New national concern

10xclean said:

we have repeatedly heard about the 'assault weapons ban' cry and how evil guns are and every argument against them for years. Something new that is disconcerting to me is that they are now crying 'Who needs more than 1 gun?' 'Noone should be allowed to own 10, 20 or 50 guns'. Also when they start calling a person extreme when they have 1000 rounds of ammo. I forsee tracking of ammunition purchases at a federal level coming soon to a Wally World near you. Help them figure out who is really the radicals to watch!

Click to expand...

K31 said:

I keep waiting for this. And, someone should point them to the Myth Busters episode about trying to shoot two handed. Spoiler: it's infinitely better to fire one at a time an reload than to try to fire two at a time.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Let’s rememebr half of all gun deaths are gang related. I could be wrong, but I doubt most gang members have multiple guns.

Click to expand...

rascal said:

No, you ar wrong on that on two levels, you are falling into into trap, since 2/3 of firearms death are in fact suicide, and also most firearm homicide is not gang related.

Best to always talk" homicide rate" as the it can clearly be shown to be decreasing for a generation. Not "death." not "gun violence" where they include suicide.

When a debate opponent says "gun violence" deaths. You say: "Oh, ok that is nearly 2/3 suicide, you are aggregating suicide and homicide. There are lots of fully developed democracies with higher suicide + homicide rates than the US, and virtually no guns. Virtually gun free S. Korea and Japan have way more "lethal violence" by your defintion. Are yo saying suicide by jumping from a building is less violent than taking ones life with a firearm??"

On gang related, a lot of gun murder, non murder shootings, and in fact accidents are gang related. But not most. The better assertion, because it is most, is that most gun homicide, the vast majority, and certainly the elevated US rate over other countries, is criminal on criminal. There is an attempt to suppress this. new Orleans PD came under attack when they published data on how the overwhelming majority of not just perpetrators, but victims as well were criminals. Baltimore PD was looking at this and publishing it until the left went nuts because it destroys their narrative. Baltimore last look at this was 2007 before being stopped: 93% of murder perps have prior criminal record, 80% of murder perps have ten or more arrests -- and 91% of murder victims, have a criminal record.

the counter argument you wil hear is: "just because someone has committed a crime are you saying their life is worthless?" You will say: "NO, but causal risk factors behind over 90% of murder being criminal on criminal is the core issue. Are yo saying smoking rates are irrelevant to discussion of lung cancer? Committing crimes is clearly the driving risk behavior in getting murdered."

Lastly the reason why yo are seeing new arguments about numbers of guns owned by single individuals is because there is a new narrative: "more than half of US guns are owned by people who have more than ten guns." This bogus assertion is because the objective data clearly show an increase in gun sales for decades now. they don't want to admit publically that the population which owns gun is going up, since they want to tell elected officials this is a decreasing constituency.

They know, we all know, from the data that murder has been falling as guns in civilian hands have been increasing. In the places where guns have increased violent crime has decreased. So they need to claim in those places gun ownership has decreased to cling to their bogus correlations. They know for a fact that gun ownership is likely risen to 60% of Americans, but by using survey types that will result in decreased numbers of people self reporting their gun ownership to a complete stranger, they can falsely claim it is decreasing.

They are also now realize the more they attack right the more support for the NRA is increasing. Gallup approvals among all Americans for NRA have gone from 42% to 58% the past 20 years. The gun control lobby is desperate to prove NRA is not gun owners generally (even though gallup says otherwise) but this "3%" that supposedly owns more than half of the guns. They want to say: "own a pistol for self defense? oh we are not against you, it is the maniacs with arsenals!"

What you are seeing is that the gun control lobby will promiscuously adjust its data claims, and its narratives, for the moment. Never forget that the positon of ALL of them less than ten year ago was in support of total bans.

Look at their narrative on DC. The Brady campaign cites "studies" that say DC has high homicide because it has high gun ownership. It says DC has 26% gun ownership and high murder and new Hampshire has 14% gun ownership and low murder.
But the studies on suicide they cite,, where DC is low suicide, it says DC gun ownership is 5%. Hmm, 26% or 5%? which is it? Answer: whichever number promotes: guns are bad.
Not only do they use 5% for DC when it helps them and 26% for DC when it does, the claim that new Hampshire only has 14% gun ownership is about the most laughable thing ever claimed.

Click to expand...

K-43 said:

Wow Rascal. That’s pretty thorough.
I agree with everyone that believes they’re going to try limiting numbers of guns and ammo you can own. They’ll claim it’s reaonable, look at Sweden, England, etc. it’ll be convincing to the majority of sheeple. I mean, who “needs” more than say 5 guns or more than 50 rounds of ammo. That’ll sound reasonable to non gun owners and even many gun owners.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Sorry, I meant murders. I personally don’t consider suicides as a gun related issue.

