[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Let's deal with some of those facts. There are approximately 80 million Americans who own guns, and they own about 300 million of them. Forty years ago, only a handful of states allowed citizens to carry a weapon, and then it was usually only based on a need to carry. In the last few decades, all states, save Indiana, have revised their codes and now allow citizens to carry, many being able to obtain a concealed pistol license based on want, not on a need to carry. In the last few decades, gun sales have literally exploded. Despite this, violent crime, including homicide, has continually declined, and last year, for the first time in four decades, homicide was removed from the top 15 list as a contributor to death. The reality is that one is safer today than in decades, despite the enormous increase in private weapon ownership. These are facts, tracked by the FBI. (In fact, the world is a safer place today, despite the sensational headlines we all like to talk about at the water cooler, but that's another issue, for another time).

Where do you get your facts that 80 million Americans own guns?

Those are made up stats by pro-guns sites.

[hyteckit]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns.

5015/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm pretty sure that you have more idiots and lunatics than we do. Thats the only part that concerns me.

Sane people going about their business don't make the news.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Where do you get your facts that 80 million Americans own guns?
Those are made up stats by pro-guns sites.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

I might be a little off, but 1 in 3 Americans is still in the high tens of millions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/23/americans-changing-attitude-toward-guns/

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx


Thirty-eight percent of Americans report having a gun in their homes, and another 2% say they have a gun elsewhere on their properties (like in a garage, barn, or car). The percentage of Americans reporting they have a gun in their homes has hovered around the 40% mark since 2000.


http://reason.com/archives/2001/05/01/gun-ownership-the-numbers

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/black-friday-best-seller-guns/

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sane people going about their business don't make the news.

Don't bring facts into this; it makes people actually have to think about their replies, instead of using emotional rhetoric.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Therein lies a huge part of the problem. You deem yourself superior, and dismiss anyone else who may own a weapon as untrustworthy. That's pretty smug, and show how little you know about the facts of gun ownership, versus the emotions you use to justify your position.

I deem myself superior to some, possibly many, not to all. A small number of people can do a lot of damage when they are sufficiently equipped.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Let's deal with some of those facts. There are approximately 80 million Americans who own guns, and they own about 300 million of them. Forty years ago, only a handful of states allowed citizens to carry a weapon, and then it was usually only based on a need to carry. In the last few decades, all states, save Indiana, have revised their codes and now allow citizens to carry, many being able to obtain a concealed pistol license based on want, not on a need to carry. In the last few decades, gun sales have literally exploded. Despite this, violent crime, including homicide, has continually declined, and last year, for the first time in four decades, homicide was removed from the top 15 list as a contributor to death. The reality is that one is safer today than in decades, despite the enormous increase in private weapon ownership. These are facts, tracked by the FBI. (In fact, the world is a safer place today, despite the sensational headlines we all like to talk about at the water cooler, but that's another issue, for another time).
If your lack of trust of others were a real issue, America would indeed be a Wild West, and crime, including homicide, would have grown along with the rate and number of gun sales. As more people own guns, according to your "logic," more people get killed, yet the reverse is happening. What causes people to go apoplectic over guns is that they make decisions based on emotions (as you did), and not on reality. They read a news article about some nut job killing a number of people, and all of a sudden, rationality goes out the window, and they delude themselves into thinking that this wouldn't happen if no one had access to guns.

Its not unreasonable to theorise that a critical mass has been reached where most of the irresponsible criminals are aware that they are just as likely to be shot committing a crime than they are to shoot someone else. Possibly they are more likely to get shot. You may argue that the net results are the same, and if your numbers are accurate, perhaps thats true for now but I prefer a situation where people don't shoot each other because they don't want to rather than because they expect they'll get shot too.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What they don't want to admit is that there exists among mankind individuals who are disturbed in some manner, and will kill others, whether they have a gun or not. History is replete with stories of mass murderers, many of whom didn't use guns.

