Number of guns in society falling sharply

[Ernie S.]

Katz -

You do find these things difficult, don't you?!

1) The number of households owning guns is dropping. This we know.

2) The number of guns owned by each gun owner is likely increasing. This is my assumption.

3) There may be a current peak in purchases, but that has not yet shown in research.

I hope that makes sense for you.

LOL

Wild assumptions are laudable and amusing to you?
How sad!

 

[Saigon]

"urbanisation" has a "Z", not an "S".

Have you ever heard of British English?

 

[Saigon]

We all know what they say about assumptions.

1) I would bet that the number of households with guns is increasing, though just not as fast as the number of total households.
2) Perhaps, but owning multiple guns is not the problem. Violent criminals owning guns is the problem. Infringing my 2nd Amendment rights in no way addresses the problem. It just serves to make you feel like you are doing something to prevent the next school shooting.
3) Amazing! A single shred of honesty. This is somewhat encouraging.

2) I agree with your first sentence. A person with 8 guns is probably no greater threat to society than a person with 4 guns.

However, both are more of a danger to both themselves and others than someone with 0 guns. This is a proven statistical fact.

 

[Ernie S.]

"urbanisation" has a "Z", not an "S".

Have you ever heard of British English?

This is USMB, not UKMB. I just assumed that your interest in US politics meant you had some stake in what happens in this country. I didn't realize that you were a pompous ass poking his head in where he doesn't belong.

 

[The Rabbi]

We all know what they say about assumptions.

1) I would bet that the number of households with guns is increasing, though just not as fast as the number of total households.
2) Perhaps, but owning multiple guns is not the problem. Violent criminals owning guns is the problem. Infringing my 2nd Amendment rights in no way addresses the problem. It just serves to make you feel like you are doing something to prevent the next school shooting.
3) Amazing! A single shred of honesty. This is somewhat encouraging.

2) I agree with your first sentence. A person with 8 guns is probably no greater threat to society than a person with 4 guns.

However, both are more of a danger to both themselves and others than someone with 0 guns. This is a proven statistical fact.

No, actually it isn't.
You keep insisting on statistics that are easily disproved and based on flimsy evidence. And then you insist you have no agenda.
Are you medicated?

 

[Ernie S.]

We all know what they say about assumptions.

1) I would bet that the number of households with guns is increasing, though just not as fast as the number of total households.
2) Perhaps, but owning multiple guns is not the problem. Violent criminals owning guns is the problem. Infringing my 2nd Amendment rights in no way addresses the problem. It just serves to make you feel like you are doing something to prevent the next school shooting.
3) Amazing! A single shred of honesty. This is somewhat encouraging.

2) I agree with your first sentence. A person with 8 guns is probably no greater threat to society than a person with 4 guns.

However, both are more of a danger to both themselves and others than someone with 0 guns. This is a proven statistical fact.

And a hell of a lot more dangerous to the asshole that tried to rape my wife back in 1972.

 

[Swagger]

Rabbi -

It may be that sales of guns in 2013 do push the overall numbers up over time so that next year we will see some kind of spike, but at the moment that increase seems to exist largely in your own imagination. By all means present data that backs your position.

I have to say, in general I have been really surprised at how little argumentation the pro-gun lobby here has been able to muster. Your entire argument seems to come down to "Ignore these statistics because I don't like them", rather than any logical, coherent case.

btw. As I am sure you are aware, the NRA tends to exaggerate it's membership by a factor of around 50%. The real current membership is estimated to be 3.11 million as of Dec 31, 2012 - a drop from 3.16 million a year earlier.

Does the NRA really have more than 4.5 million members? - The Washington Post

Conversely, newspapers like the New York and L.A. Times tend to exaggerate (grossly, in some cases) the results of the polls they publish. Sometimes even by a factor of around 50%. Although it could be higher, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[Ernie S.]

We all know what they say about assumptions.

1) I would bet that the number of households with guns is increasing, though just not as fast as the number of total households.
2) Perhaps, but owning multiple guns is not the problem. Violent criminals owning guns is the problem. Infringing my 2nd Amendment rights in no way addresses the problem. It just serves to make you feel like you are doing something to prevent the next school shooting.
3) Amazing! A single shred of honesty. This is somewhat encouraging.

2) I agree with your first sentence. A person with 8 guns is probably no greater threat to society than a person with 4 guns.

But you disagree with "Violent criminals owning guns is the problem. Infringing my 2nd Amendment rights in no way addresses the problem. It just serves to make you feel like you are doing something to prevent the next school shooting."????

How so?

 

[Saigon]

Ernie -

Violent criminals owning guns is the problem.

I agree with that.

I couldn't give a shit about 2md Amendment myself. To my mind safety is more important than law.

 

[Saigon]

Conversely, newspapers like the New York and L.A. Times tend to exaggerate (grossly, in some cases) the results of the polls they publish. Sometimes even by a factor of around 50%. Although it could be higher, as I'm sure you're aware.

If they do - their exaggeration seems to be have put them in line with Gallup.

There were four polls by four organisations - all found roughly the same thing.

 

[Saigon]

"urbanisation" has a "Z", not an "S".

Have you ever heard of British English?

This is USMB, not UKMB. I just assumed that your interest in US politics meant you had some stake in what happens in this country. I didn't realize that you were a pompous ass poking his head in where he doesn't belong.

I'm Finnish, not British.

I am interested in the topic, but have no stake in it.

If you are uncomfortable with non-American posters, by all means recommend that the board become "US posters only".

