1.25 million gun background checks done in September. On target for 15.6 million in 2011!!

[Logical]

At least 1.25 million guns sold in September! It was the biggest September in the history of the NICS system.

Maybe more, because some background checks equal more than one gun sold. And many states do not require background checks for CCW license holders. This also does not count private sales that bypass the NICS system.

More armed Americans than ever and the crime and murder rate continues to fall!

And now Illinois is the only state does does now allow CCW. This means Wisconsin citizens now will be able to defend themselves against criminals who will always find a way to obtain gun illegally!

Once us Democrats stop fighting this, the sooner the GOP and NRA can stop using it against us!

The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. Why would anyone want to prevent the good guys from having them?

[liberal N proud]

1. Yea! More people with guns

Shoot-n-toot'n good ole' time!

[Logical]

3. Typical, no facts or analysis or details. Just a off the wall comment. Please tell me that the....

gun control side has more than you!

[mikeysnot]

6. you're a weapon of mass projection!

He needs facts but you don't, "crime and murder rates are dropping"????

Where are your "facts".

[Logical]

8. They are dropping. So it means more guns DO NOT equal more crime. But not sure yet if....

more guns equals less crime.

[iverglas]

22. and the Earth is NOT flat!!!

In other news ... someone must have claimed that elephants are pink, somewhere.

Surely you need to straighten them out here.

[spin]

14. The facts are right here. Crime is dropping and has been for years ...

FBI Releases 2010 Crime Statistics
Washington, D.C. September 19, 2011

FBI National Press Office [phone]

According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking this the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

The 2010 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 6.0 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2009 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.5 percent decrease from the 2009 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,941.9 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 3.3 percent decrease from the 2009 figure).

***snip***

Each of the four violent crime offenses decreased when compared with the 2009 estimates. Robbery had the largest decrease at 10.0 percent, followed by forcible rape with a 5.0 percent decline, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter with a 4.2 percent decrease, and aggravated assault with a 4.1 percent decline.

***snip***

Each of the property crime offenses also decreased in 2010 when compared with the 2009 estimates. The largest decline, 7.4 percent, was for motor vehicle thefts. The estimated number of burglaries decreased 2.0 percent, and the estimated number of larceny-thefts declined 2.4 percent.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-crime-statistics

FBI: Crime Continues to Decline in US
Monday, September 19th, 2011

Violent crime has declined 6 percent in the United States in 2010 for the fourth consecutive year.

An FBI report released Monday said burglaries, theft and other crimes against property dropped 2.5 percent, for the eighth year in a row.

***snip***

The biggest drop was in the number of robberies, which fell by 10 percent, followed by 5 percent for rapes and more than 4 percent for murders, non-negligent homicides and aggravated assaults.

The report shows that last year's drop in violent crime is part of a long-term trend with the number of such cases falling each year since 2006....emphasis added
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/fbi-crime-continues-to-decline-in-us/123

Crime in the United States


Violent crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.


Property crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[SteveM]

42. On projection...

Most pro-2A posters are quite familiar with the generally-accepted data that crime rates have been dropping for the better part of 20 years; posting such with every thread can be a little mind-numbing. Perhaps visiting this forum more often will help. I guarantee you if someone (on either side) makes a wide and sweeping statement doubling as fact, he/she will have their hand called on it. See Spins's stuff, posted earlier today in another thread, but re-posted below.

BTW, you may see more source citation in this forum than in any of the others in DU. But that is a little sweeping, too.;-)

[cleanhippie]

94. These facts are widely available, but you have to pull your head out of the sand to see them.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr


Here is the best source if you ever do decide to pull your head out.

[oneshooter]

98. I'm not sure his head is in sand. Could be in a brown organic fertilizer exit. n/t

[SteveM]

44. On "toot'n:" You mean snorting coke, or breaking wind? nt

[cleanhippie]

93. incoherent nonsense.

[maxsolomon]

2. My tiger-repelling amulet is working perfectly

Tiger attacks continue to fall in the US!

Democrats haven't been 'fighting this' for decades - they've capitulated. But the GOP & NRA will never stop "using it against us" - they generate hysteria to pad their accounts & divide our vote.

[Kennah]

29. Not quite decades. Recall the ugly gun ban of 1994. Some sought to renew it in 2004.

[maxsolomon]

40. i don't recall the "ban" as "ugly"

actually, i'm not sure what ban you're referring to - the assault weapons ban? this is not an issue that frequently clouds my "beautiful mind" (note the barb bush reference) - i don't have guns, don't need guns.

based on the increase in weapons sales, the paranoia of gun owners is still increasing. who stokes that fire?

[SteveM]

43. "Who stokes that [paranoid] fire?" Pelosi, Holder, Obama...

...even after Obama was elected to office.


Pelosi and Holder STILL calling for that ban, "...not an issue that frequently clouds my 'beautiful mind.'"

BTW, do you support the ban? Just checking on that "paranoia" quotient.;-)

[maxsolomon]

52. Not LaPierre? Not Hate radio?

Obama gets elected, sales go through the roof. Looks like lots of law-abidin' folks got the idea that some gun-grabbin' is coming. When it is not. Pelosi is MINORITY leader, Holder is history's least aggressive AG.

I could give a fuck about the expired "ugly ban". Like I could give a fuck about the divide-and-conquer issue of guns, except that I may want a hunting rifle when society collapses and I need to eat possums and raccoons.

I dislike divide-and-conquer issues stoked by the right wing. Abortion, gay marriage, flag-burning...

[X_Digger]

77. It was in the party platform, candidate obama's website, change.gov..

and even whitehouse.gov..

Hell, it's still there on change.gov..

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[SteveM]

100. You give LaPierre and Hate Radio an opening and they will fill it...

Obama has a well-established track record favoring severe controls and bans (I rather suspect because he is part of the Chicago political climate). Pelosi is the head of the Democrats in Congress. Holder is charged with enforcing the laws of the land.

Divide & conquer works when one side persistently gives the other a bare throat to gnaw on. If you have such a displeasure with these issues, then why don't you stop provoking them? Do you continue to support the "assault weapons ban?" Do you continue to oppose states passing concealed-carry laws? Do you support D.C.'s old ban? Chicago's? We are all microcosms within the Democratic Party, but you can't hide the effects of continued and doggedly persistent gun-control/prohibition efforts on the body politic.

