Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
Which is a bit like asking if you will oppose the seizure of the means of production by the state. I mean sure, that's something that is in the head of some small number of 'committed leftists'. But its relevance to politics on the whole is just non-existant.

Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.

 AndrewC wrote:
Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.

Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.

Cheers

Andrew

What is your goal for that proposal?

It sure wouldn't stop the majority of gun violence which is done by gangs and other criminals who I suspect would laugh at an insurance requirement. So, is your goal to make law abiding citizens have a harder time getting guns? If so, your goal isn't worth being achieved at the cost you want to inflict upon us.

Seriously folks, before you propose stuff like this, think about HOW your proposal addresses the problem. If you honestly think gun ownership being legal IS the problem, just stop. If that is the case then you fuel the 'They're gonna take our guns' thoguht process because it actually IS your goal. If that is your goal, fine, but do not expect the millions of legal gun owners to think it is worth achieving.

It would be nice to see a statistic to see how much gun crime is caused by illegally owned guns.

CptJake wrote:

What is your goal for that proposal?

It sure wouldn't stop the majority of gun violence which is done by gangs and other criminals who I suspect would laugh at an insurance requirement. So, is your goal to make law abiding citizens have a harder time getting guns? If so, your goal isn't worth being achieved at the cost you want to inflict upon us.

Seriously folks, before you propose stuff like this, think about HOW your proposal addresses the problem. If you honestly think gun ownership being legal IS the problem, just stop. If that is the case then you fuel the 'They're gonna take our guns' thoguht process because it actually IS your goal. If that is your goal, fine, but do not expect the millions of legal gun owners to think it is worth achieving.

From my position, the majority of the outrages commited in the US at the moment, not crime, has been commited by individuals who had access to guns via a legally recognised owner. If people are made more responsible in the care and storage of firearms, wouldn't it reduce access? Ie Mom has to lock away her pistol when she's out ergo junior can't then play cowboys and indians with it and shoot his friend.

Thats the problem as I see it, not ownership, but the fact that they have now become so commonplace that the respect that was once held for what they are and can do has been lost. As I wrote on another thread, ownership aint the peoblem, the number owned is.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
From my position, the majority of the outrages commited in the US at the moment, not crime, has been commited by individuals who had access to guns via a legally recognised owner. If people are made more responsible in the care and storage of firearms, wouldn't it reduce access? Ie Mom has to lock away her pistol when she's out ergo junior can't then play cowboys and indians with it and shoot his friend.

Thats the problem as I see it, not ownership, but the fact that they have now become so commonplace that the respect that was once held for what they are and can do has been lost. As I wrote on another thread, ownership aint the peoblem, the number owned is.

Cheers

Andrew

So the number owned is the issue... What limits do you think you should be able to impose on that? How does forcing insurance onto ownership either limit number owned or force the owners to store their weapons differently? If the problem as you state is number owned, you must feel that taking guns out of the 'currently owned' category is worth doing.

And you feel the 'outrages' committed with guns, and NOT crimes committed with guns are the issue? If so, why can't you face the fact that the gun or access to the gun or quantity of the guns is not the problem. The problem is identifying and helping the folks who need it before they snap and commit the atrocity. The number of people killed in these types of 'outrages' is so tiny compared to deaths via accident or intentional killing that even if you were to prevent every single one you save about 100 people a year. Is the cost (reduced freedom/infringement of rights/monetary costs) worth it? If you truly think it is, are you also an advocate of filling in every swimming pool in America? By doing that you can save over 3500 people a year in the US. Where does your inflicting cost and infringing on rights end? Why go for the small stuff like preventing these 'outrages' when you can do easier things that prevent more deaths? How about go after a big one like deaths caused by medical errors in hospitals? Maybe if you forced doctors and hospitals to have insurance you could prevent the 10's of thousands (most sources say between 40k and 90k) of those each year.

My point is, your proposal, and those from folks like you, don't really have much of a chance of doing anything worth while, and WILL limit current freedoms and impose costs on law abiding citizens. They tend to all be proposals designed to Do Something For The Children!!!! without any real thought as to how effective they may be for the costs they impose.

