[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Does that statistic on the "number of gun owners" adjust for population growth? If not, it's meaningless.

Yes, it comes from Gallup.
Here is it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

I don't know where that statistic comes from, but it's not supported in the data from reliable survey organizations like the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. As I show in my blog, the proportion of people living in gun-owning households has declined in every generation following the one that came of age after the Second World War.

That's assuming that correspondants are willing to divulge they own a firearm.
Many, I'd suggest most, probably are not willing to tell a survey they own a gun, so the data is skewed no matter who is attempting to acquire it.

On the subject of women, they still are less likely to live in households where guns are present, and when they do live in a gun-owning household they are typically not the gunowners themselves. The lowest rates of personal gun ownership occur among women living in households where children are present. Only five percent of unmarried women living in multi-member households with children present own a gun personally. These results are based on my tabulations from the 2010 General Social Survey which I have yet to publish in my blog. I've seen other comments about women taking up guns, but they are largely anecdotal. The presence of a man in the household is one of the strongest predictors of whether there will also be a gun present.

Personally I think the focus on assault weapons is understandable but misguided. The real issue is handguns, but no one is advocating policies that would do much about those.

The blog you are using is certainly interesting, however, it is far from the only source of information available. Though I do commend his attempt at objectivity, I'd like to know more about his political views in order to get a better idea of where he stands.
I agree on handguns, especially the .22 and .38 caliber pistols since those are still the most commonly used weapons in violent crime.
Considering the FBI criminal data for 2010, hands, feet and fists are potentially used more in murder than rifles (assuming the "unknown guns" don't include rifles, though I'd say the only weapons that would be "unknown" would be zip guns, or shotguns) and of rifles semiautomatic "assault weapons" make up less than 1%.



So clearly the call to ban such weapons is not just misguided it is outlandish.
Therefore the whole idea of banning any firearm for the purpose of reducing crime is an excercise in futility. Revolvers are the most common weapons used in violent crime and there are millions of them out there in the black market.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

These drugs are DANGEROUS and I am sick and tired of people brushing away this viewpoint so quickly. Maybe they should try being put on these ineffective, mind-altering medications themselves and see what it's like before they decide to quickly discard the notion that they aren't a part of the problem..... We really are living in a pill-popping, medically naive culture.

Thank you for sharing that ChainLegacy, and I agree with you.
We need to start taking a very serious look at Big-Pharma and the effects of these drugs.
Too many of these shooters were on psychotropics for this to be ignored.
Write, email, or call your congressman and let them know how you feel and that you want them to investigate this.
I'm drafting an email to send to my senators that suggests that (been bugging the hell out of them for weeks ).

Originally Posted by Kyuu

In the meantime, the NRA is salivating over the prospect of increased gun sales and membership. Keep up those shootings, kids.

But in all seriousness:

I wouldn't trust what a poster like that says due to the fact he/she used an ad hominem at the end of the post. It shows a lack of integrity that someone with 43 (? how did he/she manage that since retirement age is 45 and maximum age allowed is 60, and with 43 years in he/she would be 61 if they enlisted at age 18) years of military experience simply would not do. Also, 25 years in combat arms? No military individual is going to say something like that. They'll tell you what they did: infantry, artillery, etc. I served in the USAF as a thermonuclear weapon specialist, and I cry BS on that post.

That altercation was on school grounds (not inside the school), and was between two students only.
The armed Resource Officer at the school talked down the boy with the gun.
Guess that just shows how to deal with an active shooter on campus, an armed active defender.
Notice that the propaganda piece at Huffpost doesn't tell you what the local news does.

Police: Teen shot by fellow student at Ga. school
http://www.wral.com/police-teen-shot...hool/12050593/

Guess that proves the NRA and Bill Clinton are correct.

In America, guns are rights. Healthcare is a privilege.

Someone tell me what is wrong with that?

Healthcare should become a right, but in order for that to happen the constitution must be amended and the right to healthcare must be declared.
Until that happens, it is a privilege, which you and I both seem to feel is wrong.


__________________________________________________ ______________

Back to the situation with Syria.
Does anybody else here think this is starting to get out of control?
Israel wants to "hit them again?"

Israel may feel need to strike Syria again
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-31-17-55-58