Divided America: Gun views fractious even as fewer bear arms

It’s true that large segments of the public have expressed support for some aspects of gun regulation

Among the longest-existing measures of public gun sentiment is a Gallup poll question asking whether there should be a law banning handguns except by police and other authorized people.

And therein lies the root of the rancor. The majority of us agree that sensible gun regulation is the answer. But we don't have a multi-hundred-million dollar lobbying organization bribing Congress to listen to us. So when a small but absurdly loud segment of the public insist that any possible regulation of guns must always be a slippery slope toward total gun bans, Congress gets paid to listen to those people and not the majority of their constituents. Innocent civillians get killed every day because our leaders get paid to approach this subtle and nuanced issue with all the subtlety and nuance of a pair of 4 year olds debating who the best superhero is.

The General Social Survey by NORC at the University of Chicago — one of the foremost authorities on gun ownership — found 31 percent of households had guns in 2014, down from a high of 50.4 percent in 1977.

We keep having right-wingers on this site telling us that gun purchases have gone up under Obama. Yet there are less households owning guns. That means that some people are buying more guns, rather than more people buying guns. I wonder if there is a specific segment of the population that is buying all these guns, and if it is, which one it would be. I wonder.... I wonder...

data from the GSS and the Pew Research Center offers a sketch of what the gun-owning populace looks like today: Overwhelmingly white and male, concentrated in rural areas, and more often identifying with or leaning toward the Republican Party.

Oh, there it is! Isn't that surprising.

A Pew poll released in August showed 85 percent of people support background checks for purchases at gun shows and in private sales; 79 percent support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns; 70 percent approve of a federal database to track gun sales; and 57 percent favor a ban on assault weapons.

The most amazing numbers to me are the ones that are inferred:

-- 15 percent of people don't support background checks for purchases at gun shows and private sales

-- 21 percent (one in five!) don't support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns

-- 43 percent (over two in five!) don't support a ban on assault weapons.

I wonder which demographic the three numbers I listed above belong to. I wonder... I wonder...

fewer Americans today choose to keep a gun in their home. The General Social Survey by NORC at the University of Chicago — one of the foremost authorities on gun ownership — found 31 percent of households had guns in 2014, down from a high of 50.4 percent in 1977.

So, who does the NRA Represent?

They call the shots for Congress.

Gun Manufacturing. Cigarette Manufacturers.

Death's Salesman.

They bought a piece of Doanld J. Trump.

A nation held hostage.

Why is it thought that a gun is so bad? It doesn't transform the person holding a gun Ito someone should wants to shoot someone. Olympic target shooters shoot papar everyday. Skeet shooters shoot clay discs.

The "right wingers" are correct Strangerland. Just look into stock prices of the manufacturers if you don't believe them. I can't comment on the more guns for some people part. Many are first time buyers, I can say that.

The people using guns the wrong way just don't care. We see daily in Chicago black on black gun violence. And it's not just Chicago. We see lunatics from time to time, who's to say w/o a gun they would not commit murders? And the accidental shootings are irresponsible owners. You have that with anything dangerous. Even electricity is dangerous when misused. When used correctly we like it.

I'm all for better sales regulation to limit a a-holes from getting guns but there is no complete solution. Just as illegal drugs, criminals will always have them and use them. We see where the war on drugs has left us decades after.

But the fact does not change that the majority of the public support some sort of regulation (not banning) on guns, but Congress fails to act every. single. time. Four measures this past week, none of them absurd and three different approaches (two were pretty similar), and none of them pass by almost the exact same number.

Why not limit gun ownership to sport shooting and keep the guns in a locked armoury at the range? America is modern, has shops so there is no need for people to hunt, so you can take those guns away. Have more police on foot patrol in areas so reassure the public, thus negating the need for paranoid citizens to possess hand guns. That leaves the people with assault weapons... why would Randy Rickenbacker 3rd require a 5.56mm semi automatic assault weapon? What possible use would a sensible, well adjusted person have for one?

Don't just regulate weapons... ban them. Limit their use to farmers for pest control, police, sports clubs and the armed/security forces.

"But what about the illegally held guns?"... what about them? Villains will always find guns.

What entrenched guns in American culture was Charlton Heston's "Cold Dead Hands" speech.

That shift has come, perhaps surprisingly, as fewer Americans today choose to keep a gun in their home. The General Social Survey by NORC at the University of Chicago — one of the foremost authorities on gun ownership — found 31 percent of households had guns in 2014, down from a high of 50.4 percent in 1977.

Chicago (Cook County et al) is a gun free zone = you should have very little gun ownership rates in Chicago ~0%. Maybe they were polling the "criminals" who chose to break the law even though it is a Constitutional right.

More people own guns, and there are more gun sales (highest ever). Concealed carry especially among Women is incredibly high = go to a concealed carry class and be amazed at well over 50% are Women. = Don't mess around with Women in the USA because your odds of getting shot are much higher = crime rates are way down and gun crimes are down.

But we don't have a multi-hundred-million dollar lobbying organization bribing Congress to listen to us.