Gun-control was NEVER an issue within liberal thought and Democratic Party politics before The Mamas and The Papas first charted! It is not enough to say "I could give a fuck about the expired 'ugly ban." It's time to dump the issue, get it OUT of the platform, and at a minimum, just shut up about it -- if you really don't "give a fuck."

[spin]

50. The name "Ugly Gun Ban" is commonly used by those who support RKBA ...

and comes from the story that Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer went through a copy of Gun Digest and picked a number of firearms that they felt were ugly and looked evil. They then complied a list of the characteristics of these weapons and banned firearms with similar features.

This was the final result:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban


By former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-automatic AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


A semi-automatic Kalashnikov AKMS rifle.


An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[Kennah]

82. Bingo! It's about the most rational conclusion one can draw.

[iverglas]

4. what is your point?

Why do you care how many people have firearms and how many firearms people have?

You're perfectly aware that the bulk of firearms sales are to people who already own firearms. So what are you dancing about anyway?

[liberal N proud]

5. Its a contest

The gun nuts want to see if they can get guns in the hands of all.

The more that have guns the safer we will be.

[gejohnston]

9. not really

I can think of a lot of people I prefer not to have guns.
G. Gordon Liddy comes to mind. Tom Delay is another. Oh wait, having one would send them back to prison.
hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[SteveM]

45. You should sell that straw in the Southwest; prices are sky-high...

"The gun nuts want to see if they can get guns in the hands of all.

The more that have guns the safer we will be."

Actually, you have created this issue (I suppose to prop up your shop-worn sarcasm). You will be corrected about this every time, and each time such correction is made, the gun-control side will have to explain that it is either:
1) Sarcasm; or
1) Fact

Either way, your prospects for credibility will suffer.

BTW, your aspersion is not only shop-worn, but not kosher in this forum.

[iverglas]

89. if you don't like the guesses, try answering the question yourself

What is the point of this thread?

[SteveM]

101. See my #100 above. Want to decrease gun sales? Quit talking gun-control. nt

[iverglas]

104. see my post 4 and try again

What is the point of this thread?

The OP says nothing about wanting to decrease gun sales and nothing about gun control.

What is the point of this thread?

[spin]

51. Often insulting terms for either gun owners or people who favor making all firearms illegal ...

will get your post deleted in the Gungeon.

I personally have a thick skin and insults bounce off, but the management of this establishment want to try to keep the discussions civil. It does take some of the fun out of the back and forth but it does raise the level of the debate.

[Logical]

7. The point is to tell the anti-gun (pro-gun control) group that they....

need to worry about real progressive topics that they can influence.

[Tejas]

33. That your horse is dead?

[valerief]

10. You single issue folks will be the death of us. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Or maybe we can update the party platform and remove this bullshit,

so the rethugs have nothing to beat us over the head on.

[SteveM]

46. Well, either ban us or get gun-control out of the Party Platform. nt

[spin]

53. I know a good number of gun owners who would vote for Democrats ...

if they were certain that our party would not try to pass draconian gun laws.

Considering that 80 million people own firearms in our nation and a high percentage of them are indeed one issue voters, we shoot ourselves in the foot every time we mention new gun control laws.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gBSpMs6u-oo/Se30f0mZPKI/AAAAAAAAAdY/N6k1Ohugev8/s400/shooting+yourself+in+the+foot.jpg

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

12. I am pro-gun and hate the NRA. Nice try.

[gejohnston]

17. just since the Cincinnatti revolt or

always?

[gejohnston]

15. the biggest problem with your side is

you have to come up with logical, reasonable, honest, and sane arguments. Kind of failing.
You do know that you are on the same side as Chris Christie, "Rudy" Giuliani, Bill Bennett don't you? McCarthy was still a registered Republican while serving as a Dem. She ran as a Dem only because she lost the Republican primary. Oh yeah, kind of left leaning authoritarian Diane Feinstien, who is liberal only when it does not interfere with hubby's war profits.
You are also on opposite sides of Brian Schweitzer, who introduced a single payer system for Montana, and some lesser known Dems. Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders to a lesser degree.

[spin]

19. You mean if the gun owning Democrats who post the facts and statistics ...

on DU that disprove the propaganda pushed by organization such as the VPC and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would just stop, you would have a chance to push your agenda and through small gradual steps be able to eventually ban and confiscate all firearms in the United States.

Facts like the crime rate in our nation has been decreasing at the same time that firearm sales have been skyrocketing and more and more people are beginning to legally carry firearms.

NICS background checks are indication of the number of firearms that are sold by dealers although one background check might involve the sale of more than one firearm. A quick check of this graph reveals that firearm sales have been setting new records since 2006.



The NICS, from November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2010, has conducted a total of 124,427,448 background checks. In 2010, a total of 14,409,616 background checks were submitted to the NICS.http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2010-operations-report

And yet our crime rates have been falling for years.

FBI: Crime Continues to Decline in US
Monday, September 19th, 2011

Violent crime has declined 6 percent in the United States in 2010 for the fourth consecutive year.

An FBI report released Monday said burglaries, theft and other crimes against property dropped 2.5 percent, for the eighth year in a row.

***snip***

The biggest drop was in the number of robberies, which fell by 10 percent, followed by 5 percent for rapes and more than 4 percent for murders, non-negligent homicides and aggravated assaults.

The report shows that last year's drop in violent crime is part of a long-term trend with the number of such cases falling each year since 2006.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/fbi-crime-continues-to-decline-in-us/123

Crime in the United States

Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).<1>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[rfranklin]

13. If the murder and crime rate is falling why the need for more guns?

Are you claiming that there is some causal relationship?

[gejohnston]

16. no

we don't play that game. Simply making a statement of fact.


It would be a more interesting to see a break down of what kinds of guns and the demographics of the people. Given the price of meat and the economy, it could be more long guns and higher caliber handguns for hunting.

[iverglas]

20. because *the sky* is falling!

The murder and crime rate are falling, you say??

Quick, look over there, there's "da thug" waiting to getcha!

The right wing in Canada plays the game too. Our violent crime and homicide and other crime rates are falling overall, in some instances steeply. But what is our brand spanking new right-wing majority government doing in its first days? Introducing massive "reforms" to our criminal law to address the fears they have whipped up among the public ... and follow the dead-end road the US took some years ago toward megaprisons and mandatory minimum sentences and all-round completely ineffective and in fact counter-productive ways of addressing crime.

At least even they wouldn't dream of opening the door to unrestricted handgun possession here ...

