mattm wrote: Looking through all the data I am even more confident that I am more likely to win the powerball jackpot than experience a home invasion and actually need a weapon.
Good for you. I'm glad you're comfortable in your situation.
I have experienced an attempted home invasion. The cops took more then 20 minutes to show up after we called 911. I won't be in that situation again.
mattm wrote: I am not surprised and I do not want to see any weapon banned. There are lots more people heavily armed today than when I was growing up.
Odd detail to toss in when you're talking about a decline in gun ownership.
mattm wrote: Also, do you care to address any of the data in the links above? The reality says that violent crime is way down from 1980 and that gun ownership in this contry is also down.
There's a correlation. That doesn't prove causation. As we discussed before, some people think it is because there is less lead in the environment. I personally think that most of the drop in violent crime is because the population is aging. Most people tend to mellow out a bit with age. As there are fewer young people in the population, there are fewer thugs/gang bangers.
Anti-stance wrote: Beer Baron, I really do like to hear your opinion as well as Sperlo's opinion when reading this thread and other gun threads. I am not trying to single you guys out for the reason of political stancing but you guys both appear to be "gun enthusiast" as I am but from what I gather, but do not fit the mold of what the majority of the non-gun people like to think "gun enthusiast" are. This is just an observation and not trying to put you guys into a defined box or anything. I just like to hear you guys talk about your opinions.
I appreciate that. I've been trying to keep out for the sake of my own blood pressure and harmonious home situation. When I start really throwing out my philosophy, I tend to get sucked in.
Anti-stance wrote: I guess my first question would be... How do they know gun ownership has gone down?
This one is pretty easy to track. New gun sales are kept track of. With a large enough sample group, surveys can be pretty accurate. We have a good estimate of the number of people in the U.S.
The trend has been slowly continuing to be a smaller proportion of gun-owning households in the U.S. with those that do owning more guns. Guns already produced aren't disappearing. There are not fewer total numbers of guns here. The population is just increasing faster and the ownership of those guns is becoming concentrated.
(edit: I'm writing this when just about to leave for work, so don't have the inclination to hunt for a source on this now.)
to those of you that believe that guns should be titled just like cars, i think you should take a look at the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, or FOPA, specifically the registry prohibition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition
Strizzo wrote: to those of you that believe that guns should be titled just like cars, i think you should take a look at the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, or FOPA, specifically the registry prohibition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition
Thank you. That's important to note. Obviously, owners are aware of this, but many others are not. Gun owners tend to be wary of lists.
It is also worth noting that the government is currently breaking that law, trying to make a list of weapons owned by enlisted personel
In reply to JoeyM:
I believe that this is what the president has been talking about when he says that investigators aren't allowed to use computers to investigate gun crimes. the reality is that they aren't allowed to keep a database of all of the guns and who they belong to, so when they find a gun they can't just look it up like a license plate. they have to call the gun manufacturer with the serial # to find out who they sold it to (distributor or shop), and then call that place and find out who they sold it to (FFL dealers are required to keep copies of the 4473 forms for 10 years from date of purchase).
That makes sense. (See edit above for a list that is being formed.)
In reply to JoeyM:
yeah i read about that on ttag, its quite possible that they legally can, at least for enlisted living on base, but less so, and a bit more strained logic to require for enlisted living off base and their immediate family.
Beer Baron wrote: That does not hold up since most gun control laws are federal or state. If the connection really were with politics we would see more state wide uniformity. This just looks more like densely populated areas. I suspect it may also be bs statisticts. High "incidents"? Not "incidence"? So maybe counties with higher gross numbers but not more per capita. Again, dense population centers.
Crime is almost always higher in densely populated centers....mainly due to simple logistics.
Some cities in Indiana attempted to restrict ownership, ammunition, magazines, etc......however, in the last decade the state told them to berkeley off......
Edit: Joey, Strizzo, am I wrong for believing that the ATF doesn't care about laws? I'm just trying to figure out why they seem to be above all of them.
yamaha wrote: Crime is almost always higher in densely populated centers....mainly due to simple logistics.
Right. Those population centers also tend to be more liberal. The two factors may be relative but almost certainly not causative.
Beer Baron wrote:yamaha wrote: Crime is almost always higher in densely populated centers....mainly due to simple logistics.Right. Those population centers also tend to be more liberal. The two factors may be relative but almost certainly not causative.
