I recall learning, 20+ years ago, that the boyfriend of a neighbor had a gun in the girlfriend's very large, imposing house, and we were HORRIFIED! This was in northwest DC.

Proof is right there in the poll results.

99% of legal firearm owners are not creating any problems. The problems are caused primarily by those who cannot legally own firearms; prohibiting legal ownership will do nothing to address that issue.

More guns = More unnecessary death

Stupid people love their false sense of security.

but stats do not support your claim. The vast majority of legal firearm owners are causing no problems and pose no additional risk to their neighbors.

we have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half since 1992.

hack: Yet gun deaths went down as gun ownership went up .. we have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half since 1992.

This is part lie. Gun ownership rates have gone down since 1992, markedly down ~25% from ~1992 to 2000, & overall down similar percentage to 1992 - 2010.
It is probable that the real reason for declining murder rates & violent crime rates, is declining gun ownership rates.

Why did you stop at 2010, it is now 2015, could it be many people bought new weapons and the numbers do not support your position?

dh: Link to those numbers please, Jim

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=167514


The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our {PEW} surveys largely confirm the {GSS} General Social Survey trend. In our Dec1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan2013 Pew survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/ --- pg4;

The firearms manufacturers have had record sales over the last few years. The FOID applications have skyrocketed in the past couple of years and I like many will never tell a pollster I have a weapon. I just do not trust those numbers. Not to mention the number of people in the US went up quite a bit but gun deaths have not skyrocketed as you would say.

so the question for you is whether, in absolute numbers, more or fewer guns in circulation right now. For example, the production of AR-15s skyrocketed during and after the AWB (greatest gift the NRA ever got).

A 10% drop in ownership rates compared to a 30% increase in population should logically result in more gun owners and more guns.

hack: A 10% drop in ownership rates compared to a 30% increase in population should logically result in more gun owners and more guns.

Since we're referring to gun ownership rates, the drop is comparatively relative to overall population. Your question is specious. And it was more like a 25% drop in gun ownership rates from ~1992 - 2000.
Ask icon to loan you his copy of 'statistics for dummies'.

hack: so the question for you is whether, in absolute numbers, more or fewer guns in circulation right now

National gunstock increases, like entropy, but new guns are going mostly to existing gun owners.

you are on the winning side of history - perhaps it is time to move on to more pressing issues? After all, there are many things that kill more people than guns.

therefore, vaginas must make you pregnant then because statistics always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

because they want to be able to exercise a constitutionally protected right is probably not the best way to convince them to vote the way you would like them to?

Many many gun owners vote, and quite a lot of them are one issue voters on that one subject.

How many more elections could democrats win if we were to change the party platform on the subject?

I want stupid Americans to snap out of it and start THINKING instead of REACTING to everything and making society more dangerous in the process.

I guess all us gun owning dems are stupid?

Always have been.....hopefully always will be.

Safety first, and carry on.

make our voters dumb?

Or would it be better if this overwhelming majority consistently vote against us?

would you feel better if they voted against your policy positions or would you like to have the "dumb" voters on your side?

I cannot accept it at face value simply because Rasmussen is not the most reliable of pollsters when it comes to ideologically-charged or partisan topics. I'd like to see a spread of surveys before weighing in with an opinion, preferably including Pew or Quinnipiac.

I can understand why some folks do not like or possess guns. But they may very well prefer neighbors who DO have guns, perhaps envisioning them as an auxillary police force. There is an undercurrent, here. Why would people prefer armed neighbors if "only" a third or so Americans are supposed to have guns. Maybe even unarmed people may have had experience living with armed folks, and see little to worry about, or even prefer that circumstance.

Maybe our fellow citizens are more tolerant and open-minded than we give them credit for.

We have one "neighbor", everybody else is over a mile away.

Our neighbor is almost 80 years old, but she is well armed and quite proficient. We don't worry when we're gone and I assume she feels the same way. Especially since our sheriff has publicly announced that budget considerations are preventing him from patrolling outlying areas of the county.

And yet anybody would know we own guns.

So I fail to see a problem with this.

4* Would you feel safer moving to a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun or a neighborhood where you could have a gun for your own protection?

