Just what we need...more guns

[Nasty Jack]

In a recent ABC News piece almost half of gun owners listed protection as the reason for having a firearm; "More gun owners want firearms for protection," was the headline. There are already about 300 million guns in U.S. households, 88 per 100 people, almost one per person. the FBI reports that in in Jan. 2013 there were 2,495,400 background checks done through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. The number was more than 1 million higher than any previous January.

This is madness. If you break the numbers down to guns per household with 32% owning a firearm, each gun bubba's home owns an average of 8 guns. And a lot of these firearms are assault rifles.

The U.S. is already pegged number 11 in firearm homicides worldwide with 2.97 per 100,000 population. In New Orleans gun related homicides are 62.1 per 100,000 pop., followed by Detroit 35.9, Baltimore 29.7, Oakland, 26.6 and Newark 25.4 for the top five.

What we need is protection against the gun fanatics that are turning this country into a shooting gallery. And by the way, the main recipients of this rush to buy guns is firearms manufacturers, backed by the NRA and its leader wacky Wayne LaPierre.

Read more here: link: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...rvey-says/ |

[krispos42]

1. And yet...

[DonP]

6. Ouch! Facts that blunt potential moral outrage.

How unfair of you.

But then again, you were kind enough not to point out that the control supporters keep claiming that no new people are buying all those guns, and we can only carry 1 or 2 at a time, so by their own beliefs the perceived "risk" is either a constant or diminishing anyway.

Speaking of "new" gun owners ... I still haven't heard from anyone explaining why Illinois has over 200,000 new FOID card holders since November of 2012, if no one new is buying guns?

[kudzu22]

17. Because 200,000 people from free states decided to move to Illinois?

No?

[DonP]

33. Yup, its that big income tax hike and a $90 Billion union pension shortfall that attracts them. LoL

But the gun grabbers latest meme is that "no one new is buying guns", it's just all us "gun humpers" buying more guns that causes the sales numbers to skyrocket. Ha!

I was at a big local gun store a week or two ago and just while waiting to check out, watched 15 or more people, all future "new" gun buyers, including three couples, walk in and get their picture taken for their FOID card. They will all probably buy guns as soon as their FOID comes in.

[guardian]

12. I can hear the minds of antigunners grinding to a halt

[Clames]

2. What you need is to stop whining about banning certain popular rifles.

The anti-gun contingent only has itself to blame for the current run on firearms and ammunition.

If you break the numbers down to guns per household with 32% owning a firearm, each gun bubba's home owns an average of 8 guns. And a lot of these firearms are assault rifles.

Maybe you shouldn't put too much stock in that 32%. Just like the 90% myth most gun-control fanatics cling to, there is a considerable amount of context that seems to be ignored.

[upaloopa]

4. Gunners are buying because they fall for the manufactures hype.

Don't blame your gullibility on others.

[Clames]

7. Manufactures that can point at DiFi, Bloomy, et al.

Don't blame your willful technical ignorance on others...

[upaloopa]

9. Yes it is willful. We don't see guns as something to

to get excited about. We are only in round one.
We do know what damage they can do.

[Clames]

11. You get plenty excited about them, legislatively.

Just the thought makes the gun-control extremists get more than a little excited. Round one? Where have you been the last 20 years?

[upaloopa]

13. Round one since CT

We want less gun violence. That is worth getting excited about.

[Clames]

14. Nope. Looks like you haven't been paying attention.

We want less guns.

Fixed. Violence is obviously a secondary concern or you'd advocate for laws that actually have even a slim chance of reducing violence. Try again when you start considering education and drug/gang culture.

[upaloopa]

15. I don't except anything you say about the

subject. You gunners come on like the voice of truth and all there is to say about the gun issue when you are only giving an opinion designed to stave off what is inevitable.
There will be more gun restrictions because gun violence is so prevalent and the majority want stricter gun laws.

[Clames]

25. It's accept.

As for the rest: wishful thinking. As long as you and others like you are perfectly happy to wallow in your ignorance there is really no threat. You anti-gunners are only giving an opinion to keep yourselves in the dark.

[petronius]

27. Unless he meant to signal 100% agreement with you, of course...

[upaloopa]

29. Thanks for the correction. I am not anti gun

I own a gun. It is only a single action .22 but I used to have fun with it when I owned 20 acres in the mountains east of Bakersfield. I only shot at targets and a couple of rattle snakes.
I am anti gun violence.
I don't want to take anyone's guns away.
I don't like the idea of armed people around me.
I think the last couple of SCOTUS rulings were judges legislating right wing ideology and I hope a more liberal court will over turn them.

