OT: Another College Massacre this time in Oregon.

[E-Balla]

I do think gun shows are very much an issue since the rules are different. If you can go there and buy without a background check, then it defeats the purpose of having the Brady Law for background checks elsewhere. Further, with lax standards like that, a proxy buyer can acquire guns at a gun show for distribution in other states regardless of their stated intention to keep it in-state. It has been a known issue that gun shows are frequented by gun traffickers. I just found a reference to a 1998 memo from Clinton to the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concerns to that effect. It's been considered a "loophole" for years. It has to be closed.

Essentially, gun transactions between private citizens have to be overseen by the same laws as dealers.

I understand why you're using the medical analogy, but while there the matter of probable cause and effect and unintended side effects, it becomes really hard to even reach that stage of the decision making process with a patchwork system, full of inter-state consistencies and loopholes.

You're more skeptical of the long-term effects, but even if you were not sure how things will pan out, I think we may agree on my primary point that it is worth trying, because unless you do it won't improve. Make the changes and if the impact is negligible, you tried and probably caused little collateral damage. But if it works, its a big win and you can't find out unless you institute enforceable , universal standards.

And that is what I'm asking everyone to start considering, because the divisions people were taking sides on don't necessarily exist. It is an emotional default position many are rooted in and they don't need to regard reformed gun laws as a threat to their liberties.

Whoa. My bad I didn't get back to you yesterday I got busy and completely forgot about it until today but this is the type of misconceptions I'm talking about that gun nuts love to hear because it's nonsense. I've been to 4 gun shows in my life and not at one have I seen a private seller. That's important because no matter what a registered seller has to do background checks. The gun show loophole is one of those buzz terms that are really not an issue. The gun show loophole is the same as buying from a private seller at any time and the law exists to help parents (for example) give guns to their kids. I know someone who's dad gifted him his first hunting rifle and this the law that allows that to happen without having to sign paperwork. In 2001 there was an inmate survey and 0.7% of prisoners obtained their guns from a gun show. That's the type of thing anti-background check people hear and love to eat up.

I did say all private transactions per the bold above, even dad giving his rifle to his son.

And 0.7% sounds like a significant number to me. It seems odd that anyone would gloat over that as proof to the contrary. Is that what you've seen as a reaction?

Oh my bad must've read over that. Personally I think that's kind of absurd. I mean I get where you're coming from and personally I think they should make you sign a deed over but then that's bypassing any background check which kind of defeats the purpose. Still that seems like an absurd thing to have oversight into and most people would never even do it anyway.

And 0.7% is nowhere near significant IMO. Getting 0.7% of guns off the street is something but it might as well be nothing.

[BigShot Bojan]

This just happened in Tennessee.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429



Here's another one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/chad-pickering-shoots-teen_n_5621588.html

Sounds to me, at least in these cases, there was nothing that would have stopped these people...these are not similar situations to the mass shootings that most in these threads are referring to. Even if you were to completely ban all guns, what you may have done was just change the weapon used. These 2 cases could have easily been duplicated with another type of weapon when you have a targeted attack on a single individual. Would it have been better if the 11 year old killed an 8 year old with an aluminum bat? Or if the creepy 40 year old hacked up the 17 year old girl with a chainsaw?

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/09/27/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/

[Clyde_Style]

Whoa. My bad I didn't get back to you yesterday I got busy and completely forgot about it until today but this is the type of misconceptions I'm talking about that gun nuts love to hear because it's nonsense. I've been to 4 gun shows in my life and not at one have I seen a private seller. That's important because no matter what a registered seller has to do background checks. The gun show loophole is one of those buzz terms that are really not an issue. The gun show loophole is the same as buying from a private seller at any time and the law exists to help parents (for example) give guns to their kids. I know someone who's dad gifted him his first hunting rifle and this the law that allows that to happen without having to sign paperwork. In 2001 there was an inmate survey and 0.7% of prisoners obtained their guns from a gun show. That's the type of thing anti-background check people hear and love to eat up.

I did say all private transactions per the bold above, even dad giving his rifle to his son.

And 0.7% sounds like a significant number to me. It seems odd that anyone would gloat over that as proof to the contrary. Is that what you've seen as a reaction?

