Xpost: The One Question I Want All Gun Nuts to Answer

[hack89]

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:05 PM - Edit history (2)

Copied from the other forum because I can't post there:

"So, my question to gun nuts is simple, “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211167

My answer: I don't own guns for self defense or to make me safer. I own guns for recreation. I think many gun owners feel the same way I do - the vast majority of us live in safe areas where gun violence is rare.

If more guns = more gun violence, why has our murder and manslaughter rates been cut in half over the past 20 years? Does that mean that gun ownership has actually been declining? So confused.

[Press Virginia]

1. As many as it takes

just like pulls of a trigger

[jonno99]

2. Xpost thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211167

(for some reason my questions earned me a ban. I find that to be disappointing - and a bit close-minded... )

edit: Oh, and a bit ironic too. I wonder if they see it...

edit: apologies are needed I guess; my "attempt" at a Jedi mind-trick apparently only exacerbated the issue: "these aren't the questions we're looking for:"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211174

[JonathanRackham]

4. But don't worry.

They don't really want to ban your guns.

[Duckhunter935]

7. Lol

And they say we are scared,

[Duckhunter935]

5. They know

It must be hard to be that scared of any open dialog. How did you break the SOP?

[jonno99]

9. Apparently I was seen as "baiting" - by asking a question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211167#post6

[Duckhunter935]

12. You can't ask or answer questions in that group

Back patting only

Funny thing is that host will come over here to ask that question

[Eleanors38]

20. Ha! I got that beat. I was bounced when I asked if the Brady Center would

be a credible choice, since it was founded by Republicans.

[Duckhunter935]

15. Yep, that host is crowing about your block now in a new post to that group.

[jonno99]

16. Hmmm... and neither of my questions matched the criteria for "bannable" posts:

Coy, "tee-hee," Gungeon-like pro-gunner remarks will produce a ban every time.

Apparently appeals to critical thinking are seen as confrontational & scary; as you stated earlier - only back-patting is allowed.

[Duckhunter935]

18. Best one is a block for a self deleted post

Up for less than a minute, lol

[JonathanRackham]

3. What's funny is I keep a hammer and baseball bat by my bed.

My firearms are in the safe. However if I felt the neighborhood dynamics were going down the crapper my recreational devices would be upgraded to home defensive devices and my tools and recreational devices would go back in the garage.

The gun abolitionist do not want conversation, discussion or compromise. Hell look at their ban list when they pose questions on their sub-forum. I've grown tired of the abrasive bullying by this group of misguided self appointed nanny minded zealots.

[NaturalHigh]

6. You lost me when you started your question with an insult.

[hack89]

10. That is not my question. I lifted it from an OP in Bansalot.

I can't post there so I copied over. Sorry for the confusion.

[NaturalHigh]

11. Oh, got it.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I expect to be posted over in that mindless hellhole.

[Duckhunter935]

13. From guess who

The one who self deleted months of posts when he got mad?

[Duckhunter935]

8. Let me guess who asked?

Mine are not owned for self defense, but they would if required.

[jmg257]

14. Better question - how do you answer a question that is based on a false

premise??

So IF we were "gun nuts" AND did try to answer it - "unknown"..."because so far the number of guns doesn't seem to matter much".

BTW I do have guns for self-defense purposes, though they are most often used for recreation too.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/one-question-want-gun-nuts-answer/

"But seeing that we have around 300 million already here in the United States, and gun violence tends to increase as the number of guns in the country goes up, it’s just a question I’d like these people to answer."