[Clames]

34. I own several.

I only shoot at targets of inanimate objects.

I don't like the idea of armed people around me.

Yet you are armed. How do your neighbors feel about that?

I think the last couple of SCOTUS rulings were judges legislating right wing ideology and I hope a more liberal court will over turn them.

I think you don't know as much about those SCOTUS rulings as you think you do. Chances are very dim they will be overturned.

[upaloopa]

37. I don't carry a gun around. It is on a shelf with the cylinder removed and a lock on the frame

I listened to a couple of shows on the 2A and the Supreme Court. I heard that the prior rulings said that the 2A was a colective right meaning malitia.
Only now did a right wing court say it was an individual right. I feel very strongly it will be overturned.
I wonder why gunners feel they are the last word on anything relating to the gun issue.
It seems rather arrogant they way everything said is as if it the finality.
You have an n opinion and I have an opinion. That all it is.

[gejohnston]

38. I can't find any such SCOTUS rulings

all but the 1939 Miller supported the preincorporation "states rights" rulings, meaning that the BoR only applied to the fed but not the states. One of the 2A rulings, often cited by gun control lawyers, also said states could deny 1A rights. Both sides claim US v Miller as their own victory. That is the first time the collective rights theory was argued. The court ruled that SSBs were not protected weapons because they were not military weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases

[Clames]

39. Good for you.

I'd give you a cookie but DU gives plenty of those when you login.

I listened to a couple of shows on the 2A and the Supreme Court. I heard that the prior rulings said that the 2A was a colective right meaning malitia.

That's pay of the problem. Relying on bad information because you didn't do you're own research. Gun-control nutters love to cite U.S. v Miller as somehow being a case where the SCOTUS relied on a collective rights interpretation when in fact it did no such thing. It never went farther to define the 2A than in relation to the NFA and interstate commerce involving a sawed off shotgun. Absolutely nothing about collective vs individual rights. Commonly misunderstood that cases that focused on arms suitable for militia purposes somehow connected the ownership of all arms to being in a militia. Those cases were never that specific in defining the 2A.

[Straw Man]

26. So ...

There will be more gun restrictions because gun violence is so prevalent and the majority want stricter gun laws.

... why is everybody so hot for an AR ban when fists and feet account for more homicides than all rifles put together?

Why does the public want ineffective gun laws? Is it possible that they're being misled?

[Lurks Often]

31. Since we're using a boxing analogy

your side really did a poor job in round one. I'm thinking the judges are going to give the pro gun, pro rights side round one on points

[holdencaufield]

32. Manufacturers' Hype?

Really? When was the last time you saw a gun advert on the Superbowl, or even on a popular TV show? Or anywhere outside of a non-firearm related magazine?

Those gun adverts that do exist aren't out trying to get people to buy guns. They're trying to convince people who already want to buy a gun which gun to buy.

Most American gun makers are small-companies with less than 100 employees that just get by. Comparing them to big oil or big pharmaceuticals is just silly.

No -- I'm afraid if you're looking for a "boogy-man" to demonize here -- you had better stick with the time-honoured ones like the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Fluoridated Water, or the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy.

[upaloopa]

3. If the increase in gun sales is in reaction

to the call for more gun restrictions, and nothing but more background checks is about all that will pass, I don't see why the increase in sales.
It must be because gunners believe the hype that guns will be taken or banned.
Yet they say those kinds of laws will not be enacted.
Which is it? My guess is the new purchases are a means to protest the call for more gun restrictions combined with the belief that guns will be banned.
Both ideas only serve to help the manufactures.

[gejohnston]

5. I could use a couple more personally

In a recent ABC News piece almost half of gun owners listed protection as the reason for having a firearm; "More gun owners want firearms for protection," was the headline. There are already about 300 million guns in U.S. households, 88 per 100 people, almost one per person. the FBI reports that in in Jan. 2013 there were 2,495,400 background checks done through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. The number was more than 1 million higher than any previous January.

where did they get their information from?

This is madness. If you break the numbers down to guns per household with 32% owning a firearm, each gun bubba's home owns an average of 8 guns. And a lot of these firearms are assault rifles.

few if any are assault rifles, since there are only less than 250K registered machine guns. That includes police departments and inoperable antiques owned by museums. There might be 10K privately owned assault rifles. That average number includes target shooters that use different guns for different competitions, hunters who use different guns for different game, police officers that have to buy their own duty weapon, collectors.

The U.S. is already pegged number 11 in firearm homicides worldwide with 2.97 per 100,000 population. In New Orleans gun related homicides are 62.1 per 100,000 pop., followed by Detroit 35.9, Baltimore 29.7, Oakland, 26.6 and Newark 25.4 for the top five.

