America's fading gun culture...

Interesting article by Reuters. Read on.

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService4/idUSL099229120080109

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Is America, land of shooting massacres in schools and public places, slowly falling out of love with guns?"

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.

The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?

Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.

Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.


Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.

A majority of voters who support enforcement of gun laws already on the books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters.

*************************************************************
And:

Support for gun control dropping
Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.



Apparently this chump at Reuters hasn't gotten the facts right.

The "guns will save us" crowd will tell us that our American way of life can only be preserved by having every American arm themselves in defense of our freedoms and against the overreaching tyranny of the state...

"every American arm themselves in defense of our freedoms"

Why didn't Nazi Germany invade Switzerland? One reason is, every household in the country was armed. Why did Japan not consider invading the United States mainland, during WW2? One reason is, the large number of armed Americans. An armed citizenry has historically been a very real deterrent to tyrannical states. Could armed Americans stop a fascist clampdown by Bush/Cheney or anyone else? Maybe not, but if that clampdown comes, I'd prefer to be armed. CTyankee, are you determined to disarm your fellow Americans? If so, why?

Criminals and lousy presidential administrations come and go, but a good .45
is forever!

to ban handguns or all guns.

The Joyce Foundation funds the prestigious General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago and has tailored questions to support a ban-handgun agenda.

The study cited is questionable because of bias.

ON EDIT ADD:
The Democratic Party promises "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

"Easy availability of guns" is the problem, of course. :eyes:

And it was nice of him to define "gun rampage" in a way that can be fact-checked.

Hmmm... let's see here...




Aha! In 1976, 96.96% of all homicides were single-victim homicides, but in 2005 it had dropped to 95.41%! That's a drop of 1.55 percentage points!


In the period from 1976 to 2005, the highest percentage of single-victim homicides was 1991, when the rate was 96.86%. The lowest was in 2003, at 95.14% It's virtually flat!

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/multivictab.htm


I'm not yelling at you, zanne, just reacting to the article. Thanks for posting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't recall at any point in my prior post attacking you to the point I warranted being called a "ho". And I'm also pretty sure that if I called you a "ho" in my prior post, I would be called a sexist, misogynistic pig.

Regardless, the entire point of the article seemed to be that if we just blindly catered to the majority America would be the land of milk and honey. I mean, who needs things like Constitutional amendments or facts or minority rights anyway, right?

People don't commit crimes because they have guns. They commit violent crimes for material gain or revenge, and some of them use guns towards that end.

Using "studies" promoted by anti-gun entities with the word "Opinion" in their names might not be the best source for reporting facts.

crying for attention, scratching and clawing for at least something to write about. How sad, a twice-nominated Pulitzer Prize nominee from Germany trying to apply European logic to something he knows nothing about.

Very Democratic of you.

"At the same time, support for stricter gun controls has been growing steadily and those in favor make up a majority."


The polls show the opposite - the number of people supporting stricter laws has been DECREASING steadily - and substantially, and is now a minority. See post #2 above.

That's the problem when you rely on subject-biased organizations to do your research - the results are biased (and in this case wrong).

If the voting public wanted stricter gun control laws...

You would have MORE anti-gun politicians, NOT LESS.. Since 1994, IN EVERY ELECTION CYCLE...The Anti-gunners, loose power, and the pro-gunners, WIN more power..

Also, if Guns where so unpopular, why is their about 20 different gun magazines in the magazine racks at the store, and NOT A SINGLE "Gun Control Monthly" magazine??? If there was a DEMAND for "gun control magazines, their would BE, gun control magazines, but guess what.....The demand is for more GUN magazines.

A cursory look at the facts, blows that bullshit article out of the water.

REFUTE THEM,..........


ROFLMAO

What do you expect from people who are preaching to the choir? Open your mind a little and check out some sources that are not pro-gun. I don't expect you to agree with stats you don't like, but they're there anyway.

Sorry; no "gotcha" there.

based on "facts" gleamed from a survey conducted by the Nazi party funded by Adolf Hitler & Dr Joseph Goebbels.

I am SURE the article will be totally non-biased.


Anyway, so according to THIS NORC organization, their are 65+Million gun owners in 2006 (22% of 299+mil), compared to the est. 57 Million gun owners in 2004, which is atleast 6 million MORE then the estimated 51 Million who owned them in 2000, compared to the est. 44 Million who owned them in 1997.