The NRA, which has much less than 50% of gun owners as members, organized themselves and present their opinions backed by the votes of their members to their representatives. And there is nothing stopping any other group from doing the same. Yet despite years of people complaining about the NRA, no comparable opposing organization has been formed and representatives that follow the NRA's platform keep getting elected. Sounds like the problem is that lots of people like to complain but when actually taking action is needed they fade away.

I wonder which demographic the three numbers I listed above belong to. I wonder... I wonder...

I wonder what the actual wording of the questions asked were. A skilled pollster can get almost any result they want just by the way their questions are worded.

A nation held hostage.

No. No one is forcing anyone to purchase or use a firearm in the US. Those who feel it necessary to have one should have the freedom and opportunity to do so. That a firearm is felt necessary for one’s safety speaks to the base actions of humanity, and to the failure of the criminal-justice system.

What entrenched guns in American culture was Charlton Heston's "Cold Dead Hands" speech.

No. Firearms were entrenched in American culture long before Mr. Heston was even born.

America is stuck with its guns, there is no turning back. So keep calm and prepare for a mass shooting near you, soon.

No one is forcing anyone to purchase or use a firearm in the US

A poor reading of "nation held hostage" by the tyranny of irrelevant little men made big by a strap-on.

Those who feel it necessary to have one should have the freedom and opportunity to do so

Just as Omar Mateen did? No more questions.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

From the FBI NICS system you can see that Obama has done an extremely good job in selling guns to the American public. Americans should be able break the 2015 record quite easily. We should all be thankful for these gun owners protecting America. But the battle will never be over with Registered Democrats wanting to buy guns and attacking the 2nd amendment thru gun violence. We must remain vigilant and encourage local Police and the FBI to find and arrest these criminals.

What the post leaves out is the various prohibition attempts on guns have zero effect on stated goals. The Democratic party caused the recent problems with terror in America and related as well is the occasional mass murderer who is insane and for whatever reason cracks and goes on a killing spree. In neither case, does the existence of guns cause the violence. Both types grew up and for whatever reason are prone to use violence and then see an act, or reads a website, follows ideologies like Islam or Marxism which openly or tacitly condone using force to obtain goals. Whatever the cause which cracks the minds of murderers, it isn't the gun. The Democrats in America push gun control because it provides an illusion of doing something while being able to avoid solving the problem, because solving the problem is hard work and would involve Democrats admitting some of their favored groups and fantasies are invalid. The gun isn't the cause, so prohibiting it can't be the solution. This means,wasting time on nonsense and no effort given to real resolution.

The second problem with gun control is it is a prohibition. just like the Democrats prohibition on alcohol failed a century ago, and drug prohibitions fail now, gun prohibition will not only fail, since it doesn't solve a problem, the same unintended consequences will result. Just like prohibition on alcohol and drugs literally caused the existence of 1930s mobsters and today's drug cartels, what will happen is as Obama imports more of his violent islamic terrorist friends, a black market for guns,will appear and it will be just as bad as mobsters and cartels.

There are in fact only three groups in the world who use guns or any weapon against people. Criminals, government and religion. If we want to stop violence from crime to terror to wars, disarm government, criminals and religions. Disarming the victims of those three groups will not work.

Doesn't get much shriller than this:

as Obama imports more of his violent islamic terrorist friends

Really?

First I am not a member nor am I a supporter of the NRA. However what I find interesting is people placing blame on the NRA. If the NRA is influencing our government then this is the fault of the politicians and not the NRA.

Unfortunately the U.S. politicians (on both sides of the so called aisle) have all sold out and I believe it is up to the citizenry to call them out on it.

The reality of gun control is that there are now so many weapons in circulation that the point has probably been reached that the problem is nearly impossible to solve. There are certainly obvious things that can be done (a private citizen does not need an AR15 for example).

As for disallowing those on no fly lists from having the ability to purchase firearms...this sounds good in principal...however we all know there is no due process when people are placed on the list and people are not even told why they are on the list nor given the chance to appeal it. If this list evolves into something where there is a due process for getting on such a list then this type of legislation would make sense.

In the end I think the solution will be to heavily regulate the sale of ammunition rather than weapons.

And therein lies the root of the rancor. The majority of us agree that sensible gun regulation is the answer. But we don't have a multi-hundred-million dollar lobbying organization bribing Congress to listen to us. So when a small but absurdly loud segment of the public insist that any possible regulation of guns must always be a slippery slope toward total gun bans, Congress gets paid to listen to those people and not the majority of their constituents. Innocent civillians get killed every day because our leaders get paid to approach this subtle and nuanced issue with all the subtlety and nuance of a pair of 4 year olds debating who the best superhero is.

Meanwhile back in reality you have billionaires like Bloomberg financing anti-gun groups and politicians who support banning guns. When it comes to the actual political spending the NRA does, the overwhelming majority comes from individual Americans. In a world where every corporation and special interest is allowed to lobby and support their favored politicians, the NRA is a very small player. Yet liberals treat it like the boogeyman.

Meanwhile back in reality you have billionaires like Bloomberg financing anti-gun groups and politicians who support banning guns

That is so evil. Someone might not get killed.

a private citizen does not need an AR15 for example

A private citizen also doesn't need a Porsche or a cheeseburger or fertilizer, yet private citizens are allowed to buy them.