Yet in homicides regardless of weapon, we are close to the bottom. The world average is 7/100K while the US is 4.2/100K. BTW, those murder rates are in areas where legal gun ownership is uncommon and/or strictly regulated. How many of these murderers are sports shooters gone wild? How many are violating federal law by simply possessing them?

What we need is protection against the gun fanatics that are turning this country into a shooting gallery. And by the way, the main recipients of this rush to buy guns is firearms manufacturers, backed by the NRA and its leader wacky Wayne LaPierre.

How many of these mass shooters etc were "gun fanatics"? None. All were stolen or purchased for that purpose.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. me too ...

saw some really nice stuff at the gun show Sunday where, btw Nothing Happened and demographics of my area were all represented.

[shadowrider]

20. I got a really sweet sub-compact a few weeks ago.

Heading to the range with some friends this weekend to finally fire that puppy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. I want a side by side and some type of smaller pistol not sure what exactly

looked at a lot of smaller revolvers ... and I would like to have a light weight rifle, too.

saw some long guns that were left handed and was very interested in those since I am a lefty.

[slackmaster]

8. I find distasteful and inappropriate your characterization of everyone who owns a gun as a "bubba"

That's no way to make your debut in a group like this.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. what else can you expect from a

Nasty Jack

I know I don't expect much.

[Nasty Jack]

23. Your comment Slackmaster

Sorry if my "bubba" designation offends you but just like in your profile, I am "fiercely independent" and a lot of people probably hate me for my views on "some" gun owners. I emphasize "some" to point out that I do not mean all gun owners. I have received death threats for what I published in my blog, Nasty Jack, and I was literally thrown out of Daily Kos for my views on gun control, which I am very passionate about. So, you see, I have fought with the best.

Besides, I am from Arizona where the media here regularly refers to "gun bubbas" in a state with the loosest gun laws in the nation. If you haven't been here, you should visit and you'll see what I am talking about.

But I really don't want to fight with you and I welcome your comments in the future, no matter what

[gejohnston]

24. Vermont actually has the loosed laws in the nation.

Much of the media there are probably made up of colonists from the northeast and California, like your Governor and that asshole sheriff.
The term "bubba" is a classist slur towards rural working class, given that the MSM and gun control advocates are mostly classist anyway..........................
"Bubba" is also racist depending on the context.

[spin]

10. 32% of households tell a surveyor that they own a firearm. ...

While that may be the best statistic available that's run by a reliable agency, it may not truly reflect the number of households with firearms.

Our nation today suffers from a distrust of government and many gun owners will simply lie when asked by a stranger if they own firearms.

My daughter worked as a census taker in the recent census and she often found getting basic information about the number of people in a household difficult. She would explain that an accurate census would help our county get better funding and sometimes that helped. Still, she suspected that many people where less than honest in their replies.

[dookers]

16. Most firearms are not "assault rifles" or assault weapons"

The overwhelming majority of privately owned firearms are handguns. AR15 type rifles are over represented in the media.

[jimmy the one]

22. Fear of gun registration, so funny

spin: While that may be the best statistic available that's run by a reliable agency, it may not truly reflect the number of households with firearms.

It's pretty accurate within the margin of error, which likely accounts for 'liars'.

Our nation today suffers from a distrust of government and many gun owners will simply lie when asked by a stranger if they own firearms.

On a gun ownership survey there are a few ways of non compliance. You can lie, refuse to answer, or ask the surveyor if you have to answer the question (& then refuse); in the latter two the surveyor suspects you may have a gun & so you are disqualified in the survey. I doubt there are too many gun owners who 'don't know' if they own a gun, tho there would of course be some bona fide 'don't knows' about whether a gun is in their household.

My daughter worked as a census taker in the recent census and she often found getting basic information about the number of people in a household difficult. She would explain that an accurate census would help our county get better funding and sometimes that helped. Still, she suspected that many people where less than honest in their replies.

This means next to nothing with regard to professional pollsters, especially gun polls. Census taking (haven't we all done it at some time?) indeed can be difficult as your daughter said, but the difficulty she mentions could be for a myriad of reasons, not simply 'lying'.

It's never ending funny when gunnuts so afeared of gun registration, & so lie on gun polls, yet the same ones so afeared have no fear of coming on a message board like DU where they have to register & put down their name & their computer can be easily traced & ID'd, AND THEN ADMITTING & EVEN BRAGGING ABOUT THE GUNS THEY OWN.

dookers Most firearms are not "assault rifles" or assault weapons" The overwhelming majority of privately owned firearms are handguns. AR15 type rifles are over represented in the media.

