps in and desperately tries to convince everyone that there really are fewer gun owners every year, no matter how many new guns are sold or how many new Illinois FOID cards are issued to first time gun owners.

[branford]

80. Thanks for the update. I never got the "no new gun owners" memo.

Unfortunately, Department of Justice, Pew and Gallup reports, surveys and polls don't have any of those informative cartoons...

[DonP]

81. That's OK

The first time shooters in my CC classes with shiny new FOID cards didn't get the memo either.

They don't know they aren't supposed to exist, especially all the women taking the classes, about 30% of the students are female and more than half of them are first timers.

It's all anecdotal on my part, but the 275,000 new first time Illinois FOID cards in 2 years aren't.

[samsingh]

99. so gun control strategies should be made more effective.

sort of like when antibiotics are not working you use a stronger dose

[samsingh]

87. i guess that's news to the girls murdered in the theater

[DonP]

89. No wonder gun control fails, it's supporters are clueless

They can't seem to be able to tell the difference between a heinous crime and actual trends and data from the FBI.

[samsingh]

93. gun lovers are clueless or worse. its sad to hear arguments that only make sense in a

gun lovers mind.

[DonP]

110. Let us know when you ever actually achieve some of your control fantasies

Otherwise, you are not just clueless, but utterly irrelevant to the issue, since online whining really doesn't achieve much in the way of legislation.

[samsingh]

121. coming from a group of people that fantasize about having guns to overthrow

a totalitarian government, those control issues are clearly yours.

funny how the irony of your own words eludes you.

[DonP]

123. Again, cite one example of anyone here ever saying that?

I mean besides the gun control fans of course, they say it all the time as if it's true.

Otherwise, you are just making shit up, per the usual gun control side. Make up something and pretend that the other side actually said it.

Another reason you can't get jack or shit done. You don't deal in reality.

[samsingh]

128. your side really thrives on imaginary contrivances - and to even think that

gun lover's haven't said what I claimed is ridiculous.

and no, I don't have time to go search for things to post just so you'll do some more yelling and throwing accusations and missing the irony yourself. I've been done this path before and then when all the references are provided the gun lovers strangely go silent and yell their outrage with the same nra talking points on other threads.

I must say though, that the tantrums thrown by gun lovers only makes it that much scarier that you have guns.

[DonP]

130. So you got Bupkus. Quelle Suprise.

So you make a phony claim. Then when called on it, fall back on the "well everybody know it's true" as support.

And the whole "NRA Talking points" thing is really pretty stupid if you can't actually show those talking points. You just make those up as you go along too.

Your Google Fu is weak.

Just accept that since you seem to have no cogent arguments, you have to make shit up to try and look "informed".

[samsingh]

133. it's so sad that you don't understand the irony behind your own statements

have a good day.

[DonP]

136. Well, you know us gun owners, we're all just too dumb to recognize your "brilliant insights"

[samsingh]

88. you must also believe that lion hunters are trying to help nature and not put a trophy on their fing

walls

[DonP]

90. Let's see ... 1 dead lion and 5 dead kids in Chicago this weekend

Yeah, your priorities and "deep" concerns are in the right place.

[samsingh]

94. at least i don't love guns more than life and then twist things to support my bloodlust.

[DonP]

111. Yeah, sure, fine

Now that there's funny stuff.

Point out something stupid you said and we're twisting things to support our bloodlust.

With that kind of "deep seated commitment", no wonder you can't achieve a damn thing in the way of any gun control for more than a decade.

[samsingh]

120. i think you're saying some pretty stupid nra talking points

[DonP]

124. Actual facts now = NRA Talking Points. Now that's comedy gold right there

I point out that there have been no new gun control laws in over a decade, (e.g. gun control continues to fail), and you call that NRA talking points.

That's pretty desperate of you ... and embarrassing

Why do you keep making shit up? Nobody here ever talked about overthrowing the government, find one example.

Do you have no actual opinions or ideas to discuss? All you seem to do is snark and snipe. What are your actual gun control suggestions since that's what you seem to believe in?

If not, then why are you even here? Hoping to provoke a hide?

[Straw Man]

118. Ladies and gentlemen, ...

at least i don't love guns more than life and then twist things to support my bloodlust.

... the voice of reasoned discourse.

C'mon Sam. You can better than that. That's just nyah-nyah name-calling.

[samsingh]

119. okay let me try

imagine someone reaches into their pocket for their glasses. Everyone in a theatre is armed and nervous and they know everyone else is also armed and nervous. What's to stop someone from shooting that person reaching for their glasses and then claiming that they really thought the person had a gun. We are seeing police using this logic in killing kids with toy guns pointing at the ground.

Also, how does having everyone armed stop a deranged killer from taking out the first victims before anyone has a chance to react. Then what's to stop the theatre from becoming a shooting gallery where everyone is panicked?

