Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Wait - so now "Assault rifles" are small arms? I thought they were big and dangerous? (joking of course, I know full well what you meant) I believe 100% that we the people could rise AND successfully stand against the government right now if people were united against them.

I would have said 10 years ago that the whole tyrant thing was silly - but with the state of the nation I do think it is closer to reality than it has ever been here. I have said before I do not think it'll happen, but there have been plenty of other things I thought would never happen as well that did, I would rather be prepared.

At our current spending levels it is only a matter of time before the US goes bankrupt and it is at that point I think we will find out if we have a leader or a dictator.

This is a big if. When was the last time this country has been united about anything? There is a big split in this country based on geography, idealogy, and religion. All things that would have an effect on any type of uprising.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

This is a big if. When was the last time this country has been united about anything? There is a big split in this country based on geography, idealogy, and religion. All things that would have an effect on any type of uprising.

This is a big if. When was the last time this country has been united about anything? There is a big split in this country based on geography, idealogy, and religion and intelligence. All things that would have an effect on any type of uprising.

Fixed that for ya.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by mcrain

This is a big if. When was the last time this country has been united about anything? There is a big split in this country based on geography, idealogy, and religion and intelligence. All things that would have an effect on any type of uprising.

Fixed that for ya.

Yeah, but we can tolerate you guys anyway.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Yeah, but we can tolerate you guys anyway.

I will happily compare my state, the states where I went to school, the schools themselves and the progams I studied against just about any other state, school or program. I'm pretty sure there are statistics that may, or may not, show a correlation between education and whether a state is more or less red/blue.

Feel free to look it up. (Here's one link... http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539)

Here's another... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_894528.html

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I will happily compare my state, the states where I went to school, the schools themselves and the progams I studied against just about any other state, school or program. I'm pretty sure there are statistics that may, or may not, show a correlation between education and whether a state is more or less red/blue.

Feel free to look it up. (Here's one link... http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539)

Here's another... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_894528.html

The reaganauts are getting exactly what they wanted. Spend less money on education, health and the general welfare and you'll end up with a populace that is easily manipulated by extremist news channels and conspiracy theorists. Almost without exception, the states that value their citizens are at the top of almost all lists of livability, health, education, etc.

I truly feel sorry for all the Americans who have lost out in this great and dangerous experiment by the American right to dumbdown the people.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I will happily compare my state, the states where I went to school, the schools themselves and the progams I studied against just about any other state, school or program. I'm pretty sure there are statistics that may, or may not, show a correlation between education and whether a state is more or less red/blue.

Feel free to look it up. (Here's one link... http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539)

Here's another... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_894528.html

Nice first link... Those numbers really DO show a nice little correlation!!! I highlighted the highest and lowest numbers for your easy reading. Note the bottom table is skewed because of the total # of each party (and Repubs still have more bachelor degrees!)

Dems and strong dems have the highest percentage of people that did not even graduate high school.

Other party has the highest percentage of graduate degree holders (followed by strong repubs and then independents)

The reason you think your numbers looked good is there were 20.5K Democrats of some sort (strong, normal and ind leaning) and only 14K Republicans. 5.5K Independents and 0.5K Other Parties.

Seems other parties are the most educated and Democrats are BY FAR the least educated as a population.

[Eraserhead]

So how come all the states with the high end jobs (such as New York and the Bay Area) are reliable Democrat voters?

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So how come all the states with the high end jobs (such as New York and the Bay Area) are reliable Democrat voters?

What do you consider high end? Also - how did you come to the conclusion that NY and the Bay Area has more of those jobs?

I didn't find the numbers, I just analyzed them.

Not sure what your question is implying. I will say that higher populated areas are more democrat it seems but beyond that I would need to know what you are implying before I can have a good response.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

"Semantics". Good argument.

It is, nitpicking around the subject ignores why I brought it up.

I am not the one who started the gun to car comparison. I just ran with it.

I compared legislation to solve a problem, not directly cars and guns like you did.

This is completely false. Do you have any idea of what the laws and regulations currently are? I do not have a single weapon of mine registered to me. For most of them I had to fill out an ATF form but that is not registration (not sent into the ATF unless the ATF specifically requests them). This is very very far from the current reality.

"So why don't we just limit the types of guns you can carry in public and only make you license\register them if you want to carry in public and leave what we have in our homes out of all of this legislation?"