It's a push poll. It suggests you can protect yourself, or you are not allowed to protect yourself. You can live in a restrictive neighborhood where you are forbidden to own something, or a hood where you are 'free' to own something. It's as much the restrictive neighborhood or the freer one.
It's poorly worded pro gun junk science, reminiscent of rassmussen a few years ago. There were other questions, but results are hidden, must subscribe to rassmussen & pay a fee I presume. Might be on real clear politics.

If the Q was worded 'would you feel safer in a neighborhood where most people owned guns or a neighborhood where most people did not own guns, which would you prefer?' you'd have far less support for gun owning.

Voters still tend to see no need for more gun control in America and remain strongly opposed to a complete ban on handguns. But semi-automatic and assault-type weapons are another story..... 2* Should there be a ban on the purchase of semi-automatic and assault type weapons?

Poorly worded as well, as if there weren't a diff between semi-auto firearms & assault rifles.

You're saying the respondents chose overwhelmingly, the neighborhood where they are free to own something?

Gee, that doesn't dovetail with what we already know. I'm shocked.



Wait, the respondents overwhelmingly chose the freer neighborhood?

Again, I'm shocked.



That's your opinion. Highlight the part that suggests "not allowed protect yourself".

You appear to believe that poll respondents (the very same poll respondents that respond overwhelmingly on the pro-gun side in the poll in question) don't know they can protect themselves unless they're told they can, and therefore will be misled by the poll question and answer in a way not representative of how they actually feel.

In short, that is perhaps the biggest boatload of nonsense you've ever tried to peddle here. And you've endlessly and consistently raised the bar in that department, so that's says quite a lot.

beevul: That's your opinion. Highlight the part that suggests "not allowed protect yourself".

4* Would you feel safer moving to a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun or a neighborhood where you could have a gun for your own protection?

.. it suggests you could live in either a neighborhood where you could have a gun 'for your own protection', or you could live in a neighborhood where you couldn't, since you couldn't have a gun. It creates a false dichotomy, by promoting the gun ownership aspect that you could protect yourself with a gun, or be left defenseless.
If the question were worded 'would you rather live in a neighborhood with guns, or a neighborhood without guns', you'd get far less support for the gunny neighborhood.

beevul: You appear to believe that poll respondents (the very same poll respondents that respond overwhelmingly on the pro-gun side in the poll in question) don't know they can protect themselves unless they're told they can, and therefore will be misled by the poll question and answer in a way not representative of how they actually feel.

What a boatload of nonsense, I don't believe that at all, you're full of it. The poll question suggests you can protect yourself in the gun owning neighborhood, while you are living in a restrictive neighborhood otherwise. It's subtle & psychosomatic push poll wording.

Who gets shot more, people living in London, or people living in Nashville? houston? new Orleans? who's safer? which city has more violent, violent crime?

1) How do you know this?

2) The implication of living in a neighborhood where guns are permitted is that guns would be present. I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be.

Even if your framing were adopted I'm not sure what the difference would be except to, perhaps, imply the respondent would be the one owning the gun. Someone may choose to personally not own a gun but still prefer to live amongst those that do.

Where is violent crime worst?

Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico...

nuc uni: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico...

Gong, wrong. Abracadabra (selected cities to prove nuc-uni wrong), observe all the pro gun cities with higher violent crime rates than Chicago & NYC. DC is at parity with most, and lower than St Louis & memphis.

All rates, all 2012 (Chicago vcr not included for 2012, but 2011 below), gun control cities:
District of Columbia Wash violcr rate: 1,177.9 murder rate: 13.9 propcr: 4,628.0
New York New York violcr rate: 639.3 murder rate: 5.1 prop cr: 1,722.2
Maryland Baltimore violcr rate: 1,405.2 murder rate: 34.9 propcrime: 4,660.3

Texas PROGUN Houston violcrime: 992.5 murder: 10.0 propcr: 4,945.5
Missouri PROGUN Kansas City violcr: 1,263.2 murder rate 22 propcr: 5,525.4
Missouri PROGUN St. Louis violcr: 1,776.5 murder rate: 35.5 procr: 6,902.2
Tennessee PROGUN Memphis violcrime: 1,750.3 murder 20.2 propcr: 6,312.9
Tennessee PROGUN Nashville viol crime: 1,216.0 murder rate 10.0 prop cr: 4,195.9
Louisiana PROGUN New Orleans violcrime: 815.2 murder rate 53.2 propcr: 3,772.4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2012)

You need to stop complaining of the smell in gun control cities, while ignoring the stink in your own backyard.
And mexico is not considered a western industrialized country as USA is.
Quiz for nuc-uni: which large city above has the safest record re violent crime, murder, & property crime? If you answer correctly, you will win a BIG APPLE!!!