Mass murderers are not my motivation for taking the position I do.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The vast majority of gun owners (remember those tens of millions?), are indeed responsible gun owners and obey the law, period. Taking away the rights of the majority, because of the transgressions of a minority, is not the answer, period.

What about the rights of the majority not to get shot?

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Once again, millions of us are thankful you aren't the arbiter of what we can do with our private property, and that's all a gun is; someone's private property, to do with as he/she pleases, in a lawful manner, which includes target shooting, properly carrying, or collecting.

Just sharing my own opinions. I'm grateful you don't set the rules for me as well. Glad to know you are taking proper care of your nuclear warhead collection though.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What are you "alarmingly" fond of? Quite frankly, it's none of your business what I'm alarmingly fond of, as long as I don't threaten you.

I might be overly fond of a few things, but if I killed someone with my MacBook Pro, I'd probably break it in the process, and as I say I'm fond of it. Also killing someone with whisky would involve the loss of unacceptable amounts of my whisky.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What the rest of the world feels it may need isn't my concern. A gun is a piece of property that I may use as I see fit, as long as I don't harm anyone with it, and those pesky tens of millions of us who own hundreds of millions of guns, without harming anyone, agree.

That is the basic difference between our philosophies. Selfishness.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You obviously don't seem to know much about gun manufacture and safety, which could be another reason that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you appear very anti-gun. Just because something is mass produced doesn't make it a non quality item. Again, we don't need your justifications for reasons we own guns, and we think it "washes" just fine. As to the allegation that it takes little skill to use with great effect, that doesn't wash either. If you've ever shot a gun, it takes more than a little practice to hit a target skillfully, even at close range. One doesn't just point a gun willy-nilly, and become an expert marksman, and that's definitely irresponsible in any event.

I didn't say they weren't precision made, just not lovingly crafted. Production lines are rarely associated with cultural value.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Mankind has had a fascination with weaponry since day one; it has nothing to do with what place it is. The arms business is a worldwide business, and most places where citizens can't own private weapons are places that most of us wouldn't like to live in anyway. It should be an individual choice, not one made by a select few.

Mankind used to have a much greater need to own weapons. We used to live in a much less civilised world.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

How many on the other side can admit that they don't like guns because 1) they've been told they're evil, 2) they don't know anything about them, 3) there's some large, irrational fear that they can't name, or 4) they don't trust their own judgement enough to be around anything that dangerous?

Waiting for the admissions on these reasons.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What about the rights of the majority not to get shot?

The majority don't get shot, or even shot at. The news media creates a feeding frenzy around gun violence and people buy into it. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of guns are in the hands of responsible private citizens and either 1) cause no problems, or 2) prevent them from happening.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I deem myself superior to some, possibly many, not to all. A small number of people can do a lot of damage when they are sufficiently equipped.

Which goes back to my point. My safety is my responsibility, not that of someone who is far away and who arrives after the fact.

Its not unreasonable to theorise that a critical mass has been reached where most of the irresponsible criminals are aware that they are just as likely to be shot committing a crime than they are to shoot someone else. Possibly they are more likely to get shot. You may argue that the net results are the same, and if your numbers are accurate, perhaps thats true for now but I prefer a situation where people don't shoot each other because they don't want to rather than because they expect they'll get shot too.

I would prefer that as well, but that's never happened in the history of mankind.

Mass murderers are not my motivation for taking the position I do.

That's good, as it isn't mine either.

What about the rights of the majority not to get shot?

Here again you introduce your unfounded bias. The majority are not in danger of being shot, despite the proliferation in gun sales.

Just sharing my own opinions. I'm grateful you don't set the rules for me as well. Glad to know you are taking proper care of your nuclear warhead collection though.

More of your bias showing again. I don't have a nuclear warhead collection. I have a collection pistols and a couple of rifles, that I use for target shooting and self/home defense.

I might be overly fond of a few things, but if I killed someone with my MacBook Pro, I'd probably break it in the process, and as I say I'm fond of it. Also killing someone with whisky would involve the loss of unacceptable amounts of my whisky.

Funny, but not germane to the discussion.

