Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumStatistics Show The Solution to Gun Violence is Fewer Guns
As MotherJones observes, 2012 has been rife with horrific gun violence, including mass shootings at a premiere of Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado that killed 12 and wounded 58 on July 20th, a neo-Nazi attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin that killed 7 on August 5th, and a September 29th massacre at a signage company in Minneapolis that killed 5.
The list goes on and on and on. There are currently 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the United States. Americans pack more heat than Iraqis. 68% of American gun owners have at least one handgun while the percentage of Americans who own guns is decreasing (41% in 1994 to 36% in 2011). The jump in firearm possession is due to a rise in the average number of guns per gun owner, which rose from 4.1 in 1994 to an astonishing 6.9 in 2004.
In other words, a shrinking group of Americans is stockpiling more and more weapons.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20653/clackamas-mass-shooting-statistics-show-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-fewer-guns
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Why are they stockpiling on weapons. Especially since 2008 and now more so since Obama's reelection. He hasn't said one thing about gun legislation. What are they afraid of?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)1. A call for an even more expansive, permanent AWB is lodged in the Party Platform
2. Speaker Pelosi, AG Holder have both called for an AWB since '08.
3. There is a significant uptick in those I.D.-ing themselves as Democrats, who purchased guns since '08.
4. A steady collapse of MSM's influence; it serves as the main agitprop for gun-control outlook.
5. Uptick in women purchasing arms.
6. Liberalizing concealed-carry laws.
7. Speculation on arms prices, esp. with "assault weapons."
I believe the public views keeping & bearing arms more favorably across the board since the gun-control battle has been more than effectively joined. I hope this helps.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)He called for a new assault weapons ban.
Of course Romney actually passed one in Massachusetts.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)chose a man who SIGNED an assault weapons ban and declared him better on gun rights than a person who has only talked about one is about the time I dropped my NRA membership.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Pretty silly endorsement.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Not to mention under endowed.
TimKeller
(41 posts)Any type of regulation is viewed as some liberal agenda to strip the right to bear arms from the American people. The NRA has 4.3 million members, and lobby Republican legislators to oppose any and all gun regulation.
This is a different 1%. These aren’t the ones that blow their noses in hundred dollar bills, this 1% spent almost $18 million (Ranking in the top 20 of outside spenders) in 2012 on outside spending during the campaign season to obstruct any legislator that might stand for the 99% of Americans who aren’t due paying NRA members. For some clarification, this doesn’t include “issue” advertisements that don’t have to be disclosed. The overwhelming majority of their contributions (89%) go to Republican candidates.
[link:http://unapologeticallyliberal.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-killing-routine-nras-effect-on-the-us/|
You got some great facts! I checked out their lobbying expenditures and some legislation they lobbied for/against.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Makes one wonder what else they got wrong/made up in their efforts to sell fear. Quite a bit, just in skimming....
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)It's the end game at any cost. Rules for thee and not for me.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"terminated by local authorities." He suicided before the cops got to him.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)He STOLE a semi automatic rifle
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Firearm ownership by honest citizens should not be an issue.
Prohibiting honest citizens from owning firearms without first reducung criminals and criminal owned firearms is just plain crazy.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)It is what happened to my neice. I see it happens more and more, "He was such a quiet fellow, always to himself..."
Who knew?
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)The "public opinion" percentage of "The Increasing Threat of Hidden Guns in America" was measured using a telephone polling service of 600 registered voters, conducted by the Brady campaign center. The other cited source, UNDOC, puts American percentage supporting gun control at 45%; gun control advocates are now the minority.
Likewise, via UNDOC, the statistics presented in the infographic are incorrect; the actual number of firearms owners is the percentage given for only -registered- "Rifle" owners; it excludes shotguns, sniper rifles and handguns, as well as those who own rifles but are not registered, or for those who illegally hold firearms.
Put simply, a propaganda piece intentionally distributing false (or selectively picked) information and omitting other pertinent information that does not support it.
ON EDIT: (Wow. I never thought I'd say this, but this is, by definition, a Brady Campaign hit piece. Never thought I'd see one.)
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The article cites several points by smeone called Jon Davis, "a former Marine Corps weapons instructor." Whole these poitns contain some truth, they also contain a fair amout of fzzy thinking an outright nonsense. To wit:
1. A gun will be used in an infinitely small percentage of the time that you own it. At any point when you are not using it in self-defense, something can go wrong.
Something can go wrong when you're using it, too...just like any other potentially dangerous machine. This is an essentially meaningless statement.
2. Weapons are more difficult to properly use and maintain without special training than realized by most people.
Practice is more important than training. By a lot. Firearms are, in fact, fairly simple to use (in that their operation is uncomplicated). What is difficult is becoming accurate with them. That's far more a matter of extensive practice than it is training. One can be taught correct shooting fundamentals in minutes. Becoming skilled takes hours and hours of range time.
3. Guns are harder to aim than people think and firing one accurately in a crisis situation is even more difficult.
No and yes (in that order). Aiming a firearm under calm range conditions is rather easy for non-physically-impaired persons. But Davis is absolutely correct in stating that aiming under the "stress overload" conditions of a crisis is very difficult indeed. This is why so much practice is valuable: it can't condition you to the stress, but it can make the physical handling of the weapon much more automatic.
4. Emergencies are unpredictable. “You can’t say you will be prepared and safe because you have a gun. You never know what you might be facing. You will be able to hedge your defenses much better if you instead invest in a very good security system.”
False dichotomy. While obviously financial considerations apply, there is no reason one cannot do both.
