Demographics of gun owners

Post Reply New Topic

Please use the quote feature.

I am not a burglar. However, it is clear a gun is irrelevant if the owner is not inside to use it! So how are these houses different from other houses?

[qoute]
Not in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore..., even UK.[/quote]

Its also likely that having guns wouldnt cause those problems. Banning guns in the US wouldnt prevent them either. Comparing any other nation in the world to Japan is like comparing Jupiter to the moon. [/quote]
That does not mean the availability of guns is irrelevant.

Look at the big mafia group in Japan. If you think crime is never a problem in Japan, you are willfully ignorant.



I don't even see how your response is relevant to my points. In fact, judging from the low number of crime involving bombs, and automatic guns, the NFA IS successful in keeping bombs and automatic guns out of the hands of people who want to use them for crime.



Right, just like they "took away" meth and heroine huh?[/quote]
Comparing an addictive substance sold to the public to a too sold to criminals is like comparing Jupiter to the Moon. Again look no further than the great prohibition vs NFA.


What an irony DevKit's response is not even relevant and those pro gun rhetoric have long been debunked. You don't have a single point to argue against me, either. Fail.

So your "evidence" is from 40-60 year old magazines from an organization that has always presented the government as the bad guys?



How did you disect it, exactly? I really think you do need to look up the word "ideally." It does not mean will happen or even could happen.



What balloons? Go ahead and claim you have countered any of my arguments at all. All you have done is dismiss them. Declaring yourself a victor does not make it so.



I do respond to your posts, mostly just because you have a ridiculously hippocritical manner when it comes to your cries of rhetoric and whining about emotions. And as I have pointed out several times before, I have the time.




And I could do the same.


Oh, I know it’s not going to happen. They question is why are you so naïve to even openly suggest it? I can suggest all kinds of off the wall things that I know you won’t allow to go unchallenged. An example would be the voter suppression thread that we have going now.[/quote]

Well you did demand intelligence tests and property ownership as prerequisites for voting. Although now I am almost certain you were just trying to wind people up.

As for suggesting it, I believe I have the right to express my opinions on the way I believe things should be. Something that should be apparent to someone who loves to cry about infringements on free speech.



Your statements are all essentially "I want" and "I feel" statements; you just left off the words that show you know the difference between fact and opinion.



When have I ever said that I didn't believe they were regulated? You continue to make assumptions about me based on your flawed perception that I hate guns because I believe they should be as regulated as every other dangerous item/material in this country.



Um, plenty of people got angry about their rights when it comes to seatbelts and airbags. Since it is a safety issue, regulations were established and minimum standards set. Just like so many other safety standards.



Exactly. You should be allowed to express your opinions on different aspects of voting laws. For instance, I am not against pragmatic, realistic, and strict voter ID laws that are not blatantly designed to supress specific demographics. A few of the states got it right. I do not support any form of restricting access to voting, especially reducing the voting hours or making it more difficult to register.



Your thinly veiled hate speech is frequent. You are not the only guilty one around here. You openly (and somewhat gleefully) bash anyone who has a different opinion in an insulting manner, while stating how much you enjoy upsetting people.



You are only talking about your personal version of a gun rights activist. I think there are plenty of people in favor of gun rights that are ok with some regulation. You would be hard pressed to find a lot of people in favor of allowing kindergartners to purchase handguns or repeated violent offenders to purchase an AR15 or advocates for the right to mount an M249 in the bed of their pickup.

In an ill-fated attempt to guilt us into jumping on the bandwagon that doesn’t really exist.


Sure, there are anti-gun gun owners that are in effect, worms in the apple, but their numbers are relatively static in comparison to the overall gun owning populace.[/quote]

So the fact that 90% of Americans support universal background checks did nothing to sway your opinion that the majority of people want less regulation?



I have provided plenty of rationale, whether you choose to ackowledge it or not.

What I have not provided is concrete evidence, as neither side really has that going for them.



What exactly have you brought other than the complete dismissal of anyone who does not parrot what you say?



We shall see. You have difficulty keeping to that sentiment.