[gejohnston]

24. The US has never

had unrestricted handgun possession. Less restricted at times and places, but never unrestricted. The least restricted are Wyoming and Vermont. Oh yeah, they are safe places to live.

toward megaprisons and mandatory minimum sentences and all-round completely ineffective and in fact counter-productive ways of addressing crime.

I don't know about there, but here it is about money. Privatized prison companies, construction companies, along with guard unions, lobby for mandatory minimums. That was also part of Arizona's "papers please" law. Brewer's advisers were lobbiests for Corrections Corporation of America. CCA makes money while alleged undocumented lingers in a cell. I would not be surprised Harper hangs out with the same people. If Harper supported the long gun registry, he would have a harder time in rural ridings. What else do they have to offer rural Canadians other than some culture war? Just like here, the right does not give a shit about god, guns, and gays. Few are religious, both parties show up at gun ranges to look "heartland", but the Dems won the last skeet competition with the Republicans. The GOP has a lot of self loathing gays. But when you represent the monied interests, you use divide and conquer for the rest of the people. What do Liberals and NDP offer say, the rural areas? Most ridings are rural, are they not? Your left of center votes are split between the Liberals and NDP. Conservatives (if I remember correctly) had the same problem between the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives.
At least that is my understanding. Not being Canadian, there are a lot of nuances I would miss of course.


http://tucsoncitizen.com/cell-out-arizona/2010/10/13/jan-brewer-tied-to-the-private-prison-industry/

[Kennah]

30. In NYC, pre Sullivan Law, that's about as unrestricted handgun possession as one can get

[gejohnston]

37. true, but

IIRC, South Carolina banned handguns. I think I should have clarified to say there has always been some restrictions somewhere.

[Kennah]

83. A lot of the bans didn't apply to "good, white Christian people"

[gejohnston]

97. that is also true, just like

Florida's open carry ban from 1893 until maybe about 30 years ago.

[SteveM]

47. Funny, "da thug" ain't comin' my way.

[spin]

23. I think that a lot of people are discovering how much fun shooting is ...

in the past few years a number of new shooting competitions like cowboy shooting competition have sprung up. This sport is family friendly and involves not only shooting but costumes. (At one time most shooting competitions were boring to watch and only fun if you were actually shooting. Not so today.)

One of my friends decided to participate in this sport when he and his wife watched one of the events. Both enjoy shooting and were very impressed by the friendliness and helpfulness of the shooters they met. My friend's wife enjoyed dressing up in the old west style and meeting other women who were also interested in shooting.

Cowboy Action Shooting was first created in 1981 by Harper Creigh aka Judge Roy Bean, SASS #1. After watching a couple of old westerns on TV on a rainy Saturday afternoon, he had a brain storm. An avid shooter in Soldier of Fortune and IPSC type action shooting matches he called shooting buddies, Gordon Davis and Bill Hahn and presented an idea to shoot their next match using western type guns. The rest, as they say, is history.

***snip***

Cowboy Action Shooting is the fastest growing outdoor shooting sport in the country. Attracting competitors from around the world, Cowboy Action Shooting is not only a sport that tests the shooters accuracy, but also a forum that brings back the days of the Old West in a veritable celebration of the cowboy lifestyle.

The Single Action Shooting Society is the governing organization of Cowboy Action Shooting, worldwide. Today, with over 75,000 members, SASS is represented in all fifty states and 18 foreign countries. The organization endorses regional matches conducted by its more than 500 SASS affiliated clubs and promulgates rules and procedures to ensure safety and consistency in Cowboy Action Shooting matches. Most importantly, however, SASS members share a common interest for preserving the history of the Old West.
http://www.sassnet.com/About-A-Brief-History-001A.php

Another driver in the sales of firearms is the new models being produced by firearms manufacturers. These models were largely caused by the Assault Weapons Ban. Prior to the ban few shooters had any interest in military style weapons and preferred traditional rifles but the ban caused curiosity among shooters and they discovered the accuracy and versatility of these "black rifles".

Hunters are buying these crippled clones of true military assault rifles especially now that they are offered in calibers suitable for hunting deer and other large game. Target shooters use them in competition.

There are plenty of accessories that can be installed on such rifles as you can view on this web page from Midway USA a large distributor of shooting and reloading supplies and equipment. http://www.midwayusa.com/static/ar-15.aspx Many shooters enjoy buying and installing these parts on their rifles and in effect customizing their weapon to suit their taste.

The assault weapons ban limited the magazine capacity of new semi-auto pistols. High capacity magazines were always available during the ban but were extremely expensive. The firearm manufacturers decided to target the concealed carry market with new much more compact and lighter pistols. This was a wise move as many people who carry concealed see little need to carry large heavy pistols which are hard to conceal and uncomfortable to carry.

More and more women are getting interested in owning firearms for self defense and hunting. Once again the manufacturers have decided to produce firearms for a new market and have enjoyed success.

Of course, the NRA and the GOA have published a lot of propaganda that has caused shooters to fear another assault weapons ban from the Obama administration. This has contributed to the increase in sales. Many shooters have decided to buy such weapons now rather than take the chance of future bans or restrictions becoming law and increasing the price of firearms. Some buy firearms as an investment.

It is obvious that the tremendous number of firearms that have been sold in recent years has not caused the violent crime rate to increase but while more firearms and the fact that many people now carry concealed may not be the main reason that the crime rate has decrease, it is probably one factor. I personally believe that better policing and more officers on the street as well as the proliferation of surveillance cameras and cell phones are the true driving factors in the dropping crime rate. If the economy worsens, many cities will be forced to cut their police force and I predict a rise in the crime rate. The politicians will then try to place blame on the fact that the gun control laws are not strict enough. The media will support this theory and once again new draconian gun control will be popular. Many new "feel good" laws may well be passed, but if so, they will have little effect on the crime rate.

And many people seriously believe that the crime rate will increase if the economy continues to weaken and wish to have a firearm handy for self defense. If the Tea Party Republicans do succeed in severely cutting back programs for the unemployed, underemployed and the poor this may be the unfortunate result.

[SteveM]

48. Yeah, SASS has made my Stevens 311-D a collector's item. Sheesh. nt

[hack89]

34. Because guns are fun?

I live in a safe area - fear of violent crime has little influence on my choice to own guns.

[Tejas]

68. To get the rate to ZERO maybe?

[ileus]

18. 1.25 million not bad....it's a good start.

[iverglas]

21. and what is the end?

The purpose? the goal?

It's a good start toward what?

[gejohnston]

25. taking the issue away from the right wing

and making it a nonissue for the Dems, neutralizing another wedge issue. Without wedge issues, the Republicans are screwed.