Oh my bad must've read over that. Personally I think that's kind of absurd. I mean I get where you're coming from and personally I think they should make you sign a deed over but then that's bypassing any background check which kind of defeats the purpose. Still that seems like an absurd thing to have oversight into and most people would never even do it anyway.

And 0.7% is nowhere near significant IMO. Getting 0.7% of guns off the street is something but it might as well be nothing.

And many people won't hold that opinion. For every million guns, that's 7,000 guns that go unaccounted for.

Tell the person that has one of those guns pointed in their face they are a statistical anomaly right before the trigger is pulled.

[BallSacBounce]

The 2nd amendment is an antiquated law that is way overdue for a revision. I would like to believe the US can and will move beyond hiding behind two hundred year old text and accept the reality that gun violence is having a serious serious consequence on the way people are able to live their lives.

There was a whopping 11,208 gun homicides last year as per the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Your odds of being a victim are 29,443:1 Obviously much less if you aren't involved in the drug business.

Gun violence has very little consequence on the overwhelming majority of Americans.

From your same source...

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.

In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.

Conclusion: terrorism has very little consequence on the overwhelming majority of Americans, right?

Or, how about this?

There was a whopping 16,121 homicides last year as per the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Your odds of being a victim of homicide broadly are 20,656:1.

Being killed by someone else broadly has very little consequence on the overwhelming majority of Americans, right?


A lot of things have very little consequence of the overwhelming majority of Americans if you choose to look at it as a statistic. However, going back to my original point, low probability but high cost events have a huge impact on the way we all live our lives. That's why we go through metal detectors at airports, have our bags checked at entrances, and constantly check over our shoulder when walking down dark roads. See, you might see a number that says only 11,208 deaths occurred by gun. I see a number that says, holy sh*t, 11,208 people died by gunfire just last year, that's a lot! Maybe the first step in all of this is to be re-sensitize the populous around what is and what is not an acceptable number of dead people.

Or you could request the government ban everything except marshmallows and feathers.

[BallSacBounce]

UP YOURS. PERIOD.

And, keep your fascist pig hands to yourself. Tell yourself what to do with your life don't tell anyone else how to live theirs. That's all this is ever about. Some idiot thinks he gets the right to tell someone else how to live. If they aren't bothering anyone leave them the hell alone.

How dare you.

Thank you, BallSacBounce. This is a refreshingly honest take.

Can gun control proponents really believe that the right data, rightly presented, can change minds such as that of BallSacBounce? The numbers are in, and have been, on this issue: even ignoring violent crime, CDC and FBI statistics show that among private citizens, year after year after year, accidental firearm deaths in the U.S. far outnumber justifiable firearm homicides -- and only a portion of the latter fit the often-invoked "self-defense against an armed stranger" profile to begin with. That is to say, as far as statistics are concerned, it is an incontrovertible fact that having a firearm in your home increases, not decreases, your and your loved ones' risk of injury or death by gun.

However -- as is the nature of statistics -- these numbers tell us nothing about BallSacBounce per se. BallSacBounce is adamant that BallSacBounce and BallSacBounce's family are made safer by virtue of BallSacBounce's firearms, and still more adamant that no individual or government is entitled to "tell BallSacBounce how to live." There is no way to disprove the first assertion -- perhaps BallSacBounce is indeed under greater-than-average threat from firearm-bearing adversaries, and/or more-than-averagely competent in the care and use of BallSacBounce's weapons. The second assertion, however, is true only up to a point. By way of comparison, f**kheads who refuse to vaccinate their children against potentially lethal diseases, feeling themselves more competent than medical professionals to assess the risks associated with vaccination, are (arguably) free to f**k their own children up all they like. However, given sufficient threat to the common good in the form of actual outbreaks of lethal disease (oh sh*t!), as occurred recently in California, said f**kheads WILL be told what the f**k to do by the rest of us and WILL comply. Precisely when the threat to the common good posed by easy access to firearms might be judged sufficiently large by sufficient numbers of people here in the U.S. remains to be seen -- powerful cultural and political forces stand opposed. If it ever happens, though, the f**kheads will get meekly in line (they always do), muttering darkly to themselves as the country becomes a safer place around them.

In the meantime, though, don't bother talking to them about statistics.