Pretty much, its sad to see a states crime rate dragged down by highly populated areas though.
Indiana's is berkeleyed due to the northwest corner.......the crackheads in Indianapolis don't even come close to the idiocy in "da region" I did laugh back when I was babysitting prisoners, because 3 out of every 5 were from Gary, Michigan City, or Merrilville.........
mattm wrote: Also, do you care to address any of the data in the links above? The reality says that violent crime is way down from 1980 and that gun ownership in this contry is also down. I am sure it is all a "mainstream media" conspiracy, but do you care to object to anything in particular? Any facts that you do not like?
I had the time to go through your links in your original sarcastic post and do find somethings interesting.
from the CNN article said: "Still, while it is possible to collect accurate data on the number of guns in the United States using manufacturing, import-export and life-cycle data for the guns, the federal government has little idea of who the guns owners are, gun policy experts said. 'The federal government doesn't have good data on anything on guns and that's been done on purpose," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and senior author of the Injury Prevention Journal study. "The gun lobby has lots of power ... [their] goal is not to have any sort of registration system.'"
Exactly a point I made about you have no idea how many people own guns because there are plenty of private sales that go under the radar. That includes people that are not legally supposed to own a weapon. How can you honestly know how many people are gun owners. The federal government doesn't even know.
As far as the Washington Post and The Monkey Cage articles, they are using GSS and Gallup polling. The problem with that, as someone posted in the comment section of The Monkey Cage, is that there are alot of gun owners that would not tell someone over the phone that they have a firearm in their house. Not necessarily because they illegally own one(although I bet there were some polled that did own some illegally) but because who knows if the person calling is legit or maybe the person isn't comfortable telling them about valuables in there house.
As far as the Wiki, NBC, WSJ, and Breitbart, they are basically all echoing the same thing that crime is down.... for a number of reasons. They are using larger prison capacities, bigger/more proactive police departments, a decrease in crack cocaine and the GSS and Gallup polls that there are less gun owners in the country.
I have yet to meet anyone that got rid of their weapons for safety but at my last two jobs have met several people buying guns for their first time, including women.
So IMHO, I think using polls that are a bit intrusive to some people and calling it an end all be all fact that gun ownership is down, might be a little bit of a stretch. But I do not disagree with the fact, as presented in the Wiki, NBC, WSJ, and Breitbart using FBI statistics, that crime is down. That very well could be because of current gun control working then, correct? But by that very same logic, shouldn't crimes have gone up after the sunset of the 1994 AWB?
If I understood you correctly before, you do not condone the restriction of weapons that people can own but it should be a little tighter on how people get them. I don't think you and I are very far off from agreeing with each other. I just think your post was quite sarcastic and obviously a bait to get into an argument with someone here.
Yikes! Didn't have time to read through everything as I'd rather read about car stuff. All I can say is that I'm almost 63 years old and have heard all the arguments since the late 60's. Many arguments (discussions) are the same today as they were back then. By the way I was a member of the NRA, a target shooter, never a hunter, but was a gun owner. What I used to belong to or own has nothing to do with my opinions today or back then. First like a driving license, gun ownership should be a privilege, and not a right despite what any Amendment says. Second, I can't think of one time since the 60's anyone ever said all guns are going away and that people if qualified to own them can't buy them and use them. The biggest problem with all these opinions is we must change with the times. In business or cars or racing last year is old news, and we must constantly continue to evolve and improve. When it comes to guns we must constantly question and evaluate what is right for todays society, and not live by what was written hundreds of years ago. No one will take your hunting or sport shooting gun away, but common sense is screaming at us to relook at newer weapons that didn't exsist until recently, and data bases to do our best to keep them out of certain hands. Sure anyone that wants one can get one, but don't make it easy for them. Said enough, hope no one is offended, just hoping everyone looks at this objectively.
Yeah... screw those ammendments.
Bobzilla wrote: Yeah... screw those ammendments.
Hey, you. It's a lot easier to offer opinions than it is to follow Constitutional procedures. Quicker, too.
Bobzilla wrote: Yeah... screw those ammendments.
Jefferson was an advocate of gun rights, although mostly for the ability to defend against the tyrannical British gov't. I also believe this quote to be relevant to our current Second Amendment discussion-
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Bobzilla wrote: Yeah... screw those ammendments.