Click to expand...

Klunatic said:

Another reason to reload your own ammo.

That said, I don't know why the liberals think that its ok to limit the right to keep and bear arms. I know its an old argument but its still a valid one, if you can limit one right then you can limit all rights. So by extension if its good to limit the number of guns a person can purchase in a month then we can limit how many times a person goes to church or makes a speech, speaks on TV or even vents on a web forum/Tweets/Texts/Facbook etc... Same thing applies the number of rounds a person can purchase/possess. All if it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Click to expand...

rascal said:

No, you ar wrong on that on two levels, you are falling into into trap, since 2/3 of firearms death are in fact suicide, and also most firearm homicide is not gang related.



Best to always talk" homicide rate" as the it can clearly be shown to be decreasing for a generation. Not "death." not "gun violence" where they include suicide.



When a debate opponent says "gun violence" deaths. You say: "Oh, ok that is nearly 2/3 suicide, you are aggregating suicide and homicide. There are lots of fully developed democracies with higher suicide + homicide rates than the US, and virtually no guns. Virtually gun free S. Korea and Japan have way more "lethal violence" by your defintion. Are yo saying suicide by jumping from a building is less violent than taking ones life with a firearm??"



On gang related, a lot of gun murder, non murder shootings, and in fact accidents are gang related. But not most. The better assertion, because it is most, is that most gun homicide, the vast majority, and certainly the elevated US rate over other countries, is criminal on criminal. There is an attempt to suppress this. new Orleans PD came under attack when they published data on how the overwhelming majority of not just perpetrators, but victims as well were criminals. Baltimore PD was looking at this and publishing it until the left went nuts because it destroys their narrative. Baltimore last look at this was 2007 before being stopped: 93% of murder perps have prior criminal record, 80% of murder perps have ten or more arrests -- and 91% of murder victims, have a criminal record.



the counter argument you wil hear is: "just because someone has committed a crime are you saying their life is worthless?" You will say: "NO, but causal risk factors behind over 90% of murder being criminal on criminal is the core issue. Are yo saying smoking rates are irrelevant to discussion of lung cancer? Committing crimes is clearly the driving risk behavior in getting murdered."



Lastly the reason why yo are seeing new arguments about numbers of guns owned by single individuals is because there is a new narrative: "more than half of US guns are owned by people who have more than ten guns." This bogus assertion is because the objective data clearly show an increase in gun sales for decades now. they don't want to admit publically that the population which owns gun is going up, since they want to tell elected officials this is a decreasing constituency.



They know, we all know, from the data that murder has been falling as guns in civilian hands have been increasing. In the places where guns have increased violent crime has decreased. So they need to claim in those places gun ownership has decreased to cling to their bogus correlations. They know for a fact that gun ownership is likely risen to 60% of Americans, but by using survey types that will result in decreased numbers of people self reporting their gun ownership to a complete stranger, they can falsely claim it is decreasing.



They are also now realize the more they attack right the more support for the NRA is increasing. Gallup approvals among all Americans for NRA have gone from 42% to 58% the past 20 years. The gun control lobby is desperate to prove NRA is not gun owners generally (even though gallup says otherwise) but this "3%" that supposedly owns more than half of the guns. They want to say: "own a pistol for self defense? oh we are not against you, it is the maniacs with arsenals!"



What you are seeing is that the gun control lobby will promiscuously adjust its data claims, and its narratives, for the moment. Never forget that the positon of ALL of them less than ten year ago was in support of total bans.



Look at their narrative on DC. The Brady campaign cites "studies" that say DC has high homicide because it has high gun ownership. It says DC has 26% gun ownership and high murder and new Hampshire has 14% gun ownership and low murder.

But the studies on suicide they cite,, where DC is low suicide, it says DC gun ownership is 5%. Hmm, 26% or 5%? which is it? Answer: whichever number promotes: guns are bad.

Not only do they use 5% for DC when it helps them and 26% for DC when it does, the claim that new Hampshire only has 14% gun ownership is about the most laughable thing ever claimed.

Click to expand...

namrelio said:

Your dead on. Remember way back, I think it was hillary's baby, she wanted a "Sin" tax on ammo.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

What seems to be missed by our MSM is that even someone owning 1000 guns still will only have 2 hands. It's not like they can all be fired at once by one individual.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Actually I bet if you look at most non-free countries where you have to have a license and a NEED for a firearm, most people probably have several. If you have to go through thousands of dollars of licenses and training and months of work, why the F would you have one gun?

Click to expand...