Wow, what startling information! And just HOW DID they decide gun ownership is on the decline???

Umm, I don't get this. Are you implying that Obama is secretly a right-wing operative, and that therefore the evil right wing pollsters skewed results in his favor?

Once the article's author and sources has been roundly exposed for being misleading at very best, makes me wonder about those that DEFEND him, and his article..

The truth shall set you free....

And here is the truth behind this article including funding links to the Joyce Foundation. Your source article is by no means objective.

Support for Gun Control, on the rise? Fisking Debusmann and the biased NORC

Everywhere, by everybody who isn't happy with research results! You guys amaze me. "Fightin" statistics". Like Lucy said in a Peanuts comic, "If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your voice!"

Brady and the rest are not only wrong.....but indeed do have an agenda? Not a crime-fighting agenda (filled with pure lies and deception as it is), but a pure outright mission to gut the Second Amendment?

Seriously man, statistics are more than welcome any day of the week but even whatever the NRA itself can come with had better be correct/factual/on target or it'll get picked apart and thrown right back in the face of Lapierre himself.

I thought the Brady bunch were republican operatives planted in the democratic party to turn the democrats anti-gun so the republicans would win more elections.

Paul Helmke, head of the organization, is a former repub governor, and Sarah Brady is of course a Reagan republican as well.

I don't doubt their sincerity, though. I think they are just being used as a bogeyman by political opportunists on the right, and by authoritarian Third Way'ers in both parties who do support their agenda.

Damn effective 5th column...

Sara Brady's Bio...



http://www.bradycenter.org/about/sarah.php


Brady Center President, Paul Helmke, is the former REPUBLICAN mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana

Governor Bloomberg, has been waging a one man war, against guns, since he too office in NYC, he was a Repuke, until very recently

All it takes is a bit of research, to see that the leaders of the Gun Control movement, are almost ALL, Rethugs......

The next question is, WHY, are so many democrats falling for their outright lies, from known Republicans?

After all, it is FACT that politicians that support gun control, tend to have short political careers.

Now why, would a Democrats, give cart blanc support, and allow, a republican operative, like Sara Brady, the time of day, much less parrot her word for word?

So - according to THIS NORC organization, their are 65+Million gun owners in 2006*, compared to the est. 57 Million gun owners in 2004**, which is atleast 6 million MORE then they estimated (51 Million**) owned them in 2000, compared to the est. 44 Million who owned them in 1997****.

Wow, what startling information! And just HOW DID they decide gun ownership is on the decline???



*According to NORC 2006 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center "the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun has shrunk to just under 22 percent"
**2004 estimates of 26% of adults in the US owning at least
one firearm, Injury Prevention estimated that 57 million adults owned 283
million firearms
***Smith, “2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research
Findings.” (50.6 million individuals who personally own a gun – Applying 24.2% estimate of adult
gun owners to 2000 Census total of 209,128,904 adults).
****. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and
Use of Firearms,”

Visit Ban Handguns Now and you'll find the "Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns by Violence Policy Center Executive Director Josh Sugarmann, covers a wide range of issues in 10 chapters demonstrating that banning handguns is the most effective way to reduce gun violence in America."

The Joyce Foundation is a major contributor to the Violence Policy Center and other groups who want to ban handguns.

Note Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence cites VPC literature on its page, GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and IMO the Scary Brady Bunch endorses VPC's ban handguns goal but Brady recognizes it can raise more money by keeping "ban handguns" very low key and obfuscating their true motives.

Note the Joyce Foundation funds the prestigeous General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago specifically "To add a selection of gun-related questions to its 2006 General Social Survey."

Most of us have answered surveys and we know how questions can be asked so answers are biased in a particular direction.

IMO NORCs questions are biased so answers can be interpreted as supporting a ban handgun policy.

For example, NORC in Public Attitudes towards the Regulation of Firearms asks “As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do you think that gun control laws should be stricter, making it harder for people to purchase firearms or that gun control laws should be less strict, making it easier for people to purchase firearms? “

NORC reported “% for Stricter Gun Control after Terrorist Attacks 76”.

Conspicuous by its absence was a simple question “As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do you think that existing gun control laws should be more aggressively enforced, making it harder for people to purchase firearms or that existing gun control laws should be less aggressively enforced, making it easier for people to purchase firearms? “

In my experience, some/many/most respondents would view the NORC question I cited as suggesting the violent crime problem involving handguns means that we need more gun-control laws when IMO we need to aggressively enforce existing laws.