I still don't think the 2nd has any teeth for this argument though. Despite being amazingly vague on the face of it, I think the proof is in the legislation. If the NRA truly believed that the 2nd amendment means unrestricted personal weapons ownership, why don't they ever fight the myriad of laws on gun ownership on a constitutional basis? They know they cannot win?
I mean, if there was a law that restricted Buddhists from voting that would immediately be shot down on a constitutional basis.
What am I missing here? I have heard "liberal judges" but that seems pretty weak. I believe the Supreme court has been considered pretty conservative since the 80's
In reply to aircooled:
maybe at one time the NRA was talked into the idea that if both sides compromise, there can be a happy medium found then the gun owners could go on and be happy and the gun control people would also go on to some other cause and be happy. many people say that the NRA sold out its members in 86 when they agreed to compromise. they got the FOPA registry prohibition in exchange for the ban of any non-military production of new automatic weapons, among other things.
I believe that what they realized is that the next time the gun control topic is brought up, the gun owners side is already behind. because the anti-gun side will be starting from the position of banning all guns, and the gun owners are wherever their rights ended up after the last round of compromise. while maybe not every democrat wants it, there are people in positions of power today that are of the mind that we should ban and confiscate all guns, no matter how trustworthy the owner, or righteous their intentions. so when they come to discuss gun control, they start at that, and get what they can, then the next time they start back at the same place, and the gun owners keep getting pushed, step-by-step to the place where they aren't allowed to keep their guns at home, or even at all, like in new york.
EDIT: for an example, NY Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin was given a list of "rejected democrat proposals" which included confiscation of all "assault weapons" by name or features, 5 round magazine limit, 2 magazine magazine limit, registration, microstamping, re-registration of all permit holders, and many more. the video is of an exchange where McLaughlin mentions this list, and a Dem Assemblyman named Joe (no last name mentioned) says he hasn't seen the list so he doesn't know what's on it, then goes on to request that McLaughlin not share the list with the public as it might "dampen the enthusiasm for compromise"
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2495/ny_democrat_pleads_with_republican_not_to_share_document_proposing_confiscation_of_guns
aircooled wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Yeah... screw those ammendments.I still don't think the 2nd has any teeth for this argument though. Despite being amazingly vague on the face of it, I think the proof is in the legislation. If the NRA truly believed that the 2nd amendment means unrestricted personal weapons ownership, why don't they ever fight the myriad of laws on gun ownership on a constitutional basis? They know they cannot win? I mean, if there was a law that restricted Buddhists from voting that would immediately be shot down on a constitutional basis. What am I missing here? I have heard "liberal judges" but that seems pretty weak. I believe the Supreme court has been considered pretty conservative since the 80's
The unconstitutional laws are being challenged by groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation. The SAF is winning many of these cases, including a recent victory in Illinois: http://www.saf.org/
It generally takes a lot more time to challenge these laws than it does to create them.
In reply to mattm:
Meanwhile, the number of carry permits being issued has increased...
https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+people+with+concealed+carry+permits&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1#q=number+of+concealed+carry+permits&hl=en&safe=active&tbo=u&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=320AUajTBMvxqAHrr4DwCw&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c84661eb64ad556f&biw=1920&bih=879
Anti-stance wrote:mattm wrote: [blah, blah, blah]I don't think you and I are very far off from agreeing with each other. I just think your post was quite sarcastic and obviously a bait to get into an argument with someone here.
I agree. It's fine to have a discussion, but don't be a jerk about it. I hate when we start playing this game
In reply to Strizzo: While the FOPA was a victory, it came at a terrible cost(FA ban).....I still refuse to support the NRA because of it. That is of course, my choice. For those into sports shooting(3 gun for example)....how horrible would the rifle portion be with only 10 shots??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/new-florida-bills-would-m_n_2535807.html
Friday Rep. Linda Stewart (D-Orlando) filed HB 325, which dictates mandatory guidance counseling for students in school safety issues, widens gun prohibition from school buildings to a "safety zone" within 500 feet of a school, and allows anyone to "check" their firearm with officials when they arrive at a school to avoid prosecution. In order to pay for these increased safety measures, Stewart proposes creating a Safe School Trust Fund (HB 327) within the Department of Education, and she wants it funded by taxes collected on Florida gun and ammo sales.
And for a bit of levity...
You'll need to log in to post.
