Surprise: Gun ownership rises to 44% of all homes
After a steady decline in gun ownership in recent years, more homes are reporting having a weapon inside, according to a new survey.
Pew Research Center, in a poll on guns released Friday, showed that 44 percent of the country has a gun in the house. Some 51 percent don't.
As yet nobody has bothered to 'plumb' the full extent of my sentiments on the matter. Backing up my opinions, ONCE I've had the chance to fully state them, comes later.
Alas, it would seem as if the usual suspects would rather toss around the usual epithets; 'whacko,' 'conspiracy theorist,' etc.
"mmm - so -
Slavers prefer to keep slaves unarmed in order to prevent insurrection."
PRECISELY!! You said it all right there! Those who wish to disarm you wish to own you. You just summarized the bulk of my pro-self defense stance in one sentence. Bravo!
In my opinion self defense becomes a right when the aggressor tries to take a life. That isn't negotiable as a "legal" concept. I understand that there are grey areas just like everything but until we figure that out self defense stands as a right.
Everyone has a right to life (and peace) so long as they are not hurting anyone else.
And as that very scenario could happen again, one wonders why Democrats/Leftists are so eager to disarm everyone--especially those who are hemmed into urban reservations by economic circumstance.
But then, alas, the Democratic party has always been the party of slavery.
Maybe some are not so good at reading between the lines.
His statement includes the statistic that when Obama began trying to gather support for legislation to restrict gun ownership the sales of guns dramatically increased.
The implication is that when would-be gun owners fear losing the right to own a gun, they go out to buy one before the legislation is enacted - (presumably because they don't expect a buy-back amnesty to be part of such new laws.)
Nimitz is suggesting that every discussion of restrictions has an opposite effect - people worried about losing choice rush out to buy guns just in case they might need to defend themselves. He's saying that inadvertently Obama increases gun ownership. Or that by reverse psychology he might be doing it deliberately - (which I think is unlikely.)
From what I can gather, he seems to support the Second Amendment to the point of no restrictions - so he likes this inadvertent effect which prompts people to exercise their rights.
Maybe not. That doesn't justify reflexively going on the attack.
1) Incorrect. This was my first and ONLY initial statement on the issue:
"I would suggest they do! Obama has certainly earned the title of best gun salesman since Samuel Colt."
I proffered no other suggestion than that Obama was (indirectly) responsible for an increase in gun sales. Everything else with which leftists have charged me is false. Everything else with which your correspondent, et al has charged me is a figment of their imagination.
2) Correct...more or less.
3) Also correct...also more or less. (I only hinted--to Fork--that reverse psychology might be his objective, but I was teasing. Obama CLEARLY has contempt for both the American people AND for the Bill of Rights.)
4) Bingo!
I never wish to be anything but civil , and if I should lose it and step out of line one day, I would hope the person affected sets me straight instantly.
I don't mind disagreeing, and it doesn't change my feeling of liking or disliking for people.
I am aware that I can be mistaken in my views and not know it - so for me, listening to how and why others think as they do allows me to test my reasoning on things.
Your point about slavers woke me up to an angle of this argument that I had not thought of before. And so now I'm reviewing my thoughts on my anti-gun stance. It doesn't mean I've actually changed it yet - only that I can see the other point of view as having a high level of validity.
See, it's that latter point which probably has more to do with why we get along so well than any other factor. You're willing to see things from a different perspective, or at least from the other person's point of view.
Trust me when I say this: that capacity is EXCEEDINGLY rare.
(BTW, just so you know, I own no firearms. I'm not particularly fond of them, and I'm even less eager to take on the responsibilities of gun ownership. REGARDLESS of whether I might personally own them, however, I will go to my grave defending the absolute right of others to have them. As long as criminals, tyrants and nutters exist, it is critically important that human beings have and exercise, when appropriate, the right to defend themselves by whatever means may be used against them.)
Thanks for the clarification, Nimitz. :)
Perhaps we can all benefit from the lesson - not to try reading too much between the lines without at least first checking the author's intentions. Such a classic mistake, irrespective of sides, in any debate. :)
Which raises a conundrum. While the population is persuaded to buy more guns to, 'make themselves safer' (whether through events, rumours, or 'advice') it doesn't exactly fit with the reality.
More guns in society = more likely to be used in crime = more likely to find yourself facing one or more guns, a situation in which your own gun may be woefully inadequate.
So it seems more like a sales pitch rather than advice on home security.
1) Correct. More to the point, visions of positive feedback loops are dancing in my head. Nevertheless, I still insist that individuals have the right to defend themselves by whatever means may be used against them by criminals, nutters and tyrants (where the three aren't functionally one and the same).
2) Correct again, and I'm open to discussing solutions so long as government makes no attempt at mass disarmament.
3) For me the issue is almost entirely philosophical/ethical. Sales pitches (which are made by people in and outside of government in the furtherance of a broad array of agendas) are a secondary concern at best.
I couldn't possibly agree more!!
What about the behavioural sink idea - that the denser a population becomes and the greater the competition for space and resources, the more tyranny, crime and madness flourish.
Would we not be more effective in reducing risk and harm by simply breeding less and giving each other more space and less stress? (Doing this by individual free will, not coercion.)
How much would you be open to being publicly "plumbed?" I suspect that if we tried to sound your fathoms we'd find you going right down to the magma.
