A taste of reality. Percent of households with firearms.

[lawodevolution]

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/26/One-third-of-US-households-own-guns/UPI-46991303850331/#ixzz1Kfl4sQwe

VPC proudly announces and lies to you that only 32.3% of households have firearms. No surprise because this data may be used by the government to plan policy and they'd like to cheat their way to victory. In reality the number does not reflect a reduction in gun ownership but a reduction in trust for the government.

The data for 2006 shows that
44.3% (n=12702) marked YES
54.9% (n=17594) marked NO
0.8% (n-234) refused to answer
20367 had a missing answer

To go from 44.3 to 32.3% in 4 years means that millions of guns would have been dumped on the market or destroyed. We have no indication that they were destroyed and people would likely want money for their guns. The millions of guns dumped on the market would have collapsed gun prices but instead in 2009 supply of new manufactured guns finally wasn’t able to keep up with demand and prices exploded. The increase in sales of firearms was blamed on Obama, but it was really Katrina.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/copy_of_TotalNICSBackgroundChecks.pdf

NICS checks
2000-2004 ranged in the 8 millions
2005: 8.95 million
2006: 10.036 million
2007: 11.177 million
2008: 12.709 million
2009: 14.033 million
2010: 14.410 million
2011: on route for 17 million

As usual what comes out of VPC is pure propaganda.

[rfranklin]

1. Reassuring to know that there are even more idiots with firearms out there now...

Life in the USA just gets better and better.

[DonP]

9. Actually it is getting better and better

Crime rates, including violent crime, are at 40 year lows according to the FBI and DoJ. To me that's "better", how about you?

Or doesn't that reality fit into your world view, with more firearms in it?

[rfranklin]

17. What study shows that those two things are correlated?

None that I know of. For instance, New York City has restrictive gun ownership laws and a dropping crime rate. Houston has a growing crime rate and no restrictions on gun ownership. Among the most dangerous cities in America, some are in states that limit legal access to firearms, others in states that allow citizens to own guns without limit. Where's the correlation? Doesn't exist.

[DonP]

26. It's not about correlation genius

You sarcastically said that with all these guns "things keep getting better and better".

I just wanted to reassure you that they are indeed getting better, as far as crime is concerned.

My, my gun control fans are very sensitive people that seem to see things that aren't even there.

Does it really disappoint you that much that there are more guns out there than ever and that crime is still dropping?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. are you calling legal gun owners idiots....?

[rfranklin]

16. A good number of them are...

Do you think that owning a firearm conveys wisdom? I don't think so. After all, having a driver's license doesn't make you an Einstein, does it?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[jeepnstein]

20. Nor does having a computer...

make one Noam Chomsky.

[rfranklin]

23. Well, I own a handgun and a computer...

what does that make me?

[slackmaster]

29. That makes you a geek with a gun

:nuke:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. there is a far cry from Einstein to Idiot and I would think most everyone falls

inbetween. No matter what they own. Perhaps you are the idiot. Because I sure have not seen any evidence of brilliance nor genius in your posts.

[slackmaster]

28. And the number of idiots with computers and Internet access is growing even faster

:nuke:

[lawodevolution]

35. "idiots with computers". See post number 28.

[Kolesar]

2. Your first three sentences are baffling...eom

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Forget it

He's on a roll.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. VPC = Crap

Does that work better for you?

[Kolesar]

15. Such command of the English language by our favorite gun promoter!

:sarcasm:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Short, precise, to the point...what is not to like?

If you have any integrity and have followed the anti gun rights debate, you know that the VPC is not a worthy source of "studies". Resorting to personal attack on those who point it out says thing about your intellectual integrity as well.

[Kolesar]

27. "anti gun rights debate"

That is imaginative. Not in a good way

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. It does put some of when it is pointed out that the anti gun rights crowd is supporting classist and

racist laws, both historically and today.