This link has evidently been superseded by a more recent year, only ref to Chicago I can find:
2011: city ---- viol crime rate .... murder & nn-MS:
Chicago: .................. 1,061.0 ......................15.9
Memphis PROGUN: .... 1,583.5 ......................17.9
Nashville PROGUN ..... 1,181.3 ........................8.2
Miami PROGUN ......... 1,197.6 .......................16.8
Kansas City Mo PROGUN .. 1,199.7 .................23.4
Atlanta PROGUN Ga......1,432.8 ......................20.7
St Louis Mo PROGUN ....1,856.7 ......................35.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

It's quite possible for violent criminals to use other weapons -- including their fists and feet (which kill more annually than semi-auto long guns).

Second, if access to guns were the issue then Chicago et al should have substantially lower violent crime rates, with or without guns -- but they don't. They are just as violent as the pro-gun states. Perhaps there is something else is in play.

Third, these are not the only cities in America. There are plenty of cities in pro-gun states that have significantly lower rates of violent crime. Perhaps something else is in play.

Fourth, I noticed you only posted those cities that fit your narrative. There are plenty of cities within states that would be a Controllers Utopian dream that have crime rates as bad as those you listed. Perhaps something else is in play.

Fifth, RKBA advocates have long argued that the absence of guns does not translate to an absence of violent crime. We have long asserted that something else is in play. Your citations seem to confirm this argument.

nuc uni: if access to guns were the issue then Chicago et al should have substantially lower violent crime rates, with or without guns -- but they don't. They are just as violent as the pro-gun states.

Immaterial, I posted to refute your contention that violent crime rate was worse in Chicago DC & ostensibly baltimore: nuc uni: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico...

Stop changing the goalposts, I refuted what you said.

nuc uni: First, your stats are for violent crime, not gun crime.

There's a valid reason for that, it's because you framed your question pertaining to VIOLENT CRIME, not gun crime: nuc uni asked: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico... YOU were the one conditioning your premise on violent crime, not I.

nuc uni: Third, these are not the only cities in America. There are plenty of cities in pro-gun states that have significantly lower rates of violent crime.

I know, but I don't need prove or disprove anything about other cities, I just wanted to disprove when you wrote this: nuc uni: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico

nuc uni: I noticed you only posted those cities that fit your narrative. There are plenty of cities within states that would be a Controllers Utopian dream that have crime rates as bad as those you listed.

I only posted cities which fit my narrative in order to disprove your contention that: nuc uni: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico

Obviously I could not use cities with lower violent crime rates to disprove your misconception, so I had to use cities with higher violent crime rates than DC & Chicago, & Baltimore. A big fat DUH awarded to nuclear uni.

You didn't disprove anything. My point is there is no reasonable basis of assuming the absence of guns will have a corresponding absence of violent crime. I and others have long argued this point.

That you can find cities with violent crime rates higher than Chicago, Washington DC, etc. does not refute this point. These cities with their strict gun control still have violent crime rates higher than cities with far more liberal observances of the RKBA, including some places that observe constitutional carry rights.



Then you have affectively conceded my point.

Thank-you for your magnanimous concession.

nuc uni: Not to be mean but your posting style is borderline incoherent.

While yours tend to be solidly stupid.
My posting style is generally quite understandable & accurate, except to those who are disproven by what is contained within them.

nuc uni: You didn't disprove anything. My point is there is no reasonable basis of assuming the absence of guns will have a corresponding absence of violent crime. I and others have long argued this point.

That wasn't your 'point' at all when you asserted this: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico
I addressed that point, not your after the fact double double talk talk to save face. You cannot alter your contention after the fact to make a plausible counter argument, unless you want to join the beevul club of contradictions & backtracks.

nuc uni first wrote: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico
nuc uni followup: That you can find cities with violent crime rates higher than Chicago, Washington DC, etc. does not refute this point.