I, for one, am open to being asked any questions within the scope of the mainboard's agreements.
If we all keep talking, we might all get to know one another much better.
Already, in this conversation, I've discovered good reasons for shifting my position on gun control, although I still feel extremely uncomfortable and uncertain about it and need to do some research on alternatives.
RosieG told me that she got to know a lot of very bright people on answerBag - and she made it sound as though a kind of community formed - she said quite a few of them have shifted over here and that eventually I would get to know them.
If all of us keep talking, the same could happen here.
I think the NRA may disagree with your last point! :) Though I doubt they'd admit it.
All 'sides' on this issue say they wish to reduce incidents of mass shooting in the US. No other political or social position is publicly possible. However, if we accept that more guns = more likely that guns will be used by criminals and/or loons, then we must accept that 'more guns' is not going to produce the results everyone says they want.
Therefore, advice to 'buy more guns before they're banned' or similar will act to defeat the desired outcome. If buying guns is not the solution, the remaining options are the status quo (already not acceptable) or reducing gun numbers.
Since we are left with reducing gun numbers, and since this seems to be the only logical method to achieve fewer children dead in class, refusal to countenance such an idea - something that seems to be popular, though I have no idea how widespread it actually is - is once again logically self-defeating.
Unless other suggestions are made (which I would be happy to read), by process of elimination it seems those who will on no account discuss reduction in gun numbers/availability must believe that the number of deaths is a price worth paying.
1) I'm familiar with the idea, but prefer a varying interpretation insofar as the cause of crime, madness and tyranny are concerned. Put simply, these are the byproducts of success. Human beings thrive by striving. They're not made to rest on their generational laurels. "Generation One" in any culture realizes, intuitively, why civilized if not moral behavior (AND limited government) are important. Ten generations later, fat on the wealth produced by previous generations, people aren't quite so circumspect. I call this, appropriately enough, "generational amnesia."
2) Yes!
Agreeing with you on your first point, with provisos. Humans need a degree of knowledge and ability to share it before generational accumulation of wealth becomes possible.
According to carbon14 dating of middens and artifacts, Aboriginals lived in Australia for 40,000 years with a stable and unaltering culture before the advent of white invasion.
The limits of carbon dating are such that they may a have been here a further 20,000 years prior to that. Evidence of sudden extinctions of megafauna dramatically changing the ecology, and then the development of fire culture to control (and further changing dominance of particular species) - suggests that Aboriginals may have gone through a major learning curve before developing a culture that allowed them to live in balance with nature. Their culture involved mnemonic traditions to prevent generational amnesia. It still exists intact in some remote places.
That must be it ;)
Although, when it comes to deliberately distorting the opposition's position... He's boss.
Great post! Be aware, though, that as long as government force is introduced as or into the solution, it's gonna be a non-starter. We could figure out ways to 'encourage' people to reduce their individual 'weaponization profile' from a logical or humanitarian perspective--but the moment you start talking 'gun control,' the less you'll find anyone willing to cooperate. And that's for good reason inasmuch as many (myself included) view the very term as a euphemism for mass disarmament or 'people control.'
How about the Lysistrata method - all women abstain from sex until men abandon all weapons. Woops, nope, lots of women also have arms so that would give us an unfair advantage for possible tyranny - and some men might regard the tactic as too coercive to represent freedom of choice.
How about a rusty little steel-eating virus -- nope, that leaves the plastic, carbon fibre and other metal weapons. But it might slow down the raping of the Earth.
How about a virus which eliminate's human aggression, maybe radically reduces production of adrenaline. Mmm, too many side effects on health issues.
Bullet-proof domes over all places where children and dependents live, work or play. Cost problems.
Perhaps if the primary need for self-defence, as Nimitz has suggested elsewhere (& as history and the preamble to the US constitution shows), is to defend ourselves against abuses by government or equivalent forces - perhaps a better defense is effective surveillance of government such as wikileeks practises. Fore-warned might be the best way to prepare against transgressions. Perhaps the cost of guns is equivalent to the cost of being hooked into the information networks.
1) I think I've adequately demonstrated my willingness to discuss just about anything at great length provided I'm not under attack. If you ask me about my opinion regarding X, you'll get it. It may have a basis in fact, intuition, feeling or some combination of the three, but you'll most assuredly get it. :-) (I've no idea what the magma reference is to, but I'll take it as some sort of complement.)
2) Indeed, if we all keep talking and get to know one another, we might actually find that our opinions really aren't that divergent. That can't happen, though, under the current climate of contentiousness (which I did not initiate, incidentally).
3) If research is your thing, you'll find plenty out there on the issue of gun control--both pro and con. There are about as many statistics which 'prove' the folly of gun control as there are which affirm its efficacy. Ultimately, you'll come down on the issue from the standpoint of some sort of moral, ethical or philosophical construct. It won't be about the numbers. Why? Because numbers can be tweaked to 'prove' just about anything.
4) It can and probably will happen here (EP and AB members are not the only ones seeking refuge on AM, BTW. :-)), but before it does a few rather nasty individuals are gonna have to give up this tit for tat crap. As you've doubtless discovered, I practice an online technique called mirroring--meaning that whatever behavior you exhibit will be precisely the behavior you get in return. If you ever wondered why I'm so cordial to you and not to others, this will help to explain it.
