I guess the "gun lobby" is in decline and gun ownership is not a good investment for the average American and that it is the govt's responsibility to legislate safety.
The bold part is my favorite![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
moment in his post.
The stats here are interesting—I did not know that the spike began in 2011. I did know that 2012 was expected to be an up year for reported purchases, but put it into perspective that the past few years have seen a huge concerted effort to push gun sales based on the public perception that guns will not be able to be purchased if gun control legislation goes through. I'm actually a little relieved by the Gallup poll because it shows me that the huge costly effort still could not significantly alter long-term social-economic trends. What is not shown, and usually isn't looked at, is the overall long-term matrix of gun ownership in this country and others. (This was where I was trying to go with our conversation before we got cut off.) In historical perspective, gun ownership has been and will plummet. Why? Because a gun is turning from a tool of necessity to an object of leisure. When the Constitution was written, guns were a means to survival—they meant food, protection, and even the means to communication in extreme situations. The population was sparsely scattered and surrounded by vast wilderness. Methods of production were pre-industrial. Reliance on guns was a no brainer. It is hard to come by historical statistics , but it would be a very safe assumption that upwards of 70% of the able-bodied population owned a gun. And household ownership was likely in the 90-95% range. Having a gun in a country of vast frontiers was a very real sign of economic viability because it demonstrated that you could sustain yourself if absolutely necessary. However, gun ownership began to decline as we became an industrial society and population growth translated into ever-growing urban/suburban zone. Two centuries later, the gun no longer holds economic value for most of the population. We don't measure this (because the gun lobby would never agree to releasing a factual exposure of this trend), but the number of people who RELY on guns for their survival (in non-military situations) would be extremely low. Even for leisure, the practical use of guns has become difficult—large expanses practical to the firing on guns are not easy to find, hunting requires ever-greater care as animal-human populations mingle, and commercial ranges are booming but an added expense to an already expensive hobby. The bottom line… its economics! Guns are expensive to buy, maintain and store properly, and their return on investment is minimal. Add to that a myriad of liabilities, and gun ownership is a not a good investment for a modern American household. The same historical trend happened in most industrialized European nations—we are just behind the curve because we have been a frontier nation until relatively recently. The biggest issue in the US is that there are major commercial interests involved which are trying to maintain sales, which means they have to convince a populace that spending their hard-earned dough on an object which will likely sit in a corner for the majority of its existence do little more than collecting dust. Not an easy task. So I believe that yes, spikes and temporary statistical anomalies will occur, but the progression of time will bring gun ownership to lower levels, provided that gun producers do not create artificial need for them.
make sure you understand… I WANT TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. However, I believe that in order to do so, the onus is on those of us who want that right to step up and demonstrate that we are as responsible and sensitive as the anti-gun lobby. At the moment, the gun lobby is failing in this area, coming off as callous and reactionary. They go on and on about Constitutional rights, but when discussion turns to responsibility, such as answering questions of how a modern society can balance gun rights while making sure that there are mechanisms to curb irresponsible and/or criminal use, the gun lobby balks and offers half-witted responses at best.
Take for example the argument that they make that any gun laws hurt the people who have legal guns, not the ones who possess them illegally. On the surface, this is a persuasive argument, but it falls short. Why? Because at some point every "illegal" gun starts its cycle off as a legal weapon. The important question becomes how those weapons end up in the illegal market. We hear the philosophical argument that "a gun does not shoot itself and can not bear legal responsibility" (which I believe is true), but when we look to the purchaser/user/bearer of that weapon to make sure that they are competent and responsible in their use, the gun lobby contradicts itself and absolves the gun owner of the responsibilities of competent use and decision-making. For example: a variation of the arguments presented against gun laws is that they punish the citizens who are trying to protect themselves*. So why would it be that so many gun owners are okay to circumvent legitimate methods of gun resale, without knowing who they are arming, but feel the compulsion to "rub out" the serial numbers on the gun which can track the ownership back to them? Why? DOESN'T THIS PUT WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE YOU WANT TO PROTECT AGAINST? And, if you were (1) responsible with your weapon, (2) concerned about protecting responsible owners and citizens, and (3) confident in selling to another person who you could see is competent and responsible (which would be far more obvious with a license and/or background check) wouldn't that negate the trouble of having to erase the serial? Yet, it is common practice—the path to illegal market for thousands of guns per year—and the gun lobby doesn't want to do anything to curb this market. Think about that for a second. Their own arguments about curbing the illegal market HELP bolster the illegal market.
That is why I ague for licensing. Uphold the right to bear arms, but honor it by making sure that we do everything we can to make sure people exercise that right responsibly and competently. REMEMBER: EVERY RIGHT BEARS A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO EARN AND RE-EARN THAT RIGHT! Are you willing to earn it?
(* The argument of gun ownership for protection against crime is not true in practical application, as a weapon is statistically far more likely to hurt its owner, friends or family than any other entity, by a ration of 7:1. Read Freakonomics on the statistics for guns as a deterrent to crime—no correlation. I have seen some articles and statistics which argue that gun ownership may statistically raise the likelihood of criminal involvement, as victims or perpetrators, but I believe there needs to be more study in those areas.)
The bold part is my favorite
moment in his post.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