So, my question to gun nuts is simple, “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view

Per the FBI background checks, the number of guns has been steadily climbing since at least 1999, while gun violence has been steadily decreasing since the 90s {I'd wager there are more like 400 million+ guns - its been "300 million" for WAY too long when there are now 20 million+ background checks per year!!}:

"Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the gun homicide rate has remained relatively flat. From 2009 to 2014, the most recent year data are available, the number of gun homicides has hovered around 11,000 and 12,000 per year"
...
"The rate of nonfatal gun victimizations declined in a similar way to the gun death rate, with a large drop in the 1990s – 63% between 1993 and 2000. The decline since then has been more uneven. In 2014, there were 174.8 nonfatal violent gun victimizations per 100,000 people ages 12 and older."
...
"while the gun suicide rate has declined overall since 1993, in recent years it has risen, from 6.3 per 100,000 people in 2010 to 6.7 in 2014."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

[jmg257]

17. Apparently they'll just change the argument - now its NOT the number of guns

but the percentage of "gun ownership" that's important.



Meanwhile they conveniently and completely ignore the huge increase in pistol permits over the last few years with millions of new purchasers). They prefer not to even discuss it...that huge #s of the 23 million new guns each year are handguns (and likely semi-auto rifles and defense shotguns).... those most likely targeted for *gasp* bans and increased control.


Of course the basic facts don't change. Just the excuses.

For the last 20 or so years, the number of guns has gone/goes (way) up, while levels of all gun-related violence goes down.

Other factors may help explain the fall of gun crime since the early 1990s including reductions in lead levels, the end of the crack epidemic, advances in medicine that allow more gunshot victims to survive their wounds, and a declining rate of gun ownership.

The implicit argument made by conservative media is that there is a causal link between reports of booming gun sales in recent years and the overall decline of gun homicide over the past 20 years. But this claim misunderstands how gun ownership has changed during this time period. According to the General Social Survey, household firearm ownership has fallen from 43 percent in the 1990s to 35 percent in the 2000s. Overall household ownership is down from 50 percent in the 1970s. As Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, explained to The New York Times, "There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof. But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns."

Significantly, numerous studies have proven that gun availability is linked to gun violence. According to a review conducted by David Hemenway of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, ...{DH - 'Nuff said - he was the one who put out that interesting "study" saying more cops get killed in high gun owner states, but left out 3 of 4 states on each control group}

Conservatives who trumpet the BJS study are also ignoring that it indicated a decline in gun homicides {Or NOT*}, not that the problem of gun violence has been solved. In fact, the level of gun violence in the United States remains at epidemic levels. According to an analysis of data by PolitiFact, around 86,000 people are shot -- including both fatally or nonfatally -- each year due to crime or gun-related accidents. Approximately 18,000 more Americans die in gun suicides. Overall, firearm-related deaths are rising and set to outpace motor vehicle fatalities by 2015.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/conservative-media-misread-data-to-declare-gun/193961

"Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the gun homicide rate has remained relatively flat. From 2009 to 2014, the most recent year data are available, the number of gun homicides has hovered around 11,000 and 12,000 per year"
...
*
"The rate of nonfatal gun victimizations declined in a similar way to the gun death rate, with a large drop in the 1990s – 63% between 1993 and 2000. The decline since then has been more uneven. In 2014, there were 174.8 nonfatal violent gun victimizations per 100,000 people ages 12 and older."
...
"while the gun suicide rate has declined overall since 1993, in recent years it has risen, from 6.3 per 100,000 people in 2010 to 6.7 in 2014."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. I'm going to, for the sake of argument, go with the pro-control premise...

...that is that 'guns cause death'. There are about 300,000,000 guns in the US and in 2014 there were 33,599 gun deaths including murders, suicides, accidents, police shootings, self-defense...
There were 81,034 injuries via shooting criminal assaults, police shootings, accidents, self-defense...

Here's my math 33,599 + 81,034 = 114,633

114,633/300,000,000 = about 0.00038211 deaths and injuries per gun. The reciprocal of that number should tell us how many guns have to act together to cause an injury or death. (Technically we should remove the police shooting and justifiable homicides, or at least the ones the control folks agree with.) The number is 2,618 rounding up.

I assert that individuals should be allowed to own 2,617 guns, no more without an FFL.