This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Gun violence has has dropped, not increased. And the article makes note of that and draws a connection:
Not necessarily. It's using a percentage of households rather than the actual number of households. With the number of households increasing over the past 4 decades, it is very possible that gun ownership is in fact increasing, but the number of households is increasing more, thus lowering the percentage of households with guns.
Did you read the entire article? Given the breakdowns that the survey offers, I strongly doubt this is the case.
Yes, I did read the article. Did you? Because it even suggests what I just said as a possibility.
Sure it gives these as reasons. That's not the same as suggesting that the number of guns owned has actually increased, which is what you suggested above. Nowhere in the article is that possibility presented or implied.
Learn to read Tim. I said it was possible, not that it has. The number of households has nearly doubled since the 70's. With more and more households being a demographic that normally doesn't own guns, that's going to lower the percentage, even if the actual number of gun owners goes up. If they truly wanted to prove that gun ownership has gone down, they'd come out with the hard numbers to prove it (i.e. 40million households in 1970 and 30million in 2010.) All this article really proves is that the rate of gun ownership is not keeping up with the rate of household growth.
Regarding the highlighted -- From when?Agenda driven pieces almost always pick an arbirtrary date that just so happens to be the absolute zenith of the issue that they are saying America is improving in because of the policies they advocate. Those with the same agenda nod along approvingly without taking a widerscope view on the issue.
Tom W. Smith, the director of the General Social Survey, which is financed by the National Science Foundation, said he was confident in the trend. It lines up, he said, with two evolving patterns in American life: the decline of hunting and a sharp drop in violent crime, which has made the argument for self-protection much less urgent.
Comfort with discussing ownership changed. If you think 15% of American homes with guns gave them up recently, you're nuts. If you think they became a little reluctant to talk about it, you're probably right. My hunch is the number of homes with guns has continued to increase. Much of the sales boom is repeat customers, but I've witnessed first hand more new owners in the past few months, signing up for classes, joining gun clubs, forums, and asking questions there and in gunshops then any time in memory, and I have been a gun guy since the 70s. Classes for new owners are booked for months all over Southern California.
Went to bass pro shop last weekend - Prior to January the place was often empty of people and the display cases were filled with hundreds of handguns.Now? Its packed with a wait of 40+ minutes and they had 4 handguns. 3 of which were already sold.
Makes you wonder if Feinstein has a cut in these sales?
Heard the same story more than a few times during my stay where ammo and weapons were hard to find.Great for business.
Regarding the highlighted -- From when?Agenda driven pieces almost always pick an arbirtrary date that just so happens to be the absolute zenith of the issue that they are saying America is improving in because of the policies they advocate. Those with the same agenda nod along approvingly without taking a widerscope view on the issue.
Tom W. Smith, the director of the General Social Survey, which is financed by the National Science Foundation, said he was confident in the trend. It lines up, he said, with two evolving patterns in American life: the decline of hunting and a sharp drop in violent crime, which has made the argument for self-protection much less urgent.
The following are two charts that prove my point.
First, here's a 20th Century American homicide chart which reflects the same trick played when people claim that murder is down in America. From when? From the zeniths in the late 70s and early 90s, but certainly not from the nadir in the late 50s.
http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/homicides-1900-20062.jpg
If gun ownership decreased over the past four decades (since 1970) we can presume that gun ownership was was higher a decade before in 1960. Yet statistics do show that gun violence was far less in 1960 then it is now. In fact, gun violence peaked in the early 90s -- a couple decades after the percent of households legally owning guns had already begun to decline.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/matthewherper/files/2012/12/weapons23.png
Granted, gun violence is down from the highpoint in the early 90s, but why are we comparing only against that high point which it's evident that the article is doing? And if gun ownership was already declining for a couple decades by the time that high point was reached it seems nonsensical to conclude that a reduction in gun ownership is the primary cause for reduced gun crime since the 1990s.
You might also want to look at statistics in pockets of America like Chicago and Detroit where gun violence is surging the past couple of years. If gun violence is declining throughout America why is it surging in areas within America that have a lower rate of legal gun ownership?
I don't get it.
I agree that LaPierre is a horrible spokesman, but not for any of the reasons listed in that article.
Well, the fact that he would associate himself with World Net Daily, would allow them to publish his book- that should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of his views.
Guilt by association. Excellent.
Some associations are worse than others.
What bs. Nothing the Dems have said or done led to the increased gun sales- that was because the gun nuts, watching talk shows like Pierce Morgan, fueled their paranoia. But the fault isn't Morgans either, despite his hyperbole- the NRA has been building this paranoia for years and the gun nuts have bought into it. As for the Dems, there is nothing they can do on this issue that would not produce the exact same reaction from the crazies. As this thread has demonstrated, even the slightest suggestion of restriction brings out the fear of seizure and tyranny. There is no way to negotiate with irrationality.
By this logic you are probably amazed that anyone who owns guns hasn't killed anyone yet.
Using the logic by some of the anti-gun crowd, that would be correct.
'timschochet said:
She answered as much as the question as she needed to. It was an incredibly stupid, incredibly condescending question, completely ignorant of the Heller decision, as Feinstein pointed out. It was a joke of a question from a joke of a senator, and it's time somebody put him in his place. Good for her! What a ####### nut that Cruz is.
Insanity. Nobody needs to have assault weapons.
But they have. Maybe you haven't been reading the news lately.
I believe he is referring to the Timschochet dictionary of the English language.mo·ron
Nobody needs a beer.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
Do you normally give your opinion on things you're clearly ignorant of?
Nobody needs automatic weapons if they aren't in the military. That satisfy you?
Automatic weapons have been banned for decades.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