The vast majority of american firearms are rifles, not handguns; handguns only comprise about a third of national gunstock, 'long guns' about 2/3. Handguns are used predominantly in murder & guncrime due the ability to be carried concealed.

[jimmy the one]

28. the bigger picture

Krispos your graphs start with a cherry picked year 1976, tho I am not suggesting by design to mislead about gundeaths;
... by about 1976 national gunstock had doubled from the mid 1960's, from about 75 million guns to 150 million guns, & during that same time period mid 60s to about 1976, the gunmurder rate also doubled.

Observe the years 1964 & 1974 & you see the murder rate doubled from 4.9 to 9.8, fitting exactly. (gunmurder rate would be approx 2/3 those stats of 4.9 & 9.8).

Year Population --- Total -- Violent - Property -- Murder
1960 179,323,175 1,887.2 - 160.9 - 1,726.3 -- 5.1

1964 191,141,000 2,388.1 - 190.6 - 2,197.5 -- 4.9
1965 193,526,000 2,449.0 - 200.2 - 2,248.8 -- 5.1
1966 195,576,000 2,670.8 - 220.0 - 2,450.9 -- 5.6
1967 197,457,000 2,989.7 - 253.2 - 2,736.5 -- 6.2
1968 199,399,000 3,370.2 - 298.4 - 3,071.8 -- 6.9
1969 201,385,000 3,680.0 - 328.7 - 3,351.3 -- 7.3
1970 203,235,298 3,984.5 - 363.5 - 3,621.0 -- 7.9
1971 206,212,000 4,164.7 - 396.0 - 3,768.8 -- 8.6
1972 208,230,000 3,961.4 - 401.0 - 3,560.4 -- 9.0
1973 209,851,000 4,154.4 - 417.4 - 3,737.0 -- 9.4
1974 211,392,000 4,850.4 - 461.1 - 4,389.3 -- 9.8
1975 213,124,000 5,298.5 - 487.8 - 4,810.7 -- 9.6
1976 214,659,000 5,287.3 - 467.8 - 4,819.5 -- 8.7

1980 225,349,264 5,950.0 - 596.6 - 5,353.3 -- 10.2
1991 252,177,000 5,897.8 - 758.1 - 5,139.7 -- 9.8

2010 309,330,219 3,350.4 - 404.5 - 2,945.9 -- 4.8
2011 311,591,917 3,295.0 - 386.3 - 2,908.7 -- 4.7
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

... What you are doing with those graphs is lopping off the murder rate buildup from the early 60's, when guns were doubling in totality, and using 1976 to 2012 to make it appear that 'another gun doubling' (150 million to 300 million guns), is not having a 'deadly' affect on murder rates, but a downward trend.

.. when you look at the bigger picture, from early 1960s when gunstock was 75 million, & today when gunstock is 300 million, what you see is a big bell curve of murders with the ends the same murder rate, but with a big bulging middle of murders, as the gunstock quadrupled.
.. you also see from list above that the violent crime rate from the early 60's remains doubled today.
You shouldn't take credit when none is due. More guns haven't made the country safer. More guns have doubled the violent crime rate, & contributed to something like a half million more deaths in the past 50 years.

[krispos42]

35. It's not cherry-picked

About 7 years about the BJS issued a detailed report about homicides in the US.

One section dealt with mass murders, or homicides per incident. It is broken down like this:

Number of victims of single-victim murders
Number of victims of double-victim murders
Number of victims of triple-victim murders
Number of victims of quadruple-victim murders
Number of victims of quintuple or more victim murders.


The data in that section was from 1976 to 2005. I have been unable to find more recent information on the BJS website, so that's where the graph stops. The FBI crime reports only list total homicides; not by number of victims per incident.

Here's the raw data:



Finding the homicide rate prior to 1976 or after 2005 is easy, but it does not contain the information that I need to expand the graph.



If the murder rate doubled, and the gun-murder rate doubled, then it would seem that the non-gun murder rate also doubled, which would have nothing to do with gun ownership rates.

The violent crime rate also doubled, and since only a minority of violent crimes are committed with guns, all indications that our society became inherently more violent during the 60's until about 1990, then declined.

There are several possible reasons for this, and they are not exclusive of each other.

1. The high birthrate of the baby boom generation. The murder rate began to climb when the boomers were beginning to reach the late teens/early 20's, which is the age group that tends to commit the most violent crimes. Once birth control (hormonal and otherwise) became more widespread and the birth rate declined, the crime rate 20 years later began to drop.

2. Legalization of abortion. Once abortion became legalized, fewer children were born into circumstances that tend to lead to lives of violent crime. Pregnant women living in those circumstances chose not to have children, or so many children, or children when they were unable to care for them.