Statistically speaking, in a nation of 330 million people and only 8-11,000 gun homicides a year, I don't see what all the freaking out is about. I suspect the number of homicides that are first time offenders are minuscule. I would love to see that number. At the least give me gun homicides that are from a legally purchased firearm. (not you, just bringing up the point) We already know that amongst CCW holders the crime rate is puny.

Why all the excitement over what millions upon millions of Americans do legally and without incident day after day, own guns, over what some criminals and loons do. Go after the criminals and loons and leave us the hell alone. Good God enough with the hysteria. People nowadays need to walk around with a blankie and a sippy cup.

[BallSacBounce]

It doesn't work like that and it never will. With all the measures for calibrating mental health in place, if guns are easy to obtain this will continue.

I've seen various trains of thought in this thread about controlling behavior. People just don't get it. You don't legislate morality. You find the bottlenecks in the situation and you put a cork in it. The cork is strict gun control, not trying to figure out if muttering Bob in the cubicle is about to go haywire. Sure, you can have all kinds of mental health initiatives, but to expect that to happen on a federal level when you can't even get legislators to agree on good school budgets and programs (which is the ultimate form of mental health care), then how do people expect some magic to happen where we intercept loonies before they go ballistic? You can't and you won't. GUN CONTROL. PERIOD.

UP YOURS. PERIOD.

And, keep your fascist pig hands to yourself. Tell yourself what to do with your life don't tell anyone else how to live theirs. That's all this is ever about. Some idiot thinks he gets the right to tell someone else how to live. If they aren't bothering anyone leave them the hell alone.

How dare you.

You're making yourself look stupid jumping into the thread without having read everything. If you had, you would know I did not talk about taking away the right to bear arms. Gun control can be any number of measures, some of which already exist, but not in a unified or properly enforced fashion. You drinking on a Saturday night? Because there is no need to go off like that. We covered a lot in this thread and you're just cherry picking what you can chit on. I went into detail elsewhere, but we're done. I said it already.

P.S. And I came out against the ideas that people need to be tracked or that the internet needs to be regulated. Your aim is poor right now so stop shooting.

The cork is strict gun control
GUN CONTROL. PERIOD.

Hence what I said.

Sorry if your stance isn't what I thought and sorry about the tone. You didn't deserve that either way. I didn't read past what I had commented on, don't know why you think I cherry picked but nope, I didn't.

[BallSacBounce]

While we are discussing mental health, there is a relationship between availability of guns and suicides. More guns = more suicide. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

Again - a solvable problem with a known solution.

Young people commit the vast majority of violent crimes.

Again - a solvable problem with a known solution.

Just round them all up and let us older folk live in peace.

[Clyde_Style]

UP YOURS. PERIOD.

And, keep your fascist pig hands to yourself. Tell yourself what to do with your life don't tell anyone else how to live theirs. That's all this is ever about. Some idiot thinks he gets the right to tell someone else how to live. If they aren't bothering anyone leave them the hell alone.

How dare you.

You're making yourself look stupid jumping into the thread without having read everything. If you had, you would know I did not talk about taking away the right to bear arms. Gun control can be any number of measures, some of which already exist, but not in a unified or properly enforced fashion. You drinking on a Saturday night? Because there is no need to go off like that. We covered a lot in this thread and you're just cherry picking what you can chit on. I went into detail elsewhere, but we're done. I said it already.

P.S. And I came out against the ideas that people need to be tracked or that the internet needs to be regulated. Your aim is poor right now so stop shooting.

The cork is strict gun control
GUN CONTROL. PERIOD.

Hence what I said.

Sorry if your stance isn't what I thought and sorry about the tone. You didn't deserve that either way. I didn't read past what I had commented on, don't know why you think I cherry picked but nope, I didn't.

Apology accepted.

Let's stick to basketball.

[BallSacBounce]

While we are discussing mental health, there is a relationship between availability of guns and suicides. More guns = more suicide. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

Again - a solvable problem with a known solution.

Part of the background check is to check a person's health history. If a person has any documentation in their health records of mental disorder, even being prescribed an anti depressant once, its an automatic denial of purchase.

That law is already in affect. But it opens a whole new can of worms. In particular, sealed juvenile records. Social worker records from school when people were under 18.