There are clearly gun related deaths in the country. The right thing to do is to search for an answer that works and not one that is knee jerk in either arming everyone or taking everyone's guns away. Neither approach is going to work.

[Straw Man]

141. That's much better.

What you describe, though, is a bizarre scenario that bears little relation to the real world. Have there been a rash of shootings of innocent people who were merely reaching for their glasses or their wallets? There have been a few highly publicized incidents, which is not a good basis for public policy.

Police shootings are in a different category, because police are "looking for trouble," as it were -- it's their job. In most of their encounters they are responding to reports of crimes, and so tend to be primed for an encounter.

The bulk of gun-related deaths in this country are the result of criminal violence, mostly centered around the drug trade and gang activity. No restriction on legal concealed carry will have any effect on this.

[branford]

142. That's not exactly true, but your point is basically correct.

The bulk of gun-related deaths in the USA are suicides (two-thirds), and the vast majority of firearm-related homicides are due to criminal violence, particularly related to gangs and illicit drugs.

Since the suicide rate in the USA is comparable to other industrialized nations, the effect of most gun control proposals on overall deaths or criminal violence is even more dubious in this country.

[HFRN]

101. i support free guns for the mentally ill

because mentally ill people who might turn violent are more likely to be around other mentally ill people, and if every mentally ill person had a gun, they could stop them

(before you alert on this, please consider that it might be insincere?)

[branford]

106. Sarcasm noted.

However, gun control and gun rights advocates are largely in agreement about keeping guns away from those who are dangerously mentally ill. This is hardly controversial.

The problem is how. Currently, an individual normally needs to be adjudicated a danger to himself or others, either directly or through procedures such as involuntary commitment, before his firearms can be seized or he otherwise loses any constitutional rights. The burden of proof is generally on the government, with ample avenues to appeal.

Since we are all entitled to due process of law and equal protection, and most people who suffer mental illness are not only not a danger, they are more likely to be victims of crime, I don't know how any other system could be implemented without infringing on fundamental rights well beyond the Second Amendment or offending progressive values. Complaints and concerns alone are simply insufficient.

Similarly, the First Amendment would prohibit firearm seizures or loss or rights for even the most virulent and offensive of ideas and advocacy, absent proof of actual dangerous diagnosable psychological pathology or criminal convictions.

The problem with the dangerously mentally ill possessing firearms is sometimes due to failure to notify the relevant authorities after legitimate procedures or bureaucratic basic mistakes. This is not a gun control problem, rather it is a government incompetence and failure to follow the law problem, and should be remedied as such.

[daleanime]

126. Well, since FEWER guns are apparently not an option...

is it surprising?

[branford]

138. Fewer guns are certainly an option,

although not likely to do much about overall crime or suicide rates in the USA.

There simply will not be fewer guns by way of legislation or judicial decree. Firearm owners and those who are considering the purchase of such weapons will need to actually be persuaded to give them up, or look to other self-defense strategies (or not engage in gun sports or hunting). The nasty scornful attitudes many express toward gun owners and their supporters will need to end if that is the goal, and given many posts on DU or media commentary by people in our party, I doubt that is realistic or possible. Less guns would also be sold and NRA fundraising diminished if these same people stopped publicly calling for stringent firearm restrictions and bans. I'm surprised the firearm manufacturers don't donate money more to Democrats since many like the president seem to be the best guns salesman in decades.

[daleanime]

140. "the nasty scornful attitudes"....

are well earned. I don't brother even trying for reasonable discussions any more, I leave note of my objection and go.

Have a lovely evening.

[branford]

143. Do you really believe that the routine juvenile sexual innuendo and other related

condescending accusations common in the gun control discussion (my personal "favorite" is "ammosexuals&quot about tens of millions of fellow Americans, including millions of other Democrats, constitutes reasoned persuasion and effective advocacy?

You and others are free to treat all or most legal gun owners as some amorphous blob of ignorant, malicious and unevolved budding psychopaths, and I hope it brings some emotional catharsis, because such a strategy will both ensure the current trend expanding gun rights will continue, and more importantly, it will make any potential comprises that might actually reduce rates of violence, firearm and otherwise, all the more difficult to achieve.

[sarisataka]

145. Exactly

The gun control groups and proponents launch a steady stream of insults, innuendo and conflate all gun owners with mass murders. Anyone who carries is 'itching to kill', manufacturers and dealers are 'death merchants' and the whole lot is racist.

But when politicians know they can't get a change in the background check laws passed so they ask dealers to voluntarily apply tighter standards to sales.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/gun_dealer_association_rejects.html

Naturally the answer is NO and they are surprised. It allows a new round of 'you don't care about dead children'.

Never once do the groups stop and think- why would sellers agree to any voluntary restrictions when the people the favor is being asked of are the targets of the insults and threats of being sued out of business?