Sorry but this is reality now, concealed carry license is restricted or even forbidden and certainly licensed.

At home you can practicly buy anything you want .

Again this is reality now.

Wait - so now "Assault rifles" are small arms? I thought they were big and dangerous? (joking of course, I know full well what you meant)

I never understoord this argument (even here used as a joke) I (and I believe most people wanting legislation) dont think weapons are "scary" , these is an isse that needs to be adressed nothing more. Why do a lot of gun "supporters" (for not knowing a better term) think people are just ignorant and scared?

I believe 100% that we the people could rise AND successfully stand against the government right now if people were united against them.

Then you are either very naive or crazy. The group that would "rise up" would not only be very small, it would be crushed to a pulp. This isnt 1776 .

If you truly believe this you seem to only know a very very small portion of the USA, or simple reality.

I would have said 10 years ago that the whole tyrant thing was silly - but with the state of the nation I do think it is closer to reality than it has ever been here. I have said before I do not think it'll happen, but there have been plenty of other things I thought would never happen as well that did, I would rather be prepared.

Ok so you are going for crazy, sorry to call it that but thats reality.

Might I suggest you broaden your mind a bit and try to get some more actual balanced news?

At our current spending levels it is only a matter of time before the US goes bankrupt and it is at that point I think we will find out if we have a leader or a dictator.

Japan has 230+% debt USA now is around 100%

The debt is far from good, but it can be solved and quite easily if only some politicians would cooporate instead of fight.

Btw: why bring this up ? Do you actually believe a country going bancrupt is like mad max?

Argentina, iceland some recent examples and besides some riots not much changed really.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by k995

It is, nitpicking around the subject ignores why I brought it up.

You're right. Let's just look at the broad picture cause it makes your point. Let's not worry about those details that make it invalid.

I compared legislation to solve a problem, not directly cars and guns like you did.

I was comparing the laws and regulations (your legislation)of those things, not the items themselves. I am comparing the same things as you.

"So why don't we just limit the types of guns you can carry in public and only make you license\register them if you want to carry in public and leave what we have in our homes out of all of this legislation?"

Sorry but this is reality now, concealed carry license is restricted or even forbidden and certainly licensed.

At home you can practicly buy anything you want .

Again this is reality now.

First - you cannot own anything you want at home. Second you need a license to carry yes (drivers license as comparison) but you do not need to register any firearm (vehicle registration is needed for every single vehicle). Big difference actually, thus that is NOT how it is right now.

I never understoord this argument (even here used as a joke) I (and I believe most people wanting legislation) dont think weapons are "scary" , these is an isse that needs to be adressed nothing more. Why do a lot of gun "supporters" (for not knowing a better term) think people are just ignorant and scared?

It is a joke because a lot of the people against them do not know anything about them except they are scary. They are completely ignorant and just scared. There are a select few who are educated on guns and still opposed, but those are few and far between because most educated people realize it is only a tool and useless without an operator.

Then you are either very naive or crazy. The group that would "rise up" would not only be very small, it would be crushed to a pulp. This isnt 1776 .

If you truly believe this you seem to only know a very very small portion of the USA, or simple reality.

You underestimate patriots apparently. Keep on thinking this. I obviously disagree.


Ok so you are going for crazy, sorry to call it that but thats reality.

Might I suggest you broaden your mind a bit and try to get some more actual balanced news?

Not crazy - just not unprepared in a worst case scenario. You completely balking at the idea it could ever possibly happen is pretty naive.


Japan has 230+% debt USA now is around 100%

What scale is this?

The debt is far from good, but it can be solved and quite easily if only some politicians would cooporate instead of fight.

Btw: why bring this up ? Do you actually believe a country going bancrupt is like mad max?

Argentina, iceland some recent examples and besides some riots not much changed really.

I don't think we automatically revert to cavemen - I work in financials and I know how large of an impact it will have on tons of people's well being. This creates a very unstable society, a perfect time for a leader to step up. It is in my mind going to be the deciding time on whether we have someone to listen and lead or to try and take the reins and dictate because they need to save us from ourselves.

I read all sides of the news and I am neither republican nor democrat. I side with both parties on different issues. The party I am probably closest to is Libertarian because I believe in the reduction of government.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

You're right. Let's just look at the broad picture cause it makes your point. Let's not worry about those details that make it invalid.

Why would it make it invalid? Its just talking besides the point because clearly you have no arguments.