I also find it humorous that the 'If it saves even one child it is worth doing argument' is likely to come up. I again point to the fact there are easier ways to save way more children. I also point out that some solutions which potentially save children, like allowing teachers to carry on school property, are dismissed by the same folks who want to impose very restrictive measures on a large group of law abiding Americans. In several actual incidents, the presence of a armed good guy, be it a cop or civilian, has lessened the number of deaths and stopped an 'outrage' from continueing. Why is it that restricting freedom and imposing costs on law abiding citizens is the Go To reaction, especailly when the proposals almost never have a chance of addressing the actual issues?

CptJake wrote:
So the number owned is the issue... What limits do you think you should be able to impose on that? How does forcing insurance onto ownership either limit number owned or force the owners to store their weapons differently? If the problem as you state is number owned, you must feel that taking guns out of the 'currently owned' category is worth doing.

And you feel the 'outrages' committed with guns, and NOT crimes committed with guns are the issue? If so, why can't you face the fact that the gun or access to the gun or quantity of the guns is not the problem. The problem is identifying and helping the folks who need it before they snap and commit the atrocity. The number of people killed in these types of 'outrages' is so tiny compared to deaths via accident or intentional killing that even if you were to prevent every single one you save about 100 people a year. Is the cost (reduced freedom/infringement of rights/monetary costs) worth it? If you truly think it is, are you also an advocate of filling in every swimming pool in America? By doing that you can save over 3500 people a year in the US. Where does your inflicting cost and infringing on rights end? Why go for the small stuff like preventing these 'outrages' when you can do easier things that prevent more deaths?

Interesting. You take offence at a suggestion that neither removes your ability to own or use guns and then compare an item designed to kill with a swimming pool? The two are not comparable. Work out a man/hour ratio for each and then we can compare them.

As has been pointed out, by yourself among many, gun crime can not be controlled by introducing new legislation that is why I chose to ignore it. And I'm sorry to break it to you but reduced freedom/infringment of rights/monetary costs are all requirements of living in a cohesive society. Your rights are no less nor greater than everybody elses' rights.

You have also quoted out of context, the full quote to paraphrase was 'familiarity breeds contempt'. IE If you own too many you no longer respect them. Not that people shouldn't be able to own so many.

If people dont have the common sense to look after something responsibly then they should lose the right to own something. What suggestions do you have for solving the issue?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does anyone know the ownership ratio for firearms?

Andrew, there is at best guess about 310,000,000 legally owned fire arms in the US. That's nearly one for every person.

Exact ratio is impossible to determine, because a lot of people have multiple. I currently own 4, and plan on buying more. I know people who have more then a dozen.

Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.

djones520 wrote:
Andrew, there is at best guess about 310,000,000 legally owned fire arms in the US. That's nearly one for every person.

Exact ratio is impossible to determine, because a lot of people have multiple. I currently own 4, and plan on buying more. I know people who have more then a dozen.

Thank you, I tried to have a look elsewhere but got nowhere. The nearest I got was a Gallup Poll of 1005 individuals in 2011 which suggested that 47% (or was it 53% I may have the figure the wrong way round) of households had a gun. Like a survey of 1000 people in the US was a significant control number.

While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population. I see from recent news reports that there are 88 guns per 100 population in America. While this would suggest that there is overwhelming support, "88% of Americans own guns!", actually if every gun owner owned 10 guns (on average) then ownership is less then 10%.

A vocal minority is carrying this debate.

Cheers

Andrew




Automatically Appended Next Post:
CPtJake, has anyone actually asked the teachers if they want to carry?

Knowing some teachers myself, giving them guns may actually raise the numbers of kids shot at schools....

(Bad taste I know, but some teachers are actually that close to breaking point in the lack of respect for their authority and position, and the frustrations of not actually being able to take meaningful action against children who deliberately provoke them, knowing that they have more rights than the teacher.)

Cheers

Andrew

Just leaving this here.

 AndrewC wrote:
While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population. I see from recent news reports that there are 88 guns per 100 population in America. While this would suggest that there is overwhelming support, "88% of Americans own guns!", actually if every gun owner owned 10 guns (on average) then ownership is less then 10%.