YOU say:
"I am very informed on this subject, which is precisely why I have stated (more than once) that everything in this thread is opinion. I have spent a substantial amount of time on this particular subject examining the claims from both extremes, and I will state that the "evidence" and "facts" cited on firearms threads (on both sides of the issue) are pretty much worthless.
And assuming that I cannot be logical based on the fact that I believe that zero regulations on firearms is a bad idea seems a bit unfair to me. I have not stated that you cannot be logical, despite (by your own standards) you would also be illogical due to your fears."[/quote]

Yes, yes, I know that you keep on saying things, but you don't or won't engage in discussion. For example:

You repeatedly push forward your ideas, changing them as you proceed, concerning training. But when I state:

"At present, on the local level, most states assign the task of vetting to county sheriff's offices. Why do you feel this is insufficient? Can you give us a list of incidents or problems caused by the present system that makes a national system superior?
I'm unaware of a problem in shooter skill levels so please fill us in if possible. I'm sure you're not saying a night nurse at a hospital needs to be a Rambo, but what "are" you saying?"

You seem to be replying "I know some people who need training" which is in no way a cogent response to the questions.

Why do you refuse to answer the points I've listed? Is your type of discussion one in which only you have the right to ask questions and expect to have them civilly answered? Or perhaps you just don't notice others difficult questions? That would be dishonest, so how about answers to these questions so we can discuss them on our way toward a mutually agreeable solution in our discussion?

However if you aren't able to spend time thinking about these (and other) questions and instead only want to forever restate, be my guest. Now we'll know if we are dealing with someone who can not keep up with the conversation and treat you accordingly with all the respect you deserve (instead of waiting for you to engage properly and sniping at you in the meantime which I don't enjoy). Personally I think passion equally combined with facts makes for the most interesting discussions, but the problem is in letting your passion overcome your common sense, and it all comes apart..

denny

ok so the use of those weapons went down cause the prohibition was ended not cause the NFA which still allowed them to be purchased at that time, it wasn't until 1968 that they were "banned" technically you could still make more its jut the ATF chooses not to ok the request. those guns weren't a problem until prohibition caused a huge increase and crime. if the criminals wanted them they can and do get them How else do you explain gangs having RPGs? they are illegal everywhere and while its not done in gain numbers, just a few getting them proves the nfa doesn't stop it. Full auto weapons can just be smuggled across the border and sold here. one can buy a ak47 for a dollar then smuggle it across the border sell it for 3k.
all the NFA does is enforce stupid rules like 16" good 15.99" evil unless you pay us money in which case its good now. the NFA is just another government tax system nothing to do with stopping crime with the weapons(which didn't exist) or they wouldn't allow the creation of NFA weapons with paid tax.

imagine if the gov said drugs are bad, but if you pay us $200 you can leglally have all the drugs you want, crack weed, cocaine, anything, just pay the tax stamp and you're golden. would that be seen as cracking down on bad drug use and crime or just trying to make money?

I shouldn't have to pay $200 to shorten my shotgun barrel 1/2 inch or less. same with rifles. originally it was supose to be 18" for rifle barrel but they changed it to 16" to allow one type of gun. to me this just proves how false and stupid the barrel length law is. one minute anything shorting then 18" is bad then its 16" but then they'd lose their income if they removed it .

So the fact that 90% of Americans support universal background checks did nothing to sway your opinion that the majority of people want less regulation?
[/quote]

last I checked we already have regulation and tons of it, so most feel we don't need more. I always hate politicians saying other rights are regulated so can the 2nd amendment. they pretend like the 2nd has never been regulated. ugh It has tons of regulation. Every gun law which there are 1000's is regulation on it. are there 1000's of regulations on free speech?
clearly most people don't think kids should be able to buy guns thats an example of reasonable regulation. as for short barrels and full autos I and many more think it should be allowed. I even am ok with full autos being tracked, not the short barrel guns though.