[iverglas]

36. well, since you have not the slightest idea who bought these guns

-- and since we know that the number of firearms per owner is rising much faster than the number of firearm owners -- we have every reason to believe that most of these sales were to existing gun owners.

Your point is therefore exceedingly unsharp.

[Spoonman]

41. "exceedingly unsharp" that would describe you statements well!

since you have not the slightest idea who bought these guns

since we/b] know that the number of firearms per owner is rising much faster than the number of firearm owners

Asinine arrogant ignorance is would also be an appropriate statement.

[gejohnston]

49. how do we know that?

and how is your post relevant to the post you replied to?

we have every reason to believe that most of these sales were to existing gun owners.

where did I say otherwise?

[iverglas]

55. lordy lordy lordy

You assert that the ballooning gun sales mean taking the issue away from the right wing.

This is essentially incoherent, but I can only take it to mean that the more people own guns, the less of an "issue" firearms ownership is.

My reply is that there is no evidence of ballooning NUMBERS OF FIREARMS OWNERS. How can this not be relevant to what you said???

I'm not actually the one making an assertion here -- in order for this hoohah about rising gun sales to have any meaning here, it has to be interpreted as an assertion that more people are buying guns. (Who would care that the same people are buying more guns?)

So somebody should substantiate that claim. But what the hell.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full.pdf?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=13&firstpage=15&resourcetype=HWCIT

Objectives: To examine the size and composition of the privately held firearm stock in the US; and to describe demographic patterns of firearm ownership and motivations for ownership.

... Results: 38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun. Long guns represent 60% of the privately held gun stock. Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners reported owning >4 firearms. Men more often reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating that they personally owned at least one firearm, compared with 11% for women.

Conclusions: The US population continues to contain at least one firearm for every adult, and ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated. Long guns are the most prevalent type of gun in the US but handgun ownership is widespread. Ownership demographic patterns support findings of previous studies.

... The 20% of gun owners who owned the most guns possessed about 65% of the nation’s guns.

... Firearms are most likely to be owned by white men who live in a rural areas, those who are middle-aged or older, with a middle to higher income, who grew up with guns in the home and who live in the southern or mid-western regions of the country.

... Our findings diverge from those of previous studies on firearm ownership regarding the increase in the average number of guns per gun owner. Although the rate of individual (26%) and household (38%) ownership is similar to that in other recent surveys,1–3 11 the number of guns reported per person is higher. When including outliers, gun owners reported an average of 6.9 guns per owner compared with 4.1 reported in 1994 (J Ludwig, personal communication, 12 January 2005). The higher average number of guns in our survey is attributable to the higher number of guns owned by those who owned >4 guns, as the percentage of gun owners in each category of gun ownership (those owning 1–3 or >4 guns) has stayed almost the same. ...

Here's the good news:

Firearm ownership was more prevalent among middle-aged and older adults than among young adults aged 18–24 years (table 1). Ownership of any firearm was more common among men, those who were married or living with a partner, and respondents living in rural areas or the South. Ownership was strongly associated with whether the respondent grew up with guns in the home. Among gun-owning households in our survey, 46% had >1 adult gun owner.

Gun owners get older, fewer people grow up with guns in the household, younger people are less likely to acquire guns ... wither and die ...


If somebody actually has facts and figures to show that these trends have been reversed --

- that more people are buying guns (i.e. not that people with guns are buying more guns)
- that young people are buying guns (i.e. that the gun owning population is keeping pace with demographic change)

-- well hey, feel free.

Meanwhile, hooing and hahing about rising gun sales ... do you people really work for the firearms industry??

Clearly, traditional gun owners are not a dying breed, but a diminishing breed -- two factors are that hunting is declining sharply in popularity and the aging hunting population is not replacing itself and that the population is increasingly urban and does not need firearms for predator/pest control or participate in shooting sports. Long arm sales are not the driver of the rise in firearms sales.

And I see the interests of a firearms industry desperate for higher sales dovetailing nicely with the interest of the right wing in persuading people that they are not safe and the guv'mint won't protect them (at the same time as it works to cut funding for the various government services that go into creating a safe society) ... and that the guv'mint wants to take away their guns so they'd better stock up.

What do we get? Rising handgun sales.

And cheers from a bunch of people at DU who apparently see their interests as dovetailing, somehow, with the firearms industry and the right wing. Don't ask me to explain it; I merely observe.

[gejohnston]

58. for one thing

Anything by David Hemenway is suspect, given that he is a paid shill for the Joyce Foundation (who even paid him to write that dreadful screed of a book). His dishonesty even extends to making baseless claims of Gertz. His research side kick in the 1990s was a paid employee of Handgun Control Inc. In other words, it is total bullshit.
You discount Kleck for no legitimate reason that I can see, other than you don't like the results he got.

Correct, the more people who own guns make it less of an issue.

[iverglas]

61. the energizer bunny

Anything by David Hemenway is suspect, given that he is a paid shill for the Joyce Foundation

You just keep going and going and going, doncha?

Not really worth anybody's time to read it the 99th time, let alone respond to it.

God knows what Kleck has to do with this. I guess it was just time to mumble the holy name.

[gejohnston]

64. very simple

It is a fact, so I don't give a shit about anything he writes.

Kleck? It is called inoculation by playing the hypocrisy card.

[ileus]

26. There doesn't have to be and end, the goal is for everyone to have what they want.

I personally have dozens of collectors shotguns from my youth that I've hunted with or shot that I would love to add to my shotgun collection.

Dozens of different rifles to add to my collection, and at least a dozen or more pistols for target/SD/collection.

[Abin Sur]

27. Being pro-choice *is* rather cool, isn't it? n/t

[iverglas]

35. you're the one who said "it's a good start"

So you were just typing random words?

[ileus]

38. cheese

[Tejas]

67. News like this will prevent a foreign country, Canada for example, from invading the US.

"a gun behind every blade of grass"

[spin]

71. That was a long time ago ...

Now there are even more firearms.

Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

Couple that with the fact that we have many veterans in our nation today who have received excellent military training courtesy of the U.S. government and have actually experienced combat.

[iverglas]

73. "Couple that with the fact ..."

that anybody engaging in these idiotic fantasies is living in a delusion.

Couple that with the fact that we have many veterans in our nation today who have received excellent military training courtesy of the U.S. government and have actually experienced combat.

Yes ... and ... you're all fixed for when the Martians land?