It certainly does refute your first point, look up the definition of 'worst'. Again you need to stop ignoring the stink in your own progun backyard when you post.

nuc uni: Then you have affectively conceded my point. Thank-you for your magnanimous concession.

As well as needing to recognize the stink in gunworld's backyard, you're also delusionary; for you posted 3 large cities - DC, Chicago, & assume Baltimore - which all have populations over 500,000, of which there are only ~35 in the USA (>500,000), out of thousands of lesser cities. So of course, as you put it: There are plenty of cities in pro-gun states that have significantly lower rates of violent crime.

You, who hypocritically importunes about people ignoring 'other factors', completely ignore the difference between large cities with high urbanity, pop density, plus widely differing demographics & racial divides, with lesser populated &/or rural cities in pro gun states. I clearly noted that I was citing particular progun cities with higher violent crime rates, to disprove what you had written.

nuc uni, repeated: Where is violent crime worst? Chicago. Washington DC. Maryland. Mexico

You know, maybe I was premature to 'assume' Baltimore, when nuc uni clearly wrote 'maryland' as where violent crime is the 'worst'. Well, if readers aren't convinced yet that nuclear unicorn is ignoring the stink in the pro gun backyard, here is ample proof she is:

Highest violent crime rates, 2014:
2) PROGUN Tennessee Total violent crime rate (per 100,000): 643.6
3) PROGUN Nevada Total violent crime rate: 607.6
4) VERY PRO GUN Alaska Total violent crime rate (per 100,000): 603.2
5) PROGUN New Mexico Total violent crime rate: 559.1
6) PROGUN South Carolina Total violent crime rate: 558.8
7) neutralish Delaware Total violent crime rate: 547.4
8) PROGUN Louisiana Total violent crime rate: 496
9) LEANS GUN Florida
10) guncontrol - Maryland Total violent crime rate (per 100,000): 476.8
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12963542/9/the-most-violent-crime-ridden-states-in-america.html

So there it is for 2014, seven GUN states with higher violent crime rates than Maryland, irrefutably disproving nuc uni's inane contention above.
.. did I forget #1 you ask? no, just that it's inapplicable & obviously not a state but a city with merely 80 square miles:
1) Wash DC but DC is clearly not a state but a city, & one generally cannot compare cities with states and get much meaningful regarding gun control. DC has a population density of 5,000 to 10,000 per sq mile, while the highest pop-dens state is rhode island @ ~1,000, new York state about 170, & Alaska less than 1.

Your own citations show that neither case is observed.

nuc uni: Someone may choose to personally not own a gun but still prefer to live amongst those that do.

Certainly, but if the Rasmussen poll question was not subtly padded to prompt people to the progun answer, the poll result would be more evenly divided, & likely more people would prefer areas with 'less guns & gun owners' rather than 'more guns & gun owners'.

Rasmussen misrepresents it's pool this way: Americans Prefer Living in Neighborhoods With Guns
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/americans_prefer_living_in_neighborhoods_with_guns

That is not true, and is not proven by the Rasmussen poll, it is disinformation. Then Rasmussen proceeds to claim something different: American Voters overwhelming prefer living in a neighborhood where they have the option of owning a gun than to live where nobody is allowed to be armed .

There is no such substantive area in the USA today where nobody is allowed to be armed (excepting localized areas within a town etc). The Rasmussen poll creates some weird world which has nothing to do with the realities & demographics of the country. People can own guns in every state, the poll is worthless & fabricates some mythological premise having little to do with reality.

Then Rasmussen manipulates it's poll into meaning something which hasn't been proven at all by it's poll.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters would feel safer living in a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun over one where they could have a gun for their own protection. (68%) would feel safer in a neighborhood where guns are allowed, while 10% are not sure. ..The national survey of 977 Likely Voters was conducted on June 8-9, 2015 by Rasmussen

That basically proves that people would generally not choose to ban firearms. Rasmussen fabricates a sterling FALSE DILEMMA, where one either cannot, or one has an option.

It's an obvious hypothetical but it's a hypothetical that tests whether or not the fantasy world you and the other gun control advocates dream of comports with what people in general desire.

In other words, what you want appeals to a vanishingly small minority.

nuc uni: Oh brother. Just because the poll tests a hypothetical doesn't invaidate the poll.