It's my opinion this is the true problem with these young wackos getting long guns. There is no adult documentation when a young man turns 18. A kid could have been flagged for behaviour problems, mental health problems, as a boy. But you get a clean slate at 18.

That's the real problem here.

No, you either have to be an unlawful user or addicted to them. Simply being prescribed one isn't a reason to be denied.

[BallSacBounce]

I've had the 2nd amendment debate with my father (and my con law class last year) multiple times. The reasons the 2nd amendment was created are no longer applicable today.

Stopping someone from killing me is the only reason I need.

There isn't anything that tops that, ever...and it's never out of date.

[aq_ua]

I've had the 2nd amendment debate with my father (and my con law class last year) multiple times. The reasons the 2nd amendment was created are no longer applicable today.

Stopping someone from killing me is the only reason I need.

There isn't anything that tops that, ever...and it's never out of date.

Do you think the majority of the gun toting population gets self-defense training enough that the gun would actually be useful in such a situation?

Of course, this sort of debate is rather meaningful because if there were a common ground, we wouldn't even be having this debate in the first place. Executive order will be the only way any tangible progress can be made. Hopefully Obama carries this out before he leaves office.

[BallSacBounce]

seriously, how do u fix this mess? i red something bout around 990 mss shootings in like 1005 days.. thatas crazy.

You guys from the states have real gun issue, i men even if ost guys dont agree, but this is a coplete mess. I dunno how to fix this

Reading credible news sources will take care of that for you.

[BallSacBounce]

New Harvard Univ. research study (7/15) obliterates pro-gun arguments. Click the link to the article in order to access the the link to the Harvard study and the video.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/13/new-harvard-study-obliterates-every-single-nra-lie-about-guns-video/

New Harvard Study Obliterates Every Single NRA Lie About Guns (VIDEO)
AUTHOR: RANDA MORRIS JULY 13, 2015 1:29 PM

A new study from researchers at Harvard University obliterates nearly every single NRA talking point about guns. Not only do more guns not equal less crime, but the study shows that more guns equals more crime, including more firearm robberies, firearm assaults, and homicides by firearm.

The Harvard study goes further, looking at the overall homicide rate in states with the highest number of gun owners, compared to those with the lowest. Researchers found that the rate of all homicides is two times higher in states with the highest number of gun owners. The research destroys another common NRA talking point, which claims that if people don’t use guns to kill, they’ll just use something else.

The new study, which will be published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, compliments a 2013 study, which found that increased gun ownership corresponds to an overall increased rate of non stranger homicides. While the number of stranger related homicides remains virtually the same in states with high gun ownership, the number of people killed by someone they know was shown to increase dramatically, as the number of gun owners increased. The Harvard study also supports the conclusions of a 2014 Boston University study, which showed that the overall homicide rate increased 0.7 percent, for every one percent increase in gun ownership.

The Harvard study found that states with highest numbers of gun owners had 6.8 times more firearm assaults, when compared with states with the lowest numbers of gun owners. Firearm homicides were 2.8 times higher. Additionally, the rate of firearm robberies was found to increase, point by point, in correlation to an increase in gun ownership.

Researchers who worked on the study also wanted to know which came first, higher crime rates or higher numbers of gun owners. The right wing hypothesis that people respond to high crime by buying more guns to defend themselves was also shown to be wrong. Researchers found that increased gun ownership preceded the increased crime rate.

While study researcher David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, would not go as far as to say that research proves causation, the results clearly suggest that it’s not increased crime that leads to more gun ownership. Instead, it is increased gun ownership that leads to more crime.

In summing up the research, Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, who also participated in the study, said:

“We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime. Instead, we found the opposite.”

Hemenway told Live Science:

“This study suggests that it’s really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes.”

The Harvard study is just one of many studies that have shown a correlation between increased gun ownership and increased crime rates, in recent years. A study released by Stanford University last year looked at data from 1999 to 2010, specifically analyzing information from areas that had relaxed gun laws at the urging of the NRA. The Stanford research specifically showed that relaxed gun laws led to an increase in crime, instead of a decrease, in spite of NRA predictions that the opposite would happen.