:eyes:

I'm still waiting for information about how many people who did not previously own guns bought them, and maybe how many guns each gun owner can shoot at a Martian at once.

Hey, I could do my own survey.

How many here have bought a gun so far this year?

How many here who have bought a gun this year didn't already own one?

Easy.

[spin]

81. I don't really spend any time worrying about an invasion from Mars ...

as if there is any life on Mars it is probably bacteria.

Nor do I worry about an attack by aliens from another solar system. However, if space traveling aliens do decide to invade us and are aggressive, firearms will make little difference.

The battle would be somewhat similar to a Roman legion trying to fight a Lockheed AC-130 gunship.

[Tejas]

84. AC-130 > Martians

[reggie the dog]

31. in many if not most states you can buy guns without any paperwork

i know i saw my uncle sell a gun to my grandpa in florida and no papers were necessary, hell the gun was never registered anyways.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

39. Some posters here will quote a survey that says that fewer people own firearms ...

today than did in the past. Such posters contend that existing gun owners are merely buying all the new firearms and stocking up.

Changes in Gun Ownership and Support for the Right to Own Them
by Gwen Sharp, Jan 12, 2011, at 09:37 pm

FiveThirtyEight has up a post about attitudes toward gun ownership in the U.S. Drawing on General Social Survey data, they show actual ownership of guns has gone down over time; less than 40% of American households now report having one:



You might expect that, as fewer Americans own guns themselves, support for the right to own personal firearms might decrease, as fewer people might feel a strong personal interest in the issue and restricting or banning access to guns wouldn’t, presumably, affect them directly or bring up an emotional image of agents storming into their homes. Yet we don’t see this at all. In fact, Gallup poll data indicate that support for banning handguns has decreased over time as well, with fewer than one third of Americans supporting such a policy:


http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/12/changes-in-gun-ownership-and-support-for-the-right-to-own-them/

The General Social Survey

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a sociological survey used to collect data on demographic characteristics and attitudes of residents of the United States. The survey is conducted face-to-face with an in-person interview by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, of a randomly-selected sample of adults (18+) who are not institutionalized. The survey was conducted every year from 1972 to 1994 (except in 1979, 1981, and 1992). Since 1994, it has been conducted every other year. The survey takes about 90 minutes to administer. As of 2010 28 national samples with 55,087 respondents and 5,417 variables had been collected. The data collected about this survey includes both demographic information and respondent's opinions on matters ranging from government spending to the state of race relations to the existence and nature of God. Because of the wide range of topics covered, and the comprehensive gathering of demographic information, survey results allow social scientists to correlate demographic factors like age, race, gender, and urban/rural upbringing with beliefs, and thereby determine whether, for example, an average middle-aged black male respondent would be more or less likely to move to a different U.S. state for economic reasons than a similarly situated white female respondent; or whether a highly educated person with a rural upbringing is more likely to believe in a transcendent God than a person with an urban upbringing and only a high-school education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

I suspect that your personal experience from selling firearms at a gun show which shows many new first time gun owners is far more reliable than answers about firearm ownership given in a face to face interview with a stranger. I personally would simply lie about my gun ownership in such a situation or tell the interviewer that my gun ownership was none of his damn business and terminate the interview at that point. Other gun owners that I have talked to agree that they would do the same.

[iverglas]

57. you missed a bit

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/did-democrats-give-up-in-gun-control-debate/

... according to the General Social Survey, conducted intermittently since 1972, the percentage of Americans who think permits should be required before a gun can be obtained has gradually risen (to 79 percent in 2008 from 72 percent in 1972). Background checks for gun owners are overwhelmingly popular, attracting the support of as many as 90 percent of Americans.

And a comment on the possible real causal factor:

Perhaps Democrats ultimately made the right political calculation. But they might also have made the outcome of the debate over gun control something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, since with exceptionally sharp and cagey groups like the National Rifle Association as their adversaries, the Democrats certainly weren’t going to win any arguments that they were tentative about engaging in.

When you've got the right wing riling its troops up about this moronic "gun rights" nonsense, and the Democrats, the US's proxy for anything mildly progressive, saying nothing to present an alternative viewpoint ... well then the only portrayal of that alternative viewpoint that people hear is the one framed by the NRA and its bedmates in the right wing.

You find the same thing at the bottom end of the anti-choice brigade -- people who have simply never heard anything about the issue except the ravings of their right-wing pastor and politicos, and hear nothing from the other side but mealy-mouthed crap like "safe, legal and rare", and no philosophical defence of women's rights or pragmatic discussion of the effects of anti-choice policies, ever.

You want to see genuine, informed, thoughtful opinion on firearms issues among the public?

Cut the constant crap we see here week in and week out, quit propagating the lies told by the right wing / gun militants (like the fake Feinstein quote, etc. etc. etc.). Stop behaving like Fox News and behave like members of a democratic society where issues should be discussed and debated and all sides have a voice, and one side is not lied about and misrepresented and vilified by ugly demagogues.

Be part of the solution, pals.

Unless you don't actually want democratic discourse, don't actually want issues considered thoughtfully by an informed public, and just want to win by any means necessary. Your goal is kind of tainted by your choice of tactics in that case, I'd say.

[gejohnston]

59. Project much?

You want to see genuine, informed, thoughtful opinion on firearms issues among the public?

Cut the constant crap we see here week in and week out, quit propagating the lies told by the right wing / gun militants (like the fake Feinstein quote, etc. etc. etc.). Stop behaving like Fox News and behave like members of a democratic society where issues should be discussed and debated and all sides have a voice, and one side is not lied about and misrepresented and vilified by ugly demagogues.

I have yet to see anything genuine, informed, or thoughtful from your side. How about dishonesty about misrepresenting "guns in bars" and "you can buy machine guns at gun shows and Wal Mart with no questions asked" Or, misrepresenting a BATFE report about where Mexican drug gangs are getting machine guns, rocket launchers, and hand grenades.

Ugly demagogues? What is "gun militant" "small penis crowd" "gunloon"? civil discourse?
Fox? How about McClatchy, Stratfor.com, Latin American Herald? Wikileaks?

[iverglas]

60. how about you think again?

I have yet to see anything genuine, informed, or thoughtful from your side.

You have a long job ahead of you if you want to prove that none of that can be found in any of my posts. And at the end, you will have failed.

"you can buy machine guns at gun shows and Wal Mart with no questions asked"

Damn: No results found for "you can buy machine guns at gun shows and Wal Mart with no questions asked".