[pipoman]

19. There are few organizations

who top the VPC for outright lies and intellectual dishonesty.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. About as interesting as an IRS instruction sheet

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[lawodevolution]

5. A good way to tell a thread hits the nail on the head is when the anti gun posters act out

And post petty little insults

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. A bit like unreccing everything.

:rofl:

[spin]

10. Yup. (n/t)

[Hoyt]

7. Who knows what % is? But most of gun sales are too the same old irrational, obsessed gun crowd.

[lawodevolution]

8. Don't hate

[Hoyt]

11. Have great empathy for those irrationally obsessed with guns -- grown up with a bunch.

[oneshooter]

22. And how is your irrational obsession doing? n/t

[Hoyt]

32. Doing fine. I left guns behind 30/40 years ago when I finally grew up. Hope someday you will too.

[lawodevolution]

36. Owning guns is the highest form of responsibility that one can have in this society

and you have deemed yourself to be unable to handle that responsibility. We don't allow children, the insane or criminals to handle guns for a reason. I feel that you should be able to make that choice if you personally feel you should not own a gun.

It is easy to kill with a gun; therefore, to own a gun and remain law abiding and non-violent shows that the individual is emotionally advanced and mature enough to keep a dangerous weapon within reach and not to use it against anyone. Any nation that bans guns or heavily regulates them also expresses their view that their population are barbaric and primitive to the point where they can't be trusted to be in possession of a firearm.

[Hoyt]

37. Good one, I'll have to write that subject statement down. You Eagle-Scouts-of-Guns crack me up.

I'd try to find a real way to exercise your responsibility to society.

And, it is barbaric to allow folks to shoot down someone they think is a threat . . . . . even if that person is unarmed, a 12 year old girl without a visible gun, a threat perceived more from appearance, because the gun carrier is a bit edgy for some reason (bad neighborhood, scared of sounds, got to get home to to the bathroom, just got fired, spouse in raising heck, whatever), etc.

I think we need to concentrate on laws that are effective in putting gunners in prison when using that piece too soon or when really not needed. Needs to be a crime that is not all but dismissed because the carrier had a permit that almost anyone can get if they just can't fathom leaving home without one.

I'd also clamp down on some of these CCW instructors I read about.

[ManiacJoe]

38. You have the right idea, you are just short on details.

And, it is barbaric to allow folks to shoot down someone they think is a threat
This is correct. What the law says is that you can use deadly force against someone you reasonably think is a deadly threat. The current accepted definition of "reasonably think is a deadly threat" by both the courts and the self defense schools is "ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and sometimes preclusion".

All your examples are good generic "no-shoot" examples. They are also misquotes of the current event postings of late.

I think we need to concentrate on laws that are effective in putting gunners in prison when using that piece too soon or when really not needed.
We are already there.

Needs to be a crime that is not all but dismissed because the carrier had a permit ...
The definition of a legal shooting has nothing to do with having a concealed weapons permit.

... that almost anyone can get if they just can't fathom leaving home without one.
The reason "almost anyone" can get one is that "almost everyone" is qualified (no felonies, no DV misdemeanors, no psych problems).

[lawodevolution]

39. I'd clamp down on members and staff of anti civil liberties groups such as VPC and Brady campaign

Because it is a federal crime to conspire to oppress a civil liberty and these groups were involved in and supported laws that banned gun ownership to law abiding, mentally competent, of age folk in DC and Chicago, which was a conspiracy to oppress the civil liberty of owning firearms.

[jeepnstein]

21. It's all he's got.

[David West]

12. Really?

While I'm sure you'd count me into the "same old irrational, obsessed gun crowd," I have seen a LOT of people from all walks of life and all political persuasions buying guns the last few years. The evidence is purely anecdotal to be sure, but I'd imagine there are a lot of people on here who have anecdotal experiences to back that up.

[Hoyt]

33. Naw, I include you with poor folks that stand around in public with rifle slung over their shoulder.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

34. Nope.

Just rational people aware of the anti gun lobby, its agenda, and the useful idiots that buy into it.


Yup

Yup

Yup