Again (wich you keep ignoring) guns themselves have restrictions and regulations, changing those to save lives isnt the end of the USA .

First - you cannot own anything you want at home. Second you need a license to carry yes (drivers license as comparison) but you do not need to register any firearm (vehicle registration is needed for every single vehicle). Big difference actually, thus that is NOT how it is right now.

No? So lets say you cant own a fully automatic rifle in colorado? I wonder what more would you allow to have at homes? RPG's?
Vehicle registration is in most cases only if you take it on public roads, plenty dont need any registration if you use it on your property.

And several states DO have what you propose .And if you think registration of CCL guns is going to actually change antyhing or that is such a big difference ...


So you see it is largely the same, making a minute change isnt going to affect anything.

It is a joke because a lot of the people against them do not know anything about them except they are scary. They are completely ignorant and just scared. There are a select few who are educated on guns and still opposed, but those are few and far between because most educated people realize it is only a tool and useless without an operator.

But this is simply not true, most people dont want to ban guns because they look scary. Its one of those made up arguments that makes little sense but is designed to try and ignore those people "they are just scared and ignorant"

You underestimate patriots apparently. Keep on thinking this. I obviously disagree.Not crazy - just not unprepared in a worst case scenario. You completely balking at the idea it could ever possibly happen is pretty naive.

And now you twist my words I never said such a thing. Yet preparing NOW, or thinking this NOW is borderline crazy.

Why do you think that way? What are the signs you are seeing?

Because wether you know this or not, this kind of thinking is a large part of the problem.

What scale is this?

GPD to public debt ratio .

I don't think we automatically revert to cavemen - I work in financials and I know how large of an impact it will have on tons of people's well being. This creates a very unstable society, a perfect time for a leader to step up. It is in my mind going to be the deciding time on whether we have someone to listen and lead or to try and take the reins and dictate because they need to save us from ourselves.

I read all sides of the news and I am neither republican nor democrat. I side with both parties on different issues. The party I am probably closest to is Libertarian because I believe in the reduction of government.

If you work in finances then just look at argentina. A country a lot poorer at that time then the USA, a lot less developed (so more prone to instablity)

Yet besides some riots and a new gouv nothing much changed . Certainly not the mad max style "you need a gun to survive" situation.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally Posted by RKO

You, me and anyone else can input information into Wikipedia. As for the data being incorrect is anyones guess. It's just not a reliable source and certainly not something to base research on.

As the link clearly shows, the data are based on UN, WHO and other studies. Unless you're suggesting that somebody deliberately altered that data. Which is not much of a refutation.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by k995

Why would it make it invalid? Its just talking besides the point because clearly you have no arguments.

It makes it invalid because you are lumping hallucinogenics in with alcohol and try to say the legislation is for alcohol. That is plain and simple wrong. This is such a stupid argument that it is really not worth continuing though - as you noted.

Again (wich you keep ignoring) guns themselves have restrictions and regulations, changing those to save lives isnt the end of the USA .

If you (or someone arguing your side) is going to try and compare them in the first place we can really line them up. The regulations and the penalties are completely different. Biden was recently quoted saying that they cannot prosecute everyone that lies on the ATF form needed to purchase a weapon. That is ******* crazy in my opinion. We should worry about those WAY before some of the other crap the local/federal government is worried about. Again - not a very good comparison - as was my original point in making it after it was brought up by someone else.


No? So lets say you cant own a fully automatic rifle in colorado? I wonder what more would you allow to have at homes? RPG's?
Vehicle registration is in most cases only if you take it on public roads, plenty dont need any registration if you use it on your property.

And several states DO have what you propose .And if you think registration of CCL guns is going to actually change antyhing or that is such a big difference ...

In what state do you need to register a gun before carrying it? CA or NY? That is probably about it. The registration thing - I said only if you carry in public to make it equivalent - I said no registration needed for private property use.

So you see it is largely the same, making a minute change isnt going to affect anything.

I agree. I think upping the consequences of breaking the laws or allowing someone else to (not properly securing/transferring to someone that should not be allowed to have one) is a pretty big change though. It would get results with stiff enough penalties. Right now I could sell a firearm to an ex con that was just released from prison for committing a mass shooting... legally... as long as I was not aware that they were a felon. That, in my opinion, is absurd. We need stronger laws and regulations around certain areas. Completely banning a firearm is outright ridiculous and will not help anything.