Past research has shown that people own one firearm, around 5 or dozens. This is typically because of the different roles people use firearms for, self defense, hunting or collecting. California has a population of 38MM people and issued 255K hunting licenses. Assuming all hunting licenses were issued to CA residents, less than 1% of the population of California hunts. By contrast, Georgia is about 4%. Let's average that to 2% of the total US population hunts which accounts for people hunting in multiple states and licenses for family members which access the same 6 firearms.. That's 36 million firearms from hunters. Assume collectors collect 50 firearms and account for 100MM firearms (2MM people). That leaves 174MM firearms and we'll say it's 2 to 1 for arguments sake. 87MM people for personal defense, 6MM hunters and 2MM collectors for a totla of 95MM people or at least 33% of the population owns at least one gun. If we back to 1 to 1, it's 182MM or around 60%. I think the survey is pretty accurate at 47% of people own guns.

If people dont have the common sense to look after something responsibly then they should lose the right to own something.

Yea....About that....That's exactly what happens, but here you have to do something wrong -BEFORE- we beat you around the head and neck.

While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population.

Arguments to the truth of the last part of the statement aside, are the words "Tyranny of the majority" familiar to you at all? What other infringements magically become "OK" because the group being stepped on is perceived to be small?

So you admit that a majority is against guns!

Come on, you know that is not what he meant or inferred.

Its simply that a majority of americans don't own a gun(note its only a slight majority)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So you admit that a majority is against guns!

Not necessarily, because there are plenty of people who don't own guns who still respect the right to bear arms.

Invoking the danger of the tyranny of the majority cannot be understood except in terms of the majority holding the opinion that is in danger of becoming a tyranny.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Invoking the danger of the tyranny of the majority cannot be understood except in terms of the majority holding the opinion that is in danger of becoming a tyranny.

Tyranny doesn't require deliberate action, it only require apathy.

Barfolomew wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population. I see from recent news reports that there are 88 guns per 100 population in America. While this would suggest that there is overwhelming support, "88% of Americans own guns!", actually if every gun owner owned 10 guns (on average) then ownership is less then 10%.

Past research has shown that people own one firearm, around 5 or dozens. This is typically because of the different roles people use firearms for, self defense, hunting or collecting. California has a population of 38MM people and issued 255K hunting licenses. Assuming all hunting licenses were issued to CA residents, less than 1% of the population of California hunts. By contrast, Georgia is about 4%. Let's average that to 2% of the total US population hunts which accounts for people hunting in multiple states and licenses for family members which access the same 6 firearms.. That's 36 million firearms from hunters. Assume collectors collect 50 firearms and account for 100MM firearms (2MM people). That leaves 174MM firearms and we'll say it's 2 to 1 for arguments sake. 87MM people for personal defense, 6MM hunters and 2MM collectors for a totla of 95MM people or at least 33% of the population owns at least one gun. If we back to 1 to 1, it's 182MM or around 60%. I think the survey is pretty accurate at 47% of people own guns.

Counting hunting licenses might not be the best way to judge the number of hunters. At least in Ohio, you don't need a hunting license to hunt on your own property or your family's property, so there could be many more hunters who simply don't buy licenses. A lot of bow hunters also gun hunt, but I know there are some bow hunters who only bow hunt and don't own guns (although I'm guessing this is probably rare).

 SOFDC wrote:

If people dont have the common sense to look after something responsibly then they should lose the right to own something.

Yea....About that....That's exactly what happens, but here you have to do something wrong -BEFORE- we beat you around the head and neck.

While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population.

Arguments to the truth of the last part of the statement aside, are the words "Tyranny of the majority" familiar to you at all? What other infringements magically become "OK" because the group being stepped on is perceived to be small?

Three comments on that;

1; 'One bad apple to spoil the barrel' I'm sorry, but if something has happened once, people will fear it to happen again. 'It only takes one to spoil it for all' would be another suitable comment.
2; No I'm not familiar with that phrase and I would appreciate more info, because it sounds interesting.
2; Taking the words at their face value, it sounds like a working democracy. And I wont go into other infringments simply because that then becomes more political elsewhere.

Cheers

Andrew

Tyranny of the Majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.

Its actually the very reason the Bill of Rights exists.

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.

And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, edited by Mannahnin?

 KingCracker wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.

And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, Edited by Mannahnin?