In the end I think the solution will be to heavily regulate the sale of ammunition rather than weapons.

And why would that work any better than regulating guns or be any less a violation of due process?

A private citizen also doesn't need a Porsche or a cheeseburger or fertilizer, yet private citizens are allowed to buy them.

Guns. When used properly, the target dies. Porches. When used properly, the person drives. Cheeseburgers. When used properly, people eat. Fertilizer. When used properly, plants live.

Apples. Not oranges.

Guns. When used properly, the target dies.

Paper can't die, neither can clay pigeons.

Guns when use properly no one dies.

So with proper use none of them cause any deaths.

Oranges to oranges.

Of course cars release CO2 and the need for oil has supposed lead to numerous wars.

Also cheeseburgers have red meat, salt and fat all of which contribute to obesity and a whole host of other diseases. Not to mention cattle raising is a large contributor to CO2 and CH4 emissions.

And fertilizers wash into rivers, lakes and the oceans causing fish kills and toxic algae blooms.

Guns when use properly no one dies.

Tell that to the parents, friends and family members of the children of sandy hook, or the patrons of the Pulse in Orlando.

Guns, when used properly, kill. That is their purpose. Every other usage, such as targets and clay pigeons, is just to practice using them for their main purpose - to kill. Otherwise they could just use BB guns, or some other non-lethal projectile firing machine.

Tell that to the parents, friends and family members of the children of sandy hook, or the patrons of the Pulse in Orlando.

Where the guns WEREN'T used properly.

Guns, when used properly, kill. That is their purpose. Every other usage, such as targets and clay pigeons, is just to practice using them for their main purpose - to kill.

That is your opinion. And thousands of people (probably most) who shoot targets and clay pigeons aren't practicing TO KILL.

Guns when use properly no one dies.

Say that to the Pentagon.

Where the guns WEREN'T used properly.

What are you talking about? Do you really think gun makers aren't testing their weapons to ensure that they are as lethal as possible for the particular gun they are testing?

The guns in Sandy Hook and at Pulse were made to kill, and made to kill efficiently. The gunmen used them to that purpose, and the guns were extremely successful in fulfilling the goal they were made for.

What are you talking about? Do you really think gun makers aren't testing their weapons to ensure that they are as lethal as possible for the particular gun they are testing?

Maybe someday people will understand the difference between their opinions and facts. Obviously not today.

Maybe someday people will understand the difference between their opinions and facts. Obviously not today.

We both know that gun makers try to make guns as lethal as they can - because the purpose of a gun is to be lethal. Therefore, when a gun is used properly, it is lethal.

We both know that gun makers try to make guns as lethal as they can - because the purpose of a gun is to be lethal. Therefore, when a gun is used properly, it is lethal.

Nope. Your opinion is still not a fact.

The purpose of cars is to transport people rapidly from one place to another, so 'we both know' that car makers try and make cars go as fast as they can, right?

Of course not. Opinions stated as facts and ignoring all logic makes for really poor arguments.

Where the guns WEREN'T used properly

They were used in accordance with the instructions; Aim and pull the trigger. And they did exactly what they were designed to do, i.e. put a neat hole in whatever they were pointed at.

The purpose of cars is to transport people rapidly from one place to another, so 'we both know' that car makers try and make cars go as fast as they can, right?

The purpose of cars is to transport people in comfort and safety from one place to another, with as little trouble as possible. We all know car makers try and make cars as safe, comfortable, fuel-efficient and eco-friendly as possible (or at least they try to pretend that they do). And there are speed limits to prevent idiots driving as fast as possible.

The purpose of cars is to transport people rapidly from one place to another, so 'we both know' that car makers try and make cars go as fast as they can, right?

No, the purpose of cars is to transport people from one place to another. Sometimes that's fast, sometimes that's comfortable, and always that's safe. So your premise is incorrect.

Opinions stated as facts and ignoring all logic makes for really poor arguments.

Then why do you keep doing it?

We all know car makers try and make cars as safe, comfortable, fuel-efficient and eco-friendly

Really? I guess that is why we still have cars being built and sold with 12 cylinder engines that get less than 20 kpg, right? Sorry seems another opinion proven wrong by facts.

So your premise is incorrect.

Just like yours.

Then why do you keep doing it?

I am just following your lead.

I guess that is why we still have cars being built and sold with 12 cylinder engines that get less than 20 kpg, right?

That's not what most people think of when they think of a car, nor what most people want to buy and run. Maybe the folk who want as much bang for the buck in their cars are the same folk who drool over automatic, kill-em-by-the-dozen weaponry?

Yet the basic argument remains the same; even that souped-up, 12-cylinder engine vehicle, used as it's supposed to be used, doesn't kill anyone. (In the hands of a speed-loving moron it's a different story....) Your average everyday gun, used as it's supposed to be used, efficiently puts a hole in whatever it's pointed at. That's its purpose.

used as it's supposed to be used, efficiently puts a hole in whatever it's pointed at. That's its purpose.

And what is so bad about putting a hole in a piece of paper? Or breaking a disc of clay?