the whole 90% thing is false, while there are polls that show that theres just as many that show its far less. they said the same in my state then some left leaning news papers did polls and it came out 72% against and 28% for. but before hand a liberal poll place claimed it was 90% for UBC here. the same poll place has been found guilty of rigging polls in other states though.
polls also trick people by the wording they use or not telling the whole story.
universal background checks sound geat when you've been tricked into thinking 1. gun shows let anyone buy guns without background check, 2. the ubc will only effect gun shows.

i'm willing to wager almost no one read the proposed UBC cuase even if you're anti gun I would hope you not ok with allowing the gove to randomly enter anyone's house to check for guns and make sure they locked up, or punishing people for letting a friend shoot their gun at the range, or punishing a father for passing a gun to his son.
the proposed UBC went too far, that's why the smart politicians didn't support it.
If one polls an anti gun area one can expect the poll to show anti gun. so you word the poll one way, then try to poll those you feel will swing your way. then post poll saying that after polling 1000 left leaning people you can say that 90% of 320million people feel that way. by that logic If i poll one person in my city I should be able to say that the whole city thinks that way lol.

atleast poll 100k people at least and spread it out all over and random, and show proof of this. best way to do this is to just put the question on the census for next time.

so basically polls are useless, both sides can come out with polls favoring their side's view. theres been more backlash against it then backlash for it failing.

oh and lastly both sides acknowledge UBC won't work without registration. You can't prove someone violated the law without know who owned the gun. how do you know if person a sold person b a gun if you don't know person a owned the gun, for all you know person b owned the gun for years. plus you don't even know either people have a gun.

this is why local police say the law is unenforceable.

The point is the use of these weapons stay low and does not follow the trend of other guns. This cannot be easily explained away by social or economic factors.


Or because automatic guns that can be used by one person wasn't introduced until the end of WWI... If anything the criminals were very quick to adopt the new technology.



See your own statement above. The NFA is not just tax but does include a registry to keep track of the weapons, a better background check system and more safety and stowage requirements.

Whether you call it a ban is a matter of definition. I do NOT advocate the total elimination of guns from civilian use and ownership. I just advocate regulating them appropriate to its use.


I am not claiming the law will 100% stop the criminal use of these weapons and I don't need to. It suffices to reduce the level to a point that it is irrelevant. Good enough is good enough.


Again little more than fiction. Even if you can, where are you going to find criminals buying them and will you trust the guy not to use his new toy against you? Drug (and alcohol) user are much more cooperative.


Is it so hard to understand that the line have to be drawn somewhere?

Michigan, home of the wolverine, open carry since 1837.
Walking a state-owned road with a long gun and revolver is perfectly legal.

God bless Michigan Artillerymen. BOOM!

The free-speech analogy is an interesting one. Guns are definitely a lot more powerful than when the 2nd Amendment was written, but methods of incitement have also advanced. It was hard to get people too riled up when they walked to work six days a week, stitched their own clothes and cut their own wood, and you had to stand on a soapbox in a park and yell to get their attention. The London Riots were allegedly organized through encrypted SMS. Wars have been started that way. (I had an Austrian relative who sat in a Nazi prison with a well-used guillotine for standing up to those former street thugs.)

If you argue that guns were necessary in our frontier past, but not now, then what about alcohol? I'm descended from frontiersmen and sailors (among others). Guns kept them fed and defended from predators on land, while alcohol kept their drinking supply from spoiling at sea. Both are dangerous, and neither is necessary now. Why not treat them equally? The frequency of drunken driving deaths is close to that of all types of murders combined. Including other alcohol-related deaths (cerosis, etc.) raises that figure markedly.

We could have some of the same types of access controls. To be able to buy a handgun in Minnesota, you either have to apply for an annual permit, or go through the background check at the dealer. By contrast, a serial drunk driver can walk into a liquor store and buy a keg. That's true even if they've already killed someone. We could issue alcohol licenses to people with clean records or require drug tests at the liquor store. You could yank the license at the first alcohol-related offense and jail anyone who was subsequently found to be in possession of alcohol. You could even deny any felon the right to drink on the argument that they obviously don't have good judgment.