5. Guns are dangerous.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
“There is no safety that can’t be overcome, by a six year old....In another horrifying scenario, what if you are disarmed…? Now your weapon is his weapon…”
These are less arguments against owning a firearm than they are arguments for proper firearms security and learning weapon retention techniques.
6. Even in a best case scenario, you might have to kill someone. 65% of offenders are known to their victims; consider the possibility that the target will be a loved one, friend, or neighbor.
Nice appeal-to-emotion fallacy ya got there, Jon. Of course one should consider this...just like they should consider any potential use of a deadly weapon against a human being. Deciding to use a firearm for self defense is not something to be taken lightly. It's a decision with potentially momentous ramifications. Considering all reasonably likely possibilities is part of that decision process.
Just because someone is known to you or even a family member doesn't mean they might not pose a deadly threat. Sure, it would add to the emotional trauma any normal person feels when they have to employ deadly force in self defense. But that doesn't mean such actions are any less necessary or justified.
Oh, and the article in no way did what its headline claimed. The author needs to familiarize himself with how statistics actually work before invoking them.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Of course what the author overlooks here is the second amendment is specifically about killing people. When the people serve as military troops in an emergency to secure the freedom of states they aren't going to be shooting at paper targets or Bambi - they will be shooting at the people who are threatening the security of the free states.
So yes, guns injure, maim, and kill people. They are supposed to. And the people are supposed to keep and bear them so that they can injure, maim, and kill people who threaten the security of free states.
A gun will be used in an infinitely small percentage of the time that you own it. At any point when you are not using it in self-defense, something can go wrong.
And that's OK. People should be free to make the choice about owning firearms and accept the risk of doing so. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I'd rather be subject to the inconveniences of too much liberty than too little."
Weapons are more difficult to properly use and maintain without special training than realized by most people.
But it's much easier to fight back with a gun without training than it is to fight back with your body without training.
Guns are harder to aim than people think and firing one accurately in a crisis situation is even more difficult.
It's a lot harder to aim and fire accurately if you don't have a gun to aim and fire to begin with. A chance is better than no chance. Especially when many criminals flee even at the sound or even suggestion of return gunfire.
Emergencies are unpredictable. “You can’t say you will be prepared and safe because you have a gun. You never know what you might be facing. You will be able to hedge your defenses much better if you instead invest in a very good security system.”
There is nothing to say you can't have both a gun AND a security system. Also it's hard to carry a security system around with you.
Guns are dangerous. “There is no safety that can’t be overcome, by a six year old....In another horrifying scenario, what if you are disarmed…? Now your weapon is his weapon…”
As has been said many times before, having a gun is no guarantee of success in a self-defense situation. All it does is give you another choice other than running, submitting, or fighting. Yes, guns are dangerous. They are supposed to be.
Even in a best case scenario, you might have to kill someone. 65% of offenders are known to their victims; consider the possibility that the target will be a loved one, friend, or neighbor.
I don't care if the person trying to harm me is Jesus Christ. If he's trying to harm me, it's game on.
I’ll add one more: every gun owner that insists that if they had been at that latest mass shooting, with their trusty gun, that lives would have been saved are assuming flawless execution. Who knows what happens when you start a crossfire in a crowded public space? That’s why police prioritize evacuating as many people as possible from the area before engaging the shooter.
You ask anyone who is in the middle of one of these situations if they wouldn't wish with all their might if there was not someone with a gun there to stop the killer. Just like there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no anti-gunners when someone is shooting at you. Even when the police just got done shooting bystanders while trying to shoot a gunman, everyone of those victims was praying for all their worth for the police to show up and stop the lunatic.
Yes, it is possible that the people who come to save you with guns might make a mistake. But when the shit hits the fan most people still want someone to come save them.
The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say you have the unqualified right to bear any gun you want, wherever you want, or when you want. The context in which the document was written has little to do with the guns of today. The Founding Fathers did not intend for people to hold more weaponry than a Marine fire team. They did not intend for so many guns to be floating around that 2,869 minors would die from firearm accidents in 2007 – roughly 17.29% of all non-natural deaths.
What the founders intended is for the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that the people could function as military troops in an emergency.
Not only did the Founding Fathers intend for people to hold more weaponry than a Marine fire team, they expected the people to be a Marine fire team!
The idea that the founders would forsake liberty for safety goes directly against what they are known to have said on the subject.
I’ll be the first to admit that responsible gun owners aren’t the problem.
So don't penalize them.
That’s why the debate needs to shift away from protecting gun ownership at any cost to taking reasonable measures to reduce the amount of firearms in America and making sure people that do own guns are using them responsibly and safely. It also means taking measures to stall the explosion in the number of firearms in circulation.
Articles like this, that advocate "reducing the amount of firearms in America" just fuel it. Congrats and thanks for the support!
sarisataka
(18,679 posts)who likes to target shoot
Likely guns:
1-.22 pistol
2-.22 rifle
3-.222 bolt action rifle for varmints and small game- I want to stay away from the deadly military .223
4-.30-30 it was grandpa's old lever action and still is good for deer
5- .308 rifle, I'm taking up steel target shooting and it isn't bad for the deer either
6- .300 Winmag- I plan to go elk hunting out west in a few years
7- .20 ga shotgun for birds
8- .12 ga for bigger birds, also works for deer where rifles are not allowed
9- .50 muzzle loader- I told the wife it is for deer also but it is just so dam much fun...
oh, wait- we are already way over the 6.9 stockpile without touching a self-defense type pistol, black rifle and could easily do this with every gun being over 50 yrs old...
rDigital
(2,239 posts)[IMG]
[/IMG]
