Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[Mr.wizard]

People are denied effective means of protecting themselves? That's a bit over dramatic don't you think? Its not utopia masturbation, I'm not even talking about a utopia. I'm talking about adequate wages, universal health care, access to education, all which are attainable and in fact being used by other countries around the world. It's no secret that happier, healthier, educated people are less likely to shoot themselves or someone else.

Sorry, didn't really mean to accuse you of masturbation, just trying to get us off that slippery slope which leads to ignoring a very real problem which could likely be resolved this year if good sense prevailed for the distraction of a goal which, if not unrealistic can only be solved in part, will take many years to do that much, and do nothing to help those who will become legally defenseless if the liberals in Congress get what they are working full tilt to force on them.

Is there a legitimate push by congress to ban guns all together? I know gun control is on the table as it should be, but actually taking away peoples right to own a gun, I seriously doubt that's a realistic possibility, if anyone is promoting that, it's most likely grandstanding.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You won't get the hard numbers on how many of those hundreds of millions of guns have actually been used to defend somebody. Or how many have killed the people they were bought to protect.

Defensive gun use is tracked by the government. I'm on my phone right now, so I'm unable to link to the FBI data, but I'll do so later. The rate of DGU numbers in the thousands per year, most of which don't involve discharging the weapon.

[Gawdzilla]

You won't get the hard numbers on how many of those hundreds of millions of guns have actually been used to defend somebody. Or how many have killed the people they were bought to protect.

Defensive gun use is tracked by the government. I'm on my phone right now, so I'm unable to link to the FBI data, but I'll do so later. The rate of DGU numbers in the thousands per year, most of which don't involve discharging the weapon.

So, SWAG 300,000,000 guns and SWAG again 10,000 DGU a year. 0.00003% of guns used as they are purportedly used for. Not good return on the money.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Sorry, didn't really mean to accuse you of masturbation, just trying to get us off that slippery slope which leads to ignoring a very real problem which could likely be resolved this year if good sense prevailed for the distraction of a goal which, if not unrealistic can only be solved in part, will take many years to do that much, and do nothing to help those who will become legally defenseless if the liberals in Congress get what they are working full tilt to force on them.

Is there a legitimate push by congress to ban guns all together? I know gun control is on the table as it should be, but actually taking away peoples right to own a gun, I seriously doubt that's a realistic possibility, if anyone is promoting that, it's most likely grandstanding.

That depends on what guns you happen to own right now. Most liberals don't believe guns of any sort are justified for civilians because they themselves don't need guns, which is of course owing to the fact they can afford personal bodyguards. They really do think a reasonable compromise would be allowing the rural yokels to keep their single-shot .22 rifles (which won't even bag them a deer for subsistence hunting when it comes to that, nor is it useful for taking birds), and they can't imagine why they should have any handguns.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Defensive gun use is tracked by the government. I'm on my phone right now, so I'm unable to link to the FBI data, but I'll do so later. The rate of DGU numbers in the thousands per year, most of which don't involve discharging the weapon.

So, SWAG 300,000,000 guns and SWAG again 10,000 DGU a year. 0.00003% of guns used as they are purportedly used for. Not good return on the money.

Well, I wouldn't say every one of those guns was purchased for that reason, would you?

[Gawdzilla]

So, SWAG 300,000,000 guns and SWAG again 10,000 DGU a year. 0.00003% of guns used as they are purportedly used for. Not good return on the money.

Well, I wouldn't say every one of those guns was purchased for that reason, would you?

That's the up front reason, "PROTECT OUR HOMES!!!". "Cool toys" is frown upon as being too honest. Toys killing kids is bad PR.

[Bob Kelso]

I'm in favor of permitting gun ownership, and concealed carry for any American (and anyone in the world, don't see a good reason not to), provided that they undergo a standard and effective training course which deals not only with safe handling, shooting accuracy, and legal education, but also simulated situations which many police training programs use. This may sound like a bit much for the average citizen, but it's probably necessary in order to ensure that the gun actually makes people more safe than vulnerable. It would at least provide the option available to all which they deserve in a civil society, not just for those belonging to the elite club of military personnel and law enforcement officials, especially where the latter are either running rampant with abuse or are just plain absent where they would be theoretically useful. Also, while I generally dislike the privatization of government functions, in this case allowing the administration of training by regulated private enterprise would speed up the process for permit applicants, so that nobody would have to wait a year or more in order to get their training started. It wouldn't hurt the economy in any way either.

How would you feel about a restriction that requires you to keep any firearms - unloaded - under lock and key, and to have your arrangements inspected at random by the local police?  Bear in mind that if your gun safe is found to be unlocked (or your weapons loaded, or your guns and ammo stored in the same place), you will lose your firearm permit.  Because that is exactly the arrangement here, and no one - as far as I know - has found it to be objectionable.

Boru

That seems a bit draconian, I'm all for gun regulation but invading my home randomly is just over the line.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I wouldn't say every one of those guns was purchased for that reason, would you?

That's the up front reason, "PROTECT OUR HOMES!!!". "Cool toys" is frown upon as being too honest. Toys killing kids is bad PR.

Well, that didn't really answer my question. We both know that a 30-30 isn't purchased for self-defense, that shotguns often aren't and so on.

The point was that PIDOOMA numbers aren't worth much in a discussion.

[Gawdzilla]

That's the up front reason, "PROTECT OUR HOMES!!!". "Cool toys" is frown upon as being too honest. Toys killing kids is bad PR.

Well, that didn't really answer my question. We both know that a 30-30 isn't purchased for self-defense, that shotguns often aren't and so on.

The point was that PIDOOMA numbers aren't worth much in a discussion.

Actually, the discussion isn't worth much.

[Gawdzilla]

But I have to wonder why you object to the numbers you supplied? I was generous with them.