Because of NORCS deserved prestige, the Joyce Foundation has been able to cite irrefutable facts that 76% of the public wants more gun-control laws but it’s more likely that NORC’s stats were biased by the question asked and question unasked.

Our apologies, the requested page was not found. Please double-check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization.

I truly do.

and they are no longer necessary, or even wanted. Slowly, but surely, I believe we are starting to turn that corner. I remember when there were a LOT of hunters, but that number has gone down significantly as the need to hunt, along with the social stigma, as prevented people from taking up the "sport" Now we can stigmatize gun ownership and slowly persuade people from wanting to take up this activity.

and they are no longer allowed to run free due to worthless deal-making prosecutors etc. We can stigmatize apathetic voters that simply scream for bans of inanimate objects instead of working to cure the social problems that abound.

be millions and millions who want, need, and prefer to own guns. Of course there are other reasons for enjoying them too, but 1.4 MILLION times a year someone in this country is a victim of violent crime, and that will continue to show the need for people to be concerned about their own security, and the security of their loved ones. With hunting on the decline, yet gun ownership ever increasing - I think that becomes clear.

Besides - they are a blast to shoot!

"Now we can stigmatize gun ownership"

Yes, that is exactly what has happened to a large degree. The gun haters have framed the argument, and been able to convince misinformed people that guns are evil and society should rid itself of them. Seems many haters think gun ownership = hunting. It doesn't. Many law abiding citizens who own guns, never hunt.

Eventually, Americans will fall out of love with firearms and the mass destruction that they bring. I know that you are in denial right now, but sometime in my lifetime, I anticipate this nation coming to it's senses and confiscating every single one of them. The bad part is that between now and then, the senseless slaughter will continue.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the country, most unregistered. The only possible way to "confiscate" all of them would be to create a massive police state, with officers authorized to conduct warrantless searches on everyone's homes. Just look at how "confiscation" works in the war on drugs, where innocent people have been cut down by overzealous officers. For example, check out http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html">this list, which gives examples of innocent people who've been killed as a consequence of pursuing a policy of prohibition.

Plus, criminals will still continue to desire firearms, ensuring a thriving illegal arms trade. Russia, and various Eastern European countries, have records of cheerfully selling guns to anyone with the money to pay for guns. What, are we going to invade any industrialized country with financial problems (As any such country would have a strong financial motivation to covertly manufacture arms)?

We'll see alot of progress. The gun culture always flourishes with right-wing politicians in power. Once we get a few more Dems in the senate and a Dem president, they won't be as afraid of the NRA and the populace will be less gun crazy.

Bill Clinton's presidency saw an explosion in the number of extreme right-wing militias. Not to mention, under the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban there was an enormous growth in the sales of weapons with military styling. If anything, the term "Clinton gun culture" would be more appropriate than the "Bush and Co. gun culture", as Clinton's attempts to greatly tighten gun control only convinced gun owners that their guns were about to become contraband, leading to more dislike of government regulations, not to mention the stockpiling of soon-to-be-banned guns. People who'd never wanted an "ugly black gun" went out and bought the things like popcorn, and as a result, guns with military styling went from interesting rarities to some of the most popular rifles in America. One can only imagine the huge sales boost that another gun ban would result in, not to mention the political effects as every Blue Dog takes an electoral raping.

I knew it. When you're not preaching to the choir, the real you comes out, doesn't it?

zanne, how is he a "Bush apologist"? Everything he said is true. You should especially note the last part of the last sentence. Or, do you even care how many elections Democrats lose, as long as your pet issue is addressed?

I don't see how I'm a Bush apologist. I'm perfectly willing to whomp on Bush for shredding the Constitutions, acting out macho fantasies using actual soldiers, denying any sort of climate change, engaging in gross corporate cronyism, federally funding religious programs, etc (Though such comments don't belong in the Gungeon). What I will not do is look at the problems of crime created by social, economic, and racial troubles and blame it on Bush's allowing gun manufacturers to put bayonet lugs on their rifles again. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was nothing but politically costly smoke and mirrors, banning a few minor features and forcing manufacturers to change the names of a few weapons, and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that the few minor changes in weapons that occurred after the Ban's expiration had any effect on crime. Really, show me one crime that couldn't have occurred had bayonet lugs and telescoping stocks remained banned.