Edited by Mannahnin

As for the number of course I made it up, as it is quite clearly and educated guess and presented as so. Using other numbers, such as those presented even in this thread, I would estimate that out of all 310,000,000 Americans about 1 in 4 own firearms, if not slightly higher. Since we don't keep complete databases of every person who does and doesn't own a firearm, and how many weapons each has, the best we can do is to estimate it at this point.

Gallup reported in 2011 that it's around 47% of Americans who own firearms.

 djones520 wrote:
Gallup reported in 2011 that it's around 47% of Americans who own firearms.

I remember there being something off about that, though off the top of my head I don't remember what it was.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Gallup reported in 2011 that it's around 47% of Americans who own firearms.

I remember there being something off about that, though off the top of my head I don't remember what it was.

*shrugs* All I know is that the numbers seemed to line up. Those who described themselves as liberal were in the majority of not having guns. The Eastern portion of the US had the lowest ownership (NE US). Basically everything that was measured lined up with conventional thought on the matter.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Gallup reported in 2011 that it's around 47% of Americans who own firearms.

I remember there being something off about that, though off the top of my head I don't remember what it was.

I think someone mentioned that poll in another thread, or earlier in this one. Something to do with a small sample size or poor sampling or something? It was in the neighborhood of 1,000 people if it's the poll I'm thinking of.

 Ahtman wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.

And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, Edited?

Edited

As for the number of course I made it up, as it is quite clearly and educated guess and presented as so. Using other numbers, such as those presented even in this thread, I would estimate that out of all 310,000,000 Americans about 1 in 4 own firearms, if not slightly higher. Since we don't keep complete databases of every person who does and doesn't own a firearm, and how many weapons each has, the best we can do is to estimate it at this point.

Edited by Mannahnin. Im a gun guy, always have been. I go shooting at the very least, monthly, and do shooting drills every other month usually. I shoot, A LOT. So when I see a thread on firearms, yes, Im going to look into it. Go ahead and look at my posts in the OT in the past 3 months if youre feeling paranoid enough, OR if you want to actually fact check for once, youll notice most my posts in the OT will be the in the gun threads. Weird. Edited. And Im not posting strange at all, Im passionate about firearms, I read debates, and watch reviews and talk with other gun owners. I wouldnt say Im an expert on the topic, but Im for damn sure not some random guy that typed something in a wiki page and went to town.

So when someone just BLATANTLY makes up statistics and doesnt bother to fact check a thing in a discussion or debate on the topic in question, specially one Im active in, you bet I will get "pissy" If youre going to stick your nose in it and make your opinion heard on it, you might want to take a moment and half ass google something more then "That means more like 23% of Americans actually own guns"

I mentioned it earlier, 1005 people inteviewed to illustrate the gun ownership % in the states. Whats the population of the USA? I wasn't happy using it as a basis of debate, but there was no point in pretending it didn't exist.

Gallup Poll Methodology; Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Cheers

Andrew

 SOFDC wrote:
A very specific type of gun....that encompasses half the guns currently on the market? I don't think you fully realize how far reaching the bans proposed are. This also assumes that the efforts to ban and control firearms and ammunition will STOP with an AWB...which...doesn't take much looking to prove wrong.

I have read it. And what you just said is poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. Half the guns on the market... not even close. That's so far from the mark that I honestly wonder if I should be more disappointed in whoever told you that lie, or in you for believing it so eagerly.

The bill only looks at rifles, and they make up 40 to 45% of the market so we're already a under half. And of those weapons, it is only looking to ban semi-auto, bolt action, lever, pump or other mechanisms remain.

Now, once again, I do not agree with that bill. It is going after weapons that simply are not commonly used in murder. It is bad law.

But it isn't going to pass. Even if the Republicans didn't control the House, it wouldn't pass. This is a good thing, because it is a bad law.

But that doesn't justify the great outflow of stupid we've seen from the pro-gun people. Seriously, you guys and the mindset you take on, and the way you approach this debate are absolutely your own worst enemy.

If by "Some" you mean "millions"...yes. "Some" of us will get jerked over.

Well yeah. In a country of 300 million then 'millions' is some. That's how words work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.

And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.

And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.

Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?