What is "gun militant" ... "gunloon"?

To address the two terms I have used (I imagine I have said "gunloon" once or twice): I think you know the answer to your question.

Fox? How about McClatchy, Stratfor.com, Latin American Herald? Wikileaks?

No idea what you're saying here. Try reading what I said again and see if you can explain how this relates to it.

[gejohnston]

62. you prove my point

says you, not only your posts. You can not prove a negative.
The Al Qaida "you can buy machine guns at gun shows hoax" The term he used was automatic weapons. You lose

Right, that is your idea of "civil discourse" but whine when we use any term you don't like

You said from Fox specifically. How many times any of us use Fox as a source? My point had more to do with the 90 percent myth specifically

I was not writing specifically about you, but "gun control advocates" in general. Notice I said "your side" not "you"

[iverglas]

63. for the gods' sake

You said from Fox specifically. How many times any of us use Fox as a source?

I said STOP BEHAVING LIKE FOX NEWS. Jesus, so few words, so easy to understand.

STOP MISREPRESENTING. Stop maligning everybody and everything that is remotely progressive. Stop doing the footwork for the right wing.

[gejohnston]

69. such lies

distinction without a difference.

STOP MISREPRESENTING. Stop maligning everybody and everything that is remotely progressive. Stop doing the footwork for the right wing.
who or what did I misrepresent? Hemenway? No, the evidence indicates that is the truth.
Progressive? How?

Everything and everyone that is remotely progressive? For example?
Dishonesty is dishonesty and lies are lies, I don't give a shit who does it.
Progressive who are dishonest about this or any other issue do the footwork themselves, and put themselves on the same level as Fox. That is why we can not tolerate dishonesty it in our own. If that interferes with your ideological purity, too fucking bad.

[ileus]

90. Well said...

[spin]

66. I don't see any real value in requiring everybody who wants to own a firearms to get a permit ...

although I have absolutely no problem with requiring anyone who wishes to carry a concealed firearm being required to get one.

I have a concealed weapons permit and in Florida the program is "shall issue". That means that I do not have to be rich, famous, well connected or of a certain race to obtain the permit. I have to pass a background check, get fingerprinted for the initial license, send in a passport photo and show proof of having attended a class on gun safety and pay out a very reasonable fee and the license shows up the the mail. It's good for seven years and the renewal fee is even lower and I don't have to send in new fingerprints or take another class.

I also have no problem with requiring a person to pass the NICS background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. I would like to see this system receive better financing and states be required to input the names of people who should be disqualified from purchasing a firearm on a timely basis. I would also see this system expanded to requiring all private sales of firearms to undergo an NICS check. Of course the fee for this background check would have to be very reasonable and no further registration of the firearms involved should occur beyond what is required when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

Are you sure you want an honest discussion on gun control?

Your side has strong emotional arguments about the tragedies that firearms cause but your opponents can easily counter with stories of how firearms were used for legitimate self defense and averted a victim suffering serious injury or death.

It's difficult for you to prove that the proliferation of firearms and concealed carry have caused major problems as the fact is that the violent crime rate has decreased dramatically in recent years.

Crime in the United States

Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).<1>

***snip***

The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010....emphasis added




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

You might have a good argument for draconian gun control if the violent crime rate was rising, but when it is falling despite the skyrocketing sales of firearms and the steadily increasing number of people who legally carry firearms in public, your argument lacks a dramatic impact. While more guns may not mean less crime, it is obvious that more guns does not equal more crime.

It could be argued that the crime rate is headed in the right direction and it might be unwise to further prohibit firearm ownership or reinstate another assault weapons ban as more guns and less restrictive gun laws MIGHT just be a factor in the decrease of the violent crime rate. If you implemented a ban on semi-auto firearms including pistols, you might actually see an increase in violent crime. The same might happen if you banned all concealed carry.

If you look at the graphs above you will notice that in 2004 when the assault weapons ban expired, the crime rate did not shoot up. When you look at the map below and compare it to the above graphs it's obvious that in the same time frame that shall issue concealed carry was sweeping across the United States, the violent crime rate was falling.

There may not be a correlation between less restrictive gun laws and the decrease in crime, but surely you can see that making a convincing argument for more and far stricter gun control is an uphill fight.



I would suggest that you become part of the solution and work to improve the existing laws. The concept of gradually passing new gun control laws in the United States until finally all firearms are as restricted as they are in Canada is unrealistic and politically impossible.

In U.S., Continuing Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Control
Fewer than 3 in 10 support law banning handguns except for police and authorized personnel
November 22, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the second year in a row, a record-low 44% of Americans say laws governing the sale of firearms should be made more strict, while 42% say gun laws should be kept as they are now. Twelve percent say gun laws should be made less strict.



Americans' support for stricter gun control laws has gradually declined over the last two decades, from 78% when this question was first asked in 1990 to 49% in 2008, and 44% in 2009 and again this year. As support for stricter gun laws has decreased, support for keeping gun laws as they are now has increased, from 17% in 1990 to 42% now. The percentage of Americans favoring less strict gun control laws has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years, and is now at 12%.

***snip***

Americans are also less likely to say there should be a law banning the possession of handguns except by the police and other authorized persons. The current 29% who favor such a law is within one percentage point of the low of 28% recorded last year, down from 60% when Gallup first asked this question in 1959 -- the only time when a majority favored such a ban. Support has been below 40% every year since 1993.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/144887/continuing-record-low-support-stricter-gun-control.aspx

I don't always agree with the NRA and there are times when I agree with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In my opinion both sides of the gun control issue could work together to compromise and improve our existing laws. My object and the object of any responsible citizen despite what side of the gun control issue they are on should be to further reduce gun violence. As a gun owner, firearm tragedies endanger my enjoyment of a life long hobby. We need to improve our laws in order to better prevent those who are violent criminals and those who have serious mental issues from owning and misusing firearms. We also need to realize that without enforcement, laws are merely words on paper.

[iverglas]

70. but nobody was asking how you feel

The issue was public opinion.

A large and growing majority of the public believes that a permit should be obtained in order to acquire firearms. Fact.

That's a specific question. Asking a sample of the population whether they believe gun laws should be more or less strict or stay the same -- without having any idea of what they think gun laws actually are -- is not a question I'll take as providing any useful information.

The very fact that 50 years ago, modern gun militancy did not exist (and the public as a whole was hugely less aligned with / deluded by the right wing in general) meant that discourse on the subject was considerably more rational and less dominated by the anti-democratic demagoguery of the gun militants. These things actually do make a difference.