:thumbsup:

are the variables that can be related directly to crime rates. Oh, those, and silly governmental attempts to ban objects to control behavior (like alcohol & drugs). Anyway, no matter who is in office, most people really do NOT want to be helpless victims, and as/if crime becomes more prevelant, so will the want & need for guns. Happens EVERY time. If you can't or won't protect yourself, who else will?

Also, the imminent ruling by the USSC can have a HUGE impact. If they rule correctly, and articulate conclusively about the right secured, you may very will see a surge of challenges to current laws and bans, followed by more purchases by the people set free. (shit - probably thousands in DC chomping at the bit right now!). The Congress has ALREADY written into law that the 2nd secures an individual and private right, & when the USSC agrees with them and the district court(s), there will be even less stigma with owning guns, and less restrictions. More and more restrictive laws are being overturned (NOLA, DC & SF most recent).

Also, thanks to the internet, the days of anti-gunners controlling the debate and fictions of guns has been GREATLY thwarted. Compare things like the current (mis)interpretation of the 2nd by antis compared to the prevelant ones 15 years ago, and you will see a huge difference: gone are the lies of what "well regulated" means, what "arms" are, who the constitutional "militia" and "the people" are, how the 2nd is about protecting "sporting arms", &c. Now all they argue is that the individual right secured is ONLY for the people when serving in a militia role. One word ("only") left out, and they have it ALMOST right!

As/if anti-gunners are put back into positions of power, the people will be WELL aware of upcoming legislation, shifts in policy etc. that will impact their freedoms: hence the ever decreasing number of people polled who think we need MORE gun regs (since the 20,000 existing ones aren't enough).

Also, ANY perceived threat against the arms the people have free access to now, will promote an increase of the purchase of those items - happens EVERY time.

And lastly (for now), the candidates will ALWAYS have to take into consideration organizations like the NRA, they represent huge voter blocks....while anti-gun candidates MAY try to "change" their stance just enough to get into office, once they are in and their true colors are again revealed, they are usually shown the door out next chance.

You write: 'Also, thanks to the internet, the days of anti-gunners controlling the debate and fictions of guns has been GREATLY thwarted.'

Present company excluded. LOL.

Fortunately, as the * administration becomes a faint memory, we will own congress and the presidency for generations. The NRA will be a toothless, crippled lion to be ridicules rather than feared. As the nation matures, and fall out of love with the tough, John Wayne cowboy fantasies, we can grow up, and progress with the rest of the world's humanity in eliminating these death dealers, or be left in the dustbin of the past. The senseless slaughter of people by guns must end.

...and there I was remembering how the 94 AWB helped put the Republicans in control of the house for the first time in 40 years. Wow, that was so much fun, let's try it again!

As for the whole "the nation will mature" stuff, well, this seems to ignore the reality of the hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses that occur every year. Ban guns before you eliminate the conditions that make honest people want/need guns for self-defense, and you'll just be ensuring a growth spurt in NRA memberships. Not to mention, how is unconditionally giving up guns supposed to be a sign of maturity? Here I was thinking that a key part of maturity is learning to be self-reliant and not continually dependent on authority figures, and carrying a gun for self-defense (Albeit carried with responsibility, another mature quality) certainly fits the idea of a person trying to be more self reliant, allowing a gun owner to stop an intruder or at least hold the intruder at bay until the police arrive. For those of us who live deep in the woods, or in some other area that is far from a police station, a gun is the only practical way to defend ourselves against a threat, whether that threat is a human or a hungry animal. What, are we all supposed to move within 5 minutes of a police station so that there's actually a chance for the police to reach our homes before an intruder does what he wants to us?

Finally, the anthropomorphization in "slaughter of people by guns" is just ludicrous (Or immature, or stupid, or whatever you wish to call it). You're talking as if guns were Steven King villains, a legion of evil beings (Pennywise the Dancing Gun?) which rise from the sewers and massacre unsuspecting people. Guns are simply tools, and banning guns does nothing to address the social problems which result in so many people who wish to kill other people. Unless you address these problems, these people who wish to kill will simply smuggle guns into the country, or resort to using knives, bombs, blunt instruments, or other means by which people can kill other people.