But this is simply not true, most people dont want to ban guns because they look scary. Its one of those made up arguments that makes little sense but is designed to try and ignore those people "they are just scared and ignorant"

No, that is completely true. A lot of the people you hear speaking out against them can't name one type of firearm from another. They think that clips are bad and that bullets are what you load into them. Utterly ridiculous. You may think I am splitting hairs over terminology - but it just goes to show the lack of knowledge about the subject matter.

And now you twist my words I never said such a thing. Yet preparing NOW, or thinking this NOW is borderline crazy.

Why do you think that way? What are the signs you are seeing?

Because wether you know this or not, this kind of thinking is a large part of the problem.

I have always tried to be prepared for just about anything I can. I can now afford to up my preparedness so that is why I have been doing so more recently. I also bought a power inverter even though I live in an area with a very stable grid. Is that stupid paranoia as well or good preparedness. I will go with the latter. I would rather have something and never need it than to not have something when it is needed.


GPD to public debt ratio .

Seems like a pretty stupid ratio to use. Public debt to private debt? Shouldn't high private debt make the public debt worse? It just means the people are less likely to be able to help pay back the public debt as well. Almost seems like they should be aligned instead of offset like that.

If you work in finances then just look at argentina. A country a lot poorer at that time then the USA, a lot less developed (so more prone to instablity)

Yet besides some riots and a new gouv nothing much changed . Certainly not the mad max style "you need a gun to survive" situation.

Since we are going to pull out stupid comparisons to other countries that are NOTHING like ours. "Hey, take a look at Mexico. Firearms are illegal there and look at their firearm violence rates." /stupid comparison.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

I'm not sure how this discussion backed in the debt-to-gdp again, but, here is a look at "the debt crisis" in the Economist back in 2010:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/butto...countries_rank

The trick is to understand why some countries (e.g. Greece) were/are paying a premium interest rate despite a good track record on growth. The article does not answer this, but, my opinion is that these are countries that have a bad record in capturing, and taxing, the vast majority of economic activity. Argentina would seem to have had a persistent problem in this regard as well, although it isn't on the Europe-oriented graphs. Japan has been able to survive so far despite dismal growth, because most economic activity is within the system and people are paying their taxes.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

If you (or someone arguing your side) is going to try and compare them in the first place we can really line them up. The regulations and the penalties are completely different.

No they are not, only certain vehicles are allowed, same goes for drugs, or buildings or almost anything else.

If there is a risk you might hurt others its usualy regulated/restricted or banned.

Again it happens with everything including guns. So why is it so strange that after a clear sign there are problems with guns there is a need for extra regulation?

Biden was recently quoted saying that they cannot prosecute everyone that lies on the ATF form needed to purchase a weapon. That is ******* crazy in my opinion. We should worry about those WAY before some of the other crap the local/federal government is worried about. Again - not a very good comparison - as was my original point in making it after it was brought up by someone else.

A quote from the NRA wich makes it highly doubtfull.

In what state do you need to register a gun before carrying it? CA or NY? That is probably about it. The registration thing - I said only if you carry in public to make it equivalent - I said no registration needed for private property use.

Columbia, michigan, hawaii, and a couple more.
And if you dont need registration for non public use it makes it about the same as cars and other vehicles in most states.

Right now I could sell a firearm to an ex con that was just released from prison for committing a mass shooting... legally... as long as I was not aware that they were a felon. That, in my opinion, is absurd. We need stronger laws and regulations around certain areas. Completely banning a firearm is outright ridiculous and will not help anything.

I agree with this, current laws need to be better enforced, loopholes in legislation (like guns shows ) shut down, gun vendors better controlled,...

But you do realise that obama even talking about such things is already for many violating constitution and starting a dictatorship that bans all weapons?

No, that is completely true. A lot of the people you hear speaking out against them can't name one type of firearm from another. They think that clips are bad and that bullets are what you load into them. Utterly ridiculous. You may think I am splitting hairs over terminology - but it just goes to show the lack of knowledge about the subject matter.

That doesnt matter, paint them pink and make them fluffy people arent suddenly going to be fine with them.

Tell them the difference between semi autoamtic and fully and people arent going to say "oh in that case ..."

No, the argument is BS, and as I said more designed to halt any discussion and the justify the position of pro gun proponents.