I actually think it's quite significant that very nearly 3 in 10 respondents support a ban on handguns now. I'll bet you do too.

It certainly suggests to me that more than that would support stringent regulation short of a ban. I'll bet it does to you too.

[Tejas]

75. nor you.

"modern gun militancy"

WTF is that? Did you invent that phrase?

[iverglas]

76. words, words words

"modern gun militancy"
WTF is that? Did you invent that phrase?

Perhaps that way of describing the phenomenon, but certainly not the phenomenon.

The racist right wing did that, round about the late 1960s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=442627&mesg_id=442984

[Tejas]

85. Parroting what Reagan might've said about the Black Panthers?

I could see you doing that.

[iverglas]

86. pretending that modern gun militancy is not the brainchild of the racist right wing?

I do see you doing that.

[SteveM]

102. Phew! Relieved to learn no liberal Democrats voted for the '68 GCA. nt

[spin]

78. 50 years ago was 1961 andJFK was alive...

and he was a lifetime NRA member



The fact is that 50 years ago there was little push for gun control in the United States. That began after the Kennedy assassination and led to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68), Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213, enacted October 22, 1968 by president Lyndon Johnson, is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

***snip***

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was part of President Johnson's Great Society series of programs and was spurred in passage by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. The deaths of the latter two men occurred after the Act's introduction as a bill, but before it had been passed by either the House or Senate. In early June 1968, a tie vote in the House Judiciary Committee halted the bill's passage.<1> On reconsideration nine days later, the bill was passed by the committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee similarly brought the bill to a temporary halt, but as in the House, it was passed on reconsideration.<2>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

These assassinations were believed to be caused by lone shooters but over the years many people have felt they involved a much larger conspiracy. That would be an interesting discussion for another time and place.

You say:

Asking a sample of the population whether they believe gun laws should be more or less strict or stay the same -- without having any idea of what they think gun laws actually are -- is not a question I'll take as providing any useful information.

I believe that most people in the United States are fairly familiar with gun laws in their state as gun control has been a hot topic for years and since 80 million citizens here in the United States own firearms. Therefore when asked about gun control most citizens here can give a knowledgeable answer but if asked a question on a complicated economic policy such as a flat tax or if taxes should be imposed on Chinese imports their answers would provide less "useful information."

You say:

I actually think it's quite significant that very nearly 3 in 10 respondents support a ban on handguns now. I'll bet you do too.

You are absolutely right, I do. However what I find is significant is that in 1959, 60% felt that there should be a law banning the possession of handguns except by the police and other authorized persons and now only 28% do. When 72% of the people are in favor of handgun ownership by civilians your side has little chance of ever banning such weapons. I have to admire your optimistic approach but I fear that your enthusiasm will find political reality a brick wall which you will not be able to go under, around or through. It's nice to dream, though.

I should mention that I grew up in the 50s and 60s and handguns were fairly uncommon at that time. I knew people who owned rifles and shotguns but only two individuals who owned a handgun. One was my mother who had a cherished S&W LadySmith revolver which she had used to defend herself from an attacker. My father had removed the firing pin so the weapon was deactivated and was merely a heirloom. My father in law had a 9mm German pistol which he had brought back from WWII but had no ammo for it.

It was a peaceful time and few people bothered to lock their doors at night. It's not surprising that 60% of people favored limiting handguns to cops and authorized persons as few people felt they served any useful purpose. That changed as the violent crime rate skyrocketed.

You say:

It certainly suggests to me that more than that would support stringent regulation short of a ban. I'll bet it does to you too.

As I mentioned I do believe that we can improve existing guns control laws in the United States if we can find a way for opposing sides to compromise and work together to reduce the declining rate of gun violence even further. Many gun owners would indeed consider the improvements that I would support as "stringent regulations". I personally believe that such modifications of our current law would be far more effective than the "feel good" laws your side often favors. Of course, as I mentioned, our current laws have to be enforced first. Operation Fast and Furious is a prime example of a failure to enforce the laws that already exist.

But unfortunately today it appears that it is virtually impossible for two side of any issue to find common ground and compromise in the United States. That is why we find ourselves in our current mess.

[iverglas]

87. did JFK ever meet the *NRA-ILA*?

We all know that's what's really in issue when we talk about "the NRA" here.

Many gun owners would indeed consider the improvements that I would support as "stringent regulations". I personally believe that such modifications of our current law would be far more effective than the "feel good" laws your side often favors.

My "side"?

You're quite aware of what *I* advocate (with respect to the US: if asked and/or if the situation has an impact outside the US).

My "side" is what we have in Canada with a few important improvements (and restoration of what the present right-wing government is in the process of destroying: the long arms registry ... and anything else it manages to get up to in the next four years):

mandatory licensing
mandatory registration
mandatory safe/secure storage

with the addition of

no possession of handguns or restricted long arms (the things currently only available to recognized sports shooters and "collectors") outside appropriate facilities (sports shooting facilities, secure commercial storage) (with the very few and rare exceptions we currently have regarding employment)

What we call restricted firearms regulations would probably be what you call "feel good laws". I don't really care. ;)

[spin]

92. Nor an I overly concerned about the gun laws in Canada ...

after all, it is YOUR country and you can pass any laws you wish. ;-)

[MicaelS]

95. "We don't give a damn how you did it up North"

That was sign posted at a job back in my youth.

A bunch of people from the Upper Midwest got transferred into out district in Texas, and there constant refrain was "We didn't do it like that up North."

Same thing applies to Canada.

[iverglas]

96. did you imagine that this was not perfectly clear since forever?

The proportion of people in the US who don't give a damn about anything outside their own backyard is well known to those of the rest of us who have had much contact with people in the US.

It ranges from total lack of interest on the personal level, i.e. not the slightest interest in the other party in ordinary conversation between individuals, to total disdain on the collective level, i.e. uninformed arrogance in relation to other peoples, nations and cultures.

The idea that one doesn't learn too much in a bell jar, sealed off from outside influences, just doesn't occur to an awful lot of people.

On the other hand, it probably does ... which is why they are all so eager not to let any outside influence penetrate the bell jar ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. Awww, not being treated with what you regard as your due importance?

You'll get over it...

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Brought to mind a half-remembered quote from Shaw's "Caesar and Cleopatra"

Lokked it up, as it seems quite applicable here:

BRITANNUS (shocked): Caesar: this is not proper.
THEODOTUS (outraged): How!
CAESAR (recovering his self-possession): Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

[iverglas]

109. it does indeed!

