Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

7. Huh maybe they AREN'T clueless - they just change the argument!

Reply to jmg257 (Original post)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 02:53 PM

Jul 2016

Now its NOT the number of guns, but the percentage of "gun ownership" that's important.

UIsing a blog from 2013, BTW...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/conservative-media-misread-data-to-declare-gun/193961

Other factors may help explain the fall of gun crime since the early 1990s including reductions in lead levels, the end of the crack epidemic, advances in medicine that allow more gunshot victims to survive their wounds, and a declining rate of gun ownership.
...
"There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof. But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns."

SO, they admit the numbers of guns has increased dramatically, they admit the levels of gun violence has dropped.
But its a RW conspiracy because the facts don't match the (latest) meme.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How are they so clueless? "The One Question I Want All Gun Nuts to Answer" [View all] jmg257 Jul 2016 OP

From what I can see it's axiomatic: FEELINGS > facts jonno99 Jul 2016 #1

Here is a snapshot of gun associated shootings. angstlessk Jul 2016 #2

If we REALLY care about seeing less death & injury, it seems we should be addressing the BIGGER jonno99 Jul 2016 #3

besides being a non sequitur, it's a biased source. angstlessk Jul 2016 #5

Please don't "miss the forest for the trees": jonno99 Jul 2016 #6

I don't see gun deaths, just suicide, homicide and accidental deaths angstlessk Jul 2016 #10

Here's a link to the CDC's WISQARS apps discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #16

Unfortunately they only go back a couple years. nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #4

Huh maybe they AREN'T clueless - they just change the argument! jmg257 Jul 2016 #7

I think controllers have given up on science and good argument. It is... Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #8

technically you should only need 5 SD firearms per person. ileus Jul 2016 #11

So they think our President is lying? DonP Jul 2016 #12

Maybe they put more stock in Hemenway then the President. jmg257 Jul 2016 #13

If we weren't all banned .... DonP Jul 2016 #14

Better to have questions answered the way YOU want them answered. jmg257 Jul 2016 #15

half wrong, half right, both of youse jimmy the one Jul 2016 #17

Nt a lot of time now, but considering the number of background checks lately jmg257 Jul 2016 #20

gun ownership rates fell dramatically 1992 - 2000 jimmy the one Jul 2016 #18

Thanks jimmy - addressed this in another post about ownership rates vs gunstock#s. jmg257 Jul 2016 #19