That is the basic difference between our philosophies. Selfishness.

I guess me wanting to protect myself and collect guns, instead of whisky, is selfish. So be it. (Edited to add I think it's very selfish on your part to attempt to tell me what I can not own, when it doesn't affect you at all.

I didn't say they weren't precision made, just not lovingly crafted. Production lines are rarely associated with cultural value.

Most of the things we purchase are made on production lines, including cars and whisky.

Mankind used to have a much greater need to own weapons. We used to live in a much less civilised world.

True, and even if we did live in a world where we didn't need weapons for self defense, it's still a piece of property that I can own and use as I see fit, legally.

[sek929]

I've never even seen anyone brandish a gun, let alone feel threatened by one. I'm more worried about someone that didn't get 8 hours of sleep driving at 90MPH than 99.999% of gun owners. Out of everyone I've ever met, only one of them ever had a gun drawn on them, and it was by a police officer. The fear of gun owners is an entirely media-fabricated situation, of course conversely the fear of being attacked and needing a gun for protection has it's root in sensationalized media as well.

What I don't get.... Do the anti-gun crowd think that the random nutcase simply won't kill people if there wasn't an easy way for him to buy a gun? Ol' Tim McVeigh killed over 160 people and leveled half a building with a bomb made from materials costing under 4 grand. A motivated, intelligent and entirely inhumane individual will use anything at his disposal to kill and maim people. The delivery method isn;t what concerns me, it's the individual committing the act.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I've never even seen anyone brandish a gun, let alone feel threatened by one.  I'm more worried about someone that didn't get 8 hours of sleep driving at 90MPH than 99.999% of gun owners.  Out of everyone I've ever met, only one of them ever had a gun drawn on them, and it was by a police officer.  The fear of gun owners is an entirely media-fabricated situation, of course conversely the fear of being attacked and needing a gun for protection has it's root in sensationalized media as well.

What I don't get....  Do the anti-gun crowd think that the random nutcase simply won't kill people if there wasn't an easy way for him to buy a gun?  Ol' Tim McVeigh killed over 160 people and leveled half a building with a bomb made from materials costing under 4 grand.  A motivated, intelligent and entirely inhumane individual will use anything at his disposal to kill and maim people.  The delivery method isn;t what concerns me, it's the individual committing the act.

You must live in another country if you haven't had a gun shoved in your face at least once a week. With 80 million gun owners here, it happens to me every day!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You must live in another country if you haven't had a gun shoved in your face at least once a week. With 80 million gun owners here, it happens to me every day!

I've actually been shot 42 times this year alone.

[hyteckit]

Gun ownership down from 1990 to 2010. Much of it gun-related, peaked around 1990 after rising steadily through the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

According to gallup poll:

Household gun ownership:
1991: 50%
1992: 54%

2007: 44%
2008: 43%
2009: 42%
2010: 41%


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722


5031/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

5032/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[The Final Dakar]

Something about this doesn't sit right with me. There was a huge run on guns in '08 because of all the "Obama's comin' fer yer guns!" scaremongering.

Edit: Actually I guess you can see the '08 bumps.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Something about this doesn't sit right with me. There was a huge run on guns in '08 because of all the "Obama's comin' fer yer guns!" scaremongering.
Edit: Actually I guess you can see the '08 bumps.

Increase gun sales doesn't mean more people or household own guns. It could mean the same gun nuts are buying lots more guns.

It's not like a person is just limited to one gun.

The percentage of households owning guns drop since the peak in the 1980's and 1990's.

[The Final Dakar]

The bump is there regardless of what you just typed.

[hyteckit]

Yes, there is a slight increase in 2008 in both graphs.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Which goes back to my point. My safety is my responsibility, not that of someone who is far away and who arrives after the fact.

I assume this is referring to defending yourself by owning and carrying a gun? This being needed because someone else with a gun might threaten you at some point.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I would prefer that as well, but that's never happened in the history of mankind.

Most people in Europe don't seem to want to shoot each other.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's good, as it isn't mine either.