Ah, he was no fool, was he? He was obviously familiar with the lower half of North America. You know, the place where they think there actually are "laws of nature", and that they were delivered to them on a parchment in the latish 18th century in the chosen land ...

Shakespeare was on point too:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

He's talking to you there!

Of course, what Britannus was referring to was the practice of the brothers and sisters of the Egyptian royal family being also spouses. And Caesar was patronizing Theodotus to the nth degree. Obviously, he also thought the practice a scandal, and barbaric to boot. ;)

So the lesson here is that next time I see someone expressing how shocked and appalled they are at some of the sentiments expressed in this forum, I should say to the rest of you:

Pardon him/her, friends: s/he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his/her tribe and island are the laws of nature.

and no one will know I'm laughing up my sleeve at the real barbarians. Right?

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. I think what exercises you Commonwealth types the most...

...isn't that we tend not to listen to your moralizing, but the fact that we don't really need to and are not the least bit shy about reminding you of it whenever you mount your soapbox to tell us how uncivilized we are.

[iverglas]

114. ... could be that you don't have a fucking clue what the Commonwealth is

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Just keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

Britons, Australians and Canadians love to lecture us. (I don't know enough Kiwis to say one way or the other).

[iverglas]

108. so here's what was said to me, to which I responded:

I personally believe that such modifications of our current law would be far more effective than the "feel good" laws your side often favors.

I refuted that statement by stating what laws "my side" favours. My side happens to be in Canada. The individual who said that to me knows that.

If you are all so supremely uninterested in what goes on anywhere but your backyard, I am at a loss to understand why so many of you spend so much time yammering about it. A very small fraction of the posts in this forum about matters outside the US is written by anyone who actually lives outside the US.

Funny phenomenon, ain't it? People who do NOT live in another country feel compelled to talk about that country and their musings are welcomed here with open arms. People who DO live in other countries and talk about matters in their countries are not, even when those matters are raised by people in the US.

Funny strange, and also funny ha-ha.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. Micael, you are violating an unspoken double standard for Canadian-US discussions

It's perfectly acceptable for Canadians to lecture us stroppy USAians.But heaven forfend we reject their "advice", or get above our station and tell them how to run their country. That's just not civilized, dontcha know?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mistertrickster]

54. The OP is right . . . gun control is a total loser for us. We need jobs.

Keep focused on what is important.

[Tejas]

65. Sadly, some here would not lose a wink of sleep if

every last firearm factory (jobs) and firearm accessory manufacturer (more jobs) in the US were to go belly up tomorrow.

[iverglas]

72. you got it

Just imagine what the money you and your pals put into firearms could do if it were injected into the economy to some productive avail.

Or what, you'd just take the money you spend on guns and eat it with whipped cream?

Imagine all the unemployed police, the empty courtrooms, the hospital beds with no one in them, the gravediggers leaning on their idle shovels ...

How would the US economy function without guns???

[spin]

79. Imagine the cost to the economy if only criminals owned firearms ...

and were able to rape and pillage without any resistance except for the police who would arrive to tape off the scene and take evidence.

The 911 operators would find their telephone lines jammed by incoming calls.

The emergency rooms would be filled by innocent victims who had been shot, knifed or beaten and stomped. Only the strongest would survive.

Grave diggers would be working 24/7.

People would be installing safe rooms in their homes.

The legal system and the court system would be totally overwhelmed. Prisons would have to release violent criminals early in order to find room for new violent criminals.

The churches would be full of people praying for help from Jesus and hoping for the Rapture to come soon.

I also can employ hyperbole. It's great fun!

[iverglas]

88. ... which they acquired by clicking their heels together three times

Imagine the cost to the economy if only criminals owned firearms ...

Why would I?

That's a silly scenario for you ponder. I have no reason to.

Try imagining ... oh, Canada ... or the UK ... or ...

[oneshooter]

99. It would be like livin in Canada! n/t

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

74. The only thing worse would be nuclear war IMHO.

[spin]

80. Nuclear war is unlikely ...

what you really need to worry about is an EMP bomb.

Electronic Armageddon: How An EMP Bomb Would Be A Deathblow To Life As We Know It (VIDEO)

Earlier this month, NASA warned that as the Sun wakes up from its "deep slumber," a massive solar storm could wreak havoc on our electronics, from satellites to the electrical grid, causing damages up to 20 times the cost of Hurricane Katrina.

But the Sun isn't the only threat to our electronic lifeline. National Geographic explorers the risk and consequences of the "electronic Armageddon" that could be caused by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bomb.

An EMP bomb, National Geographic explains, is "a bomb that's designed to go above the atmosphere and release huge amounts of energy," some of which in the form of gamma rays. Such a weapon would cripple electronics, but not kill people.

"In less than a billionth of a second, the electrical intensity on Earth's surface would become so hot that microchips would fry, power lines would overload and the electric grid would collapse," says National Geographic, describing . "Everything with microelectronics in it would stop: your car, your computer, the subway. There would be no electricity."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/electronic-armageddon-emp_n_615638.html

[Katya Mullethov]

91. I would wager on the probability of a sudden and abrupt halt

To entitlements of every sort creating a great many little "messes" .

[SteveM]

103. Did you have an opportunity to see Ken Burns' "Prohibition" on PBS?

It finished (3 nights running) on Tuesday. View it and you will see virtually every argument for (booze) prohibition being applied to gun prohibition; same attitudes, same zealotry, same damn-the-consequences. As I have said for some time: Gun-controllers/banners MADE the modern NRA. And the whole "issue" of gun-control/prohibition wasn't even AROUND when the Zombies were charting in the mid-60s. So much for this being a "traditional" liberal/Democratic issue. It ain't.

[mistertrickster]

112. yup, I saw it . . . good points. nt

[SteveM]

113. I found if one were to leave a blank________________ for the thing or

behavior to be banned, the same kind of historical record, attitudes, corruptions, etc. can be built around it. The War On Drugs (WOD) is the current prohibition -- virtually the same kind of social and political track record. The up-and-coming prohibition? Tobacco smoking. Not only is it be banned within public/private company businesses, it will be banned in public, even when out of doors. Next, will come smoking in one's own home wherever children are present (we already have many child protective services bureaucracies ready to be burdened with virulent enforcement procedures).

It will happen.

Gays, ganja, guns, gin -- all prohibitions seek first to hate the object, then to hate the possessor.

[burf]

116. I did my part last night to help bring October's

numbers up.