This particular hypothetical does indeed invalidate the poll as far as the conclusions drawn by Rasmussen & some GN's on here, because the hypothetical poll question involves a condition which does not exist in America (living in a state or city or town where guns are not allowed).

Rasmussen's invalid conclusion: Americans Prefer Living in Neighborhoods With Guns

Rasmussen might've gotten away with leaving it at this: American Voters overwhelming prefer living in a neighborhood where they have the option of owning a gun than to live where nobody is allowed to be armed.

How about this poll Q: Would you rather live in a neighborhood where guns are not allowed so as to help prevent violent crime & suicide, or in a neighborhood where guns are allowed? you'd likely get the results switched almost vice versa, because of the wording.

nuc uni: It's an obvious hypothetical but it's a hypothetical that tests whether or not the fantasy world you and the other gun control advocates dream of comports with what people in general desire.

The 'fantasy world' is the hypothetical place Rasmussen created which does not exist in America.
Rasmussen's fantasy world is likely an extension of the 'armed fantasty doctrine adhered by members of the 2nd Amendment Mythology.

nuc uni: Just because the poll tests a hypothetical doesn't invaidate the poll. ...It's an obvious hypothetical but it's a hypothetical that tests...

This seems to put you at odds with beevul, who seems to believe that the Rasmussen poll is a valid representation (cough) of, uh, things:
.. beevul: You appear to believe that poll respondents (the very same poll respondents that respond overwhelmingly on the pro-gun side in the poll in question) don't know they can protect themselves unless they're told they can, and therefore will be misled by the poll question and answer in a way not representative of how they actually feel.

So, does the beeve also think the poll is a hypothetical?

That's precisely what it was intended to suggest. Live in a neighborhood where you can have a gun "for your protection" or live in a neighborhood where you can not "have a gun for your protection". Nothing more, nothing less. That's what I take from it, and I'm not so stupid, nor do I think others so stupid, that they would take something other than that from it, though if one self identifies all bets are off.



A false dichotomy. Yes it is, and it was false right from the moment You invented it. You are attempting to extrapolate what isn't there, and misrepresent it as being there.

Nowhere in the poll question is general self defense in any way prohibited in either option, nor is it implied. Nor does such a neighborhood where self defense is prohibited exist in America. Nor can anyone be expected to believe that the poll respondents thought that such a neighborhood where self defense is prohibited, exists in America. Nor can we be expected to believe that the poll respondents mistakenly believed that such a neighborhood was in fact one of the choices. Nor can we be expected to believe that they answered the poll differently because they thought such a neighborhood was one of the choices.

Your argument might be characterized as sophomoric, if one were feeling overly charitable.



Actually, james, the poll question asks what neighborhood people would feel safer moving to. It suggests nothing:



Your assertion that the poll implies that people "can not" defend themselves in the non-gun neighborhood fails (and falls) on its face.

Like I said:

You appear to believe that poll respondents (the very same poll respondents that respond overwhelmingly on the pro-gun side in the poll in question) don't know they can protect themselves unless they're told they can, and therefore will be misled by the poll question and answer in a way not representative of how they actually feel.

On edit:

Most people hold the view that "anything can be done or had until and unless it is forbidden". It is a strange thing in the eyes of a few. This is precisely how things are in reality, in fact. But a few, including you in my opinion, seem to think that only that which has been "authorized" is ok to do or have. I'm pretty sure you're projecting this onto the poll respondents to a large degree here, as well.



And yet you are arguing from that exact position. In order to believe that people WERE swayed by this, you MUST believe that people actually SEE the choice as one of a "neighborhood where self defense is forbidden" versus one where "people can have a gun for self defense".

That is your claim, isn't it?

Congratulations. Your arguments have graduated from being (almost) sophomoric nattering, to outlandish desperation riddled rants.

Pat yourself on the back.



2 in ten Americans want to live in gun free neighborhoods. You can't spin that. Yet according to you, it might be 3 or 4 in ten if that nasty push poll hadn't convinced the most anti-gun of the respondents that they'd be defenseless with out a gun, and they switched sides...or something.




I don't think you want to go there, since you asked who has more, and didn't ask who has a higher rate.

Your bad.