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie -

Violent criminals owning guns is the problem.

I agree with that.

I couldn't give a shit about 2md Amendment myself. To my mind safety is more important than law.

Enter my home to rob me or assault my wife. I'll show you safety. It's that barely audible "click" just before the BANG.
My rights, all of them, are what keeps me and other Americans safe. The fact that you, a Finn with no concept of what being an American is tries to meddle with my Constitutional rights, revolts me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

More proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Ernie S.]

Have you ever heard of British English?

This is USMB, not UKMB. I just assumed that your interest in US politics meant you had some stake in what happens in this country. I didn't realize that you were a pompous ass poking his head in where he doesn't belong.

I'm Finnish, not British.

I am interested in the topic, but have no stake in it.

If you are uncomfortable with non-American posters, by all means recommend that the board become "US posters only".

I knew where you are from.

I'm not at all "uncomfortable" with non-American posters. I dislike pompous asses. You've got no dog in the fight, but have the balls to preach?

Isn't there some issue in Helsinki that you could address, you know, something that actually effects your rights?

 

[Ernie S.]

More proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

And Finland.

 

[M14 Shooter]

More proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

And Finland.

Like most of the anti-gun loons, Saigon isn't interested in an honest discussion of the issue.

 

[Missourian]

Missourian -

That is undoubtedly true in some cases, but given the NY Times survey finds the number of households owning guns has dropped from 50% to 35%, there is more going on than people being reticent to answer. Certainly there are plenty of people out there buying more weapons, but clearly there are also many others losing interest in owning guns for whatever reason.

This represents a clear shift across the country and culture, I would have thought.

I disagree...I believe there are other factors at work here.

Look at the graph...the major decline begins in 1994.

1994 as in the assault weapons ban of 1994 and the demonization of guns and gun owners.

And this close on the heels of the Ruby Ridge and Waco ATF debacles.

We saw the staggering repercussions of this legislation in the next election cycle...is it any surprise it had enormous ramifications elsewhere?

Add in the explosion of the internet, sharing of news, opinions, and ideas instantaneously.

And with the internet, first came the widespread dissemination of scams and scammers along with their modus operandi. Later came the realization that with new super computers, that people, the government, corporations and criminals had the ability to keep track of information individuals innocently provided.

Today, savvy citizens are much more guarded with their personal information.

In conclusion, IMO, these variables contribute significantly to the reduced REPORTING of gun ownership per household. It is easily the case that the majority of gun owners questioned, for the reasons stated above, chose to dissemble.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's the old, If I offend the folks responsible for gun violence, I could lose 25% of my base, so instead, I will vilify people who would never vote for me in the first place. Whatever happens, I don't lose votes, I further my agenda and I give the impression that I "care".

 

[Saigon]

Missourian -

That is undoubtedly true in some cases, but given the NY Times survey finds the number of households owning guns has dropped from 50% to 35%, there is more going on than people being reticent to answer. Certainly there are plenty of people out there buying more weapons, but clearly there are also many others losing interest in owning guns for whatever reason.

This represents a clear shift across the country and culture, I would have thought.

I disagree...I believe there are other factors at work here.

Look at the graph...the major decline begins in 1994.

1994 as in the assault weapons ban of 1994 and the demonization of guns and gun owners.

And this close on the heels of the Ruby Ridge and Waco ATF debacles.

We saw the staggering repercussions of this legislation in the next election cycle...is it any surprise it had enormous ramifications elsewhere?

Add in the explosion of the internet, sharing of news, opinions, and ideas instantaneously.

And with the internet, first came the widespread dissemination of scams and scammers along with their modus operandi. Later came the realization that with new super computers, that people, the government, corporations and criminals had the ability to keep track of information individuals innocently provided.

Today, savvy citizens are much more guarded with their personal information.

In conclusion, IMO, these variables contribute significantly to the reduced REPORTING of gun ownership per household. It is easily the case that the majority of gun owners questioned, for the reasons stated above, chose to dissemble.

Those are interesting thoughts, Missourian,and I thank you for them, but if someone phoned me and asked if I was willing to take part in a gun survey - I could just say 'no thanks'.

The people incudled in this poll CHOSE to take part in it.

I think you are right about the 1994 law change, though.

 

[sfcalifornia]

People USED to live in the country and used guns to procure food. They don't need guns to pick up fried chicken at Popeye's.

Exactly! I couldn't agree more.

I don't know why gun owners would get so bent out of shape over this topic, when declining numbers of gun ownership may just be a natural part of urbanisation.

I can't walk to Kentucky Fried Chicken for meals but I can shoot a deer or a hog or a snake or a bobcat or a burglar from my deck.

"urbanisation" has a "Z", not an "S".

Noun 1. urbanisation - the condition of being urbanized
urbanization
condition, status - a state at a particular time; "a condition (or state) of disrepair"; "the current status of the arms negotiations"
2. urbanisation - the social process whereby cities grow and societies become more urban
urbanization
social process - a process involved in the formation of groups of persons
urbanisation - definition of urbanisation by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Urbanisation first occurred in MEDCs during the industrial revolution. People were attracted to urban areas (pulled) from rural areas to work in factories. They were also pushed as developments in technology led to mechanisation on farms.
What is urbanisation?

Urbanisation can accelerate progress towards the millennium development goals (MDGs), but careful planning is essential to prevent the growth of slums, pollution and crime that can derail achievements, according to a report card on the MDGs.
Urbanisation can be 'force for good' with better jobs and cheaper services | Global development | guardian.co.uk