3. Removal of lead from our gasoline. During the post WW2 era up until the mid 70's, lead was in our gasoline. During that same time period, the number of cars on the road increased, and thus the consumption of leaded gasoline and pollution in the air. More children were born and raised with neurological damage from breathing and drinking and eating the stuff, which is associated with anti-social behavior. In short, the baby boom generation had more kids born and raised with lead poisoning, and thus more tendencies towards violence and predation. Once the lead was phased out, the post-phase-out children were breathing cleaner air, didn't get lead poisoning, and were not as violent when they grew into adults.

4. The rise of air-conditioning and the indoor lifestyle. Once houses began getting air conditioning, people were spending more time inside during the hot summer days, and since hot, sticky weather tends to make people cranky and irritable, removing the hot weather and keeping people from crowding together reduced the opportunities for unpleasant social interaction. Similar thinking for the rise of cable TV and video-game consoles, then computers and the Internet.

[PuffedMica]

30. "each home owns an average of 8 guns" I can't remember when I only owned 8 guns

I have six .22 caliber rifles.

Out of all my guns, the closest one to being an "Assault Weapon" is an M-1 carbine with a couple of 15 round magazines.

[holdencaufield]

36. Question: Number of firearms I own ...

Answer: None of your frackin' business

[jimmy the one]

40. DU today, gun owner registration

This is funny to me; On this thread Clames admits to owning guns "I own several".

PuffedMica admits: "each home owns an average of 8 guns" I can't remember when I only owned 8 guns
I have six .22 caliber rifles. Out of all my guns, the closest one to being an "Assault Weapon" is an M-1 carbine with a couple of 15 round magazines.

So, two gun owners, one with at least 9 firearms, including six 22 caliber rifles, one M1 carbine with 2 or 3 detachable 15 round magazines.
The other gun owner owns at least 3 firearms.

Hey spin, who said poll taking was hard? And where are all those gun owners afraid of registering their firearms?

Register Your Firearms here today Free! The DU gun owners registration data base!

holdencaufield Question: Number of firearms I own ...
Answer: None of your frackin' business

Oh, well, on 2nd thought. Classify one as 'refused'. At least he didn't lie.
Classify as 'refused' but strong suspicion a gun owner.

I, jimmy the one, own no guns, & none in the household.
(Chief Joseph Bryant was it? I will fight no more forever -- corollary: I will own no more guns forever).
BUT AM I LYING??????

[jimmy the one]

41. Miller decision was unanimous for militia

clames:Gun-control nutters love to cite US v Miller as somehow being a case where the SCOTUS relied on a collective rights interpretation when in fact it did no such thing. It never went farther to define the 2A than in relation to the NFA and interstate commerce involving a sawed off shotgun. Absolutely nothing about collective vs individual rights.

Two excerpts from the 1939 Miller UNANIMOUS 8-0 decision regarding 2nd Amendment protection sought by jack miller for carrying a sawed off shotgun across state lines:

1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Absolutely nothing about collective rights, clames? REREAD the above paragraph.

clames: {Miller decision} Commonly misunderstood that cases that focused on arms suitable for militia purposes somehow connected the ownership of all arms to being in a militia. Those cases were never that specific in defining the 2A.

miller excerpt 2) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.."

The last paragraph #2 is where the nra & gun lobby found a 'weak spot' which they exploited, as clames is trying to do, that the 1939 supreme court was only referring to firearms applicable to a well reg'd militia. They were rather using the militia interpretation as case specific to miller's suit. But the gun lobby concocted a song & dance that the miller decision did not support the militia interpretation!!!

... prudent people might wonder why, if this gun lobby song & dance were so, at least one of the 1939 Supreme Court Justices wouldn't have objected to their above wordings, 'hold on fellow justices, look at the way we've worded our ruling & opinions, future generations are going to think we ruled for a militia rights interpretation.'
Yet not one single 1939 Justice objected - they were satisfied that what they wrote was fit & proper, and expressed their opinion of what the Second Amendment entailed, a right incumbent upon a well regulated militia.

[gejohnston]

42. based on what

Yet not one single 1939 Justice objected - they were satisfied that what they wrote was fit & proper, and expressed their opinion of what the Second Amendment entailed, a right incumbent upon a well regulated militia.

Miller and his council was not present, did not make an argument, filed no brief. There was nothing to base a dissent on.

They actually didn't. They only said a SBS didn't wasn't a military weapon useful for a militia, therefore it wasn't constitutionally protected. It said nothing about collective vs individual rights per se, which is why both sides claim it as their victory.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0