As David Pakman discusses in the video below, NRA talking points center around one piece of research, which was conducted before gun rights advocates managed to deregulate firearms in many areas of the US. Thanks to the NRA, about the same time that firearm regulations were gutted, Congress cut off funding for further research on the impact of these lax gun laws (surely just a remarkable coincidence -ed.).

While an executive order, signed by president Obama two years ago, directed federal agencies to resume research on the impact of gun ownership on society, the GOP congress has refused to release funding for any new research.

In spite of the right wing’s efforts to keep the public in the dark about the consequences of lax gun laws on society, new studies are emerging. Each new batch of research published destroys another NRA talking point lie, just as the organization and their hacks in Washington knew it would, when they worked to cut off funding for these types of studies, almost a decade ago.

When you have nothing but lies to offer, your only option is to try to suppress the truth. As the old adage says, sooner or later the truth will always come out. In this case, the real question is; How many innocent lives will be lost while we’re waiting?

Not only has gun ownership done nothing but go straight up but the ability to concealed carry has changed from may issue to shall issue in state after state and yet the violent crime rate has been going down for a couple of decades.

Explain that.

[aq_ua]

New Harvard Univ. research study (7/15) obliterates pro-gun arguments. Click the link to the article in order to access the the link to the Harvard study and the video.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/13/new-harvard-study-obliterates-every-single-nra-lie-about-guns-video/

New Harvard Study Obliterates Every Single NRA Lie About Guns (VIDEO)
AUTHOR: RANDA MORRIS JULY 13, 2015 1:29 PM

A new study from researchers at Harvard University obliterates nearly every single NRA talking point about guns. Not only do more guns not equal less crime, but the study shows that more guns equals more crime, including more firearm robberies, firearm assaults, and homicides by firearm.

The Harvard study goes further, looking at the overall homicide rate in states with the highest number of gun owners, compared to those with the lowest. Researchers found that the rate of all homicides is two times higher in states with the highest number of gun owners. The research destroys another common NRA talking point, which claims that if people don’t use guns to kill, they’ll just use something else.

The new study, which will be published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, compliments a 2013 study, which found that increased gun ownership corresponds to an overall increased rate of non stranger homicides. While the number of stranger related homicides remains virtually the same in states with high gun ownership, the number of people killed by someone they know was shown to increase dramatically, as the number of gun owners increased. The Harvard study also supports the conclusions of a 2014 Boston University study, which showed that the overall homicide rate increased 0.7 percent, for every one percent increase in gun ownership.

The Harvard study found that states with highest numbers of gun owners had 6.8 times more firearm assaults, when compared with states with the lowest numbers of gun owners. Firearm homicides were 2.8 times higher. Additionally, the rate of firearm robberies was found to increase, point by point, in correlation to an increase in gun ownership.

Researchers who worked on the study also wanted to know which came first, higher crime rates or higher numbers of gun owners. The right wing hypothesis that people respond to high crime by buying more guns to defend themselves was also shown to be wrong. Researchers found that increased gun ownership preceded the increased crime rate.

While study researcher David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, would not go as far as to say that research proves causation, the results clearly suggest that it’s not increased crime that leads to more gun ownership. Instead, it is increased gun ownership that leads to more crime.

In summing up the research, Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, who also participated in the study, said:

“We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime. Instead, we found the opposite.”

Hemenway told Live Science:

“This study suggests that it’s really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes.”

The Harvard study is just one of many studies that have shown a correlation between increased gun ownership and increased crime rates, in recent years. A study released by Stanford University last year looked at data from 1999 to 2010, specifically analyzing information from areas that had relaxed gun laws at the urging of the NRA. The Stanford research specifically showed that relaxed gun laws led to an increase in crime, instead of a decrease, in spite of NRA predictions that the opposite would happen.

As David Pakman discusses in the video below, NRA talking points center around one piece of research, which was conducted before gun rights advocates managed to deregulate firearms in many areas of the US. Thanks to the NRA, about the same time that firearm regulations were gutted, Congress cut off funding for further research on the impact of these lax gun laws (surely just a remarkable coincidence -ed.).

While an executive order, signed by president Obama two years ago, directed federal agencies to resume research on the impact of gun ownership on society, the GOP congress has refused to release funding for any new research.