I have always tried to be prepared for just about anything I can. I can now afford to up my preparedness so that is why I have been doing so more recently. I also bought a power inverter even though I live in an area with a very stable grid. Is that stupid paranoia as well or good preparedness. I will go with the latter. I would rather have something and never need it than to not have something when it is needed.

There is a difference between preparing for lets say sandy, or the colapse of society. One is not abnormal the other...

And I didnt compare the USA to argentinia, I said look at what the bancrupty did there, nothing more . Its nothing to be so afraid of to stockpile on weapons and ammo .

Seems like a pretty stupid ratio to use. Public debt to private debt? Shouldn't high private debt make the public debt worse? It just means the people are less likely to be able to help pay back the public debt as well. Almost seems like they should be aligned instead of offset like that.

GDP as in gross domestic product. The whole of the USA economy for a year? Its a pretty standard comparison. You said you were in finance?


The current debt of the USA is equal to what the USA's entire economy makes in a year.

IN japan its 2.3 times, or around 20 trillion $ more.


The debt isnt good, but it isnt the end of society.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by k995

No they are not, only certain vehicles are allowed, same goes for drugs, or buildings or almost anything else.

If there is a risk you might hurt others its usualy regulated/restricted or banned.

Again it happens with everything including guns. So why is it so strange that after a clear sign there are problems with guns there is a need for extra regulation?


How is this so hard to comprehend. There is not a single vehicle that is banned for private ownership and use. Only public use. That is what makes it completely different.



A quote from the NRA wich makes it highly doubtfull.



As I recall it was Biden that said it, not the NRA.


Columbia, michigan, hawaii, and a couple more.
And if you dont need registration for non public use it makes it about the same as cars and other vehicles in most states.


I agree with this, current laws need to be better enforced, loopholes in legislation (like guns shows ) shut down, gun vendors better controlled,...

But you do realise that obama even talking about such things is already for many violating constitution and starting a dictatorship that bans all weapons?

He has never talked about only doing that stuff. A lot of people do think that if you give an inch today and an inch tomorrow, etc, you will lose everything in the long run but I don't knowmany that are against closing loopholes and just upping some of the requirements.

I personally thought the dictatorship was starting when O pushed through his healthcare that most of the nation didn't want by completely skirting the other party. Requiring people to buy insurance is a violation in many people's understanding.


That doesnt matter, paint them pink and make them fluffy people arent suddenly going to be fine with them.

Tell them the difference between semi autoamtic and fully and people arent going to say "oh in that case ..."

No, the argument is BS, and as I said more designed to halt any discussion and the justify the position of pro gun proponents.

I think if most people were educated on it then they would not be against them like they currently are.

There is a difference between preparing for lets say sandy, or the colapse of society. One is not abnormal the other...

Sandy is pretty abnormal in Iowa. In the 20+ years I have lived here we have not had an outage in power for more than 12 hours. Why is it bad to prepare for something just because it is not normal? That is pretty stupid only preparing for something you can predict... let's ask New Orleans how that works. Once something is predicted it will be nearly impossible to get the necessary supplies. I can easily afford to buy and keep it right now so please tell me why this is such a bad idea to buy something now that I might need later that stays good for 50+ years.

And I didnt compare the USA to argentinia, I said look at what the bancrupty did there, nothing more . Its nothing to be so afraid of to stockpile on weapons and ammo .

Whether or not you meant to you compared the two. Saying it won't do anything here because "look at Argentina" is comparing the two.

GDP as in gross domestic product. The whole of the USA economy for a year? Its a pretty standard comparison. You said you were in finance?


The current debt of the USA is equal to what the USA's entire economy makes in a year.

IN japan its 2.3 times, or around 20 trillion $ more.


The debt isnt good, but it isnt the end of society.

First off - you said GPD which I assumed you mean Gross Public Debt. I didn't realize I was supposed to be able to read your mind. I agree using GDP is much better than what I thought you were trying to use. There are many other factors besides the GDP to debt ratio that factors into default though.

[Huntn]

Atlantic Magazine: The Case for More Guns and More Gun Control

Interesting article that states that it's too late, too many guns, can't ban them.

According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47percent of American adults keep at least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns.

There are an estimated 280*million to 300*million guns in private hands in America—many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4*million new guns enter the market. This level of gun saturation has occurred not because the anti-gun lobby has been consistently outflanked by its adversaries in the National Rifle Association, though it has been. The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message.