Its nice that we agree on something.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Here again you introduce your unfounded bias. The majority are not in danger of being shot, despite the proliferation in gun sales.

Its not that I think there is a high percentage chance of getting shot every time you go outdoors in America, its just that I think the chances are considerably higher if everyone you meet has a gun in their pocket when compared with a place where pretty much no-one has one. Just seems like common sense to me.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

More of your bias showing again. I don't have a nuclear warhead collection. I have a collection pistols and a couple of rifles, that I use for target shooting and self/home defense.

The point is your line about pieces of property could equally apply to a nuclear weapon. The truth is we all draw that same line somewhere, it just moves slightly from person to person.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Funny, but not germane to the discussion.

Thanks! You did ask what I was fond of though.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I guess me wanting to protect myself and collect guns, instead of whisky, is selfish. So be it. (Edited to add I think it's very selfish on your part to attempt to tell me what I can not own, when it doesn't affect you at all.

We're all selfish sometimes. I might buy a particularly nice whisky and not share it with anyone. If it was legal and I could afford it, I'd love to have a gun collection just like you, but I don't mind that I can't because I happen to think that my fellow citizens are all a bit safer if certain people aren't allowed those kinds of things and since you can't easily and fairly police who should and who shouldn't have them, its safer to be cautious.
I'm not telling what you can own, just sharing my opinion on what I think the rules should be regarding ownership of some of those things. I'm also sharing why I think the way I do about it. Please don't think of it as preaching, its not supposed to be. I don't think rifles or shotguns are particularly useful for defending your home. (I'm not saying they wouldn't do in a pinch, but I always thought rifles were better for shooting at things a bit further away. maybe you have a very big house though. Shotguns are going to make a mess if you defend yourself with one of those and its your house so you're gonna have to clean that up.) I can see how in a home invasion situation, a handgun could prove useful, but in order for it to prove useful in such a situation, I think there is great risk involved the rest of the time. Someone less responsible could find it or steal it while you are out. You could get angry or depressed for any number of common reasons and be tempted to misuse it, or you might get roaring drunk or high as a kite one day and misuse it that way. You're probably more likely to hurt yourself than others in most of those situations, I'm thinking of your safety too.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Most of the things we purchase are made on production lines, including cars and whisky.

Agreed. And when those mass produced items become old and rare, they start to take on some cultural value, but we aren't talking about antiques.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

True, and even if we did live in a world where we didn't need weapons for self defense, it's still a piece of property that I can own and use as I see fit, legally.

I never said it wasn't legal. Defence is a common theme among gun owners. If you're sufficiently afraid of being shot to go out and buy several guns, shouldn't I worry about getting shot if I lived in America? Aren't there several of you saying its too unlikely to be worthy of concern? Seems like something doesn't add up there.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You must live in another country if you haven't had a gun shoved in your face at least once a week. With 80 million gun owners here, it happens to me every day!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've actually been shot 42 times this year alone.

Kidding aside, I've had guns pulled on me twice in my life (once with shots fired) and I'm not that old. Interestingly enough, I wasn't in the US for either incident.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

More like:
20% for Defense
80% for toys to play with
30% as a penis extension

Which adds up to more than 100% - so we have a pie graph made up of something other than a circle? Unless they overlap, perhaps.

Some folks are sheep, others are sheepdogs. There are lots of wolves, too (but not so many in Texas, because we can legally kill people here for messing with our stuff. That tends to make an impression.)

[shifuimam]

We do own firearms.

I think it is extremely important for people to know and understand gun safety - if you are ever in a situation where you have to directly deal with a loaded firearm, it's critical to understand how a gun works and how to disarm one without injuring yourself or anyone else.

We live in an urban area that's pretty middle class - the rate of gun-related incidents in our region is low. Firearms do provide a measure of safety, particularly in situations where police cannot respond fast enough. Although Virginia has a duty to retreat law, there are still situations where having a firearm could mean the difference between life and death.

That said, there's also the hobby aspect - I think that guns are really pretty cool and want to get more experience using them.

Then there's also this...