In spite of the right wing’s efforts to keep the public in the dark about the consequences of lax gun laws on society, new studies are emerging. Each new batch of research published destroys another NRA talking point lie, just as the organization and their hacks in Washington knew it would, when they worked to cut off funding for these types of studies, almost a decade ago.

When you have nothing but lies to offer, your only option is to try to suppress the truth. As the old adage says, sooner or later the truth will always come out. In this case, the real question is; How many innocent lives will be lost while we’re waiting?

Not only has gun ownership done nothing but go straight up but the ability to concealed carry has changed from may issue to shall issue in state after state and yet the violent crime rate has been going down for a couple of decades.

Explain that.

Probably because gun ownership has actually been consistently trending downwards in correlation with violent crimes. Thank you for bringing that up, though.

[BallSacBounce]

New Harvard Univ. research study (7/15) obliterates pro-gun arguments. Click the link to the article in order to access the the link to the Harvard study and the video.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/13/new-harvard-study-obliterates-every-single-nra-lie-about-guns-video/

Not only has gun ownership done nothing but go straight up but the ability to concealed carry has changed from may issue to shall issue in state after state and yet the violent crime rate has been going down for a couple of decades.

Explain that.

Probably because gun ownership has actually been consistently trending downwards in correlation with violent crimes. Thank you for bringing that up, though.

We've averaged over 10,000,000 guns sold per year over the last 6 years. LOL @ gun ownership declining.

Over 19 million NICS checks were performed in 2012 according to the latest published records. Unofficial records put 2013 well over 20% ahead of 2012, with 2014 down but slightly ahead of 2012.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/

Less than 10 % get turned down and one NICS check can mean multiple guns sold. You only need one of course per purchase date, not per item.

[Talclipse]

I saw this the other day and it was very revealing.
https://youtu.be/L0Zl41oMa5I

People are walking around completely scared to death out there if even a dam dance move causes them to run.thats so sad.

Thats not a gun owners problem. If u ask me there should be mandatory self defense training in this country.maybe that would alleviate some of the problem. Take care of your self and stop expecting someone else to.

[BigShot Bojan]

Not only has gun ownership done nothing but go straight up but the ability to concealed carry has changed from may issue to shall issue in state after state and yet the violent crime rate has been going down for a couple of decades.

Explain that.

Probably because gun ownership has actually been consistently trending downwards in correlation with violent crimes. Thank you for bringing that up, though.

We've averaged over 10,000,000 guns sold per year over the last 6 years. LOL @ gun ownership declining.

Over 19 million NICS checks were performed in 2012 according to the latest published records. Unofficial records put 2013 well over 20% ahead of 2012, with 2014 down but slightly ahead of 2012.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/

Less than 10 % get turned down and one NICS check can mean multiple guns sold. You only need one of course per purchase date, not per item.

gun count and ownership count are different...

[HarthorneWingo]

Not only has gun ownership done nothing but go straight up but the ability to concealed carry has changed from may issue to shall issue in state after state and yet the violent crime rate has been going down for a couple of decades.

Explain that.

Probably because gun ownership has actually been consistently trending downwards in correlation with violent crimes. Thank you for bringing that up, though.

We've averaged over 10,000,000 guns sold per year over the last 6 years. LOL @ gun ownership declining.

Over 19 million NICS checks were performed in 2012 according to the latest published records. Unofficial records put 2013 well over 20% ahead of 2012, with 2014 down but slightly ahead of 2012.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/

Less than 10 % get turned down and one NICS check can mean multiple guns sold. You only need one of course per purchase date, not per item.

I see you're back. How was your vacation?

[mugzi]

Here's an every day scenario. Home invasion but your guns are locked up what happens when you don't have enough time to unlock your guns and defend yourself? Now I don't have kids and I don't have to worry about anyone but me getting to my guns but if I did have kids I see the need to secure your firearms.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[aq_ua]

Here's an every day scenario. Home invasion but your guns are locked up what happens when you don't have enough time to unlock your guns and defend yourself? Now I don't have kids and I don't have to worry about anyone but me getting to my guns but if I did have kids I see the need to secure your firearms.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is that really an every day scenario? Unless you have the gun on a holster around your waist all the time even when you're in the shower, do you really think you can get to it soon enough to in the event of a sudden home invasion?