That if the Supreme Court or lawmakers even outlawed guns in private hands, we would not have the ability to seize hundreds of millions of guns. The only other option is to come to agreements and enact meaningful gun ownership regulations. The NRA is the real enemy in this issue standing against any and all regulations when it comes to private citizen firearms.

Gun Show Loophole:

People were disgusted that Harris and Klebold (Columbine Shooters), neither of whom was of the legal age to buy firearms, had found a way to acquire guns: an 18-year-old woman, a friend of the two shooters, bought three weapons legally at a gun show, where federal background checks were not required.

about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks. Though anti-loophole legislation passed the U.S. Senate, it was defeated in the House of Representatives.

Gun Magazines:

Other measures could be taken as well. Drum-style magazines like the kind James Holmes had that night in Aurora, which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and which make continuous firing easy, have no reasonable civilian purpose, and their sale could be restricted without violating the Second Amendment rights of individual gun owners.

Argument for private citizens being licensed to carry weapons:

But it is, in fact, possible to assess with some degree of accuracy how many crimes have been stopped because the intended victim, or a witness, was armed. In the 1990s, Gary Kleck and a fellow criminologist, Marc Gertz, began studying the issue and came to the conclusion that guns were used defensively between 830,000 and 2.45*million times each year.

Helpful Measures:
*Mandate background checks.
*Close gun show loop hole regarding background checks
*Longer Waiting periods.
*Doctors report patients who have no business owning a gun.
*Limit magazine size.
*Required Gun Courses

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Atlantic Magazine: The Case for More Guns and More Gun Control

Interesting article that states that it's too late, too many guns, can't ban them.

Gun Show Loophole:
Quote:
People were disgusted that Harris and Klebold (Columbine Shooters), neither of whom was of the legal age to buy firearms, had found a way to acquire guns: an 18-year-old woman, a friend of the two shooters, bought three weapons legally at a gun show, where federal background checks were not required.
Quote:
about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks. Though anti-loophole legislation passed the U.S. Senate, it was defeated in the House of Representatives.

The 40% number that has been presented is highly suspect, and it is from an old survey provided by Bloomberg.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-show-loophole

Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on a random survey of more than 2,500 households.

Okay...and in typical Politifact fashion, they chose to rate this "mostly true," because the information is outdated, even though the ATF had nothing newer to provide to Politifact, and even though the NRA did not even bother responding to them. Even though Bloomberg and other gun control advocates know this, want new research, and rightly blame the NRA for opposing it. In spite of verifying the facts involved and finding nothing to rebut them, they go with "mostly true." Thanks, Politifact.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

The 40% number that has been presented is highly suspect, and it is from an old survey provided by Bloomberg.

Obviously, that number is higher now. Thanks for pointing that out.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Obviously, that number is higher now. Thanks for pointing that out.

Source? Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

Thanks for playing.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Source? Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

Thanks for playing.

That's funny, because neither do you. You point to a DailyKos article that suggests the 40% survey is old and there are those who want to update it, but the NRA opposes doing a new survey.

So, in other words, the number could be higher, but the NRA doesn't want anyone to know.

Brilliant argument.

(edit) Would you agree that based on the best available information, as many as 40% of gun sales occur outside of licensed gun dealers?

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by mcrain

That's funny, because neither do you. You point to a DailyKos article that suggests the 40% survey is old and there are those who want to update it, but the NRA opposes doing a new survey.

So, in other words, the number could be higher, but the NRA doesn't want anyone to know.

Brilliant argument.

Then how come Mayor Bloomberg and his gang of Mayors have not performed another "survey" supporting the claims?

Could it be that the number is lower?

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Then how come Mayor Bloomberg and his gang of Mayors have not performed another "survey" supporting the claims?

Could it be that the number is lower?

Could be, but I would think a comprehensive joint survey performed by the NRA and someone like Gallup might be more accurate, especially if the NRA encouraged its members to cooperate.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by mcrain

Could be, but I would think a comprehensive joint survey performed by the NRA and someone like Gallup might be more accurate, especially if the NRA encouraged its members to cooperate.

According to some MSM outlets, Obama, and others, NRA members have cooperated in surveys and favor background checks. To the tune of 74%.

So, why not the gun show loophole?

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

The 40% number that has been presented is highly suspect, and it is from an old survey provided by Bloomberg.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-show-loophole

So what do you think about it being high or low? Are you disputing the number as a means of arguing against removing the gun show lack of oversight?