Even Biden knows gun control won't do much.

[NoStateofMind]

Very unlikely that it had to do with politics.

I would say more likely than not. Why else ask these questions every other year and stop in 2010?

Up until this shooting though, gun control really hasn't been an important issue under Obama. He seemed totally disinterested in it, as he took basically no actions regarding guns in his first term.

Which would be supported by this graph. Yet we do not have updated numbers to go off of so anything beyond 2010 is pure speculation.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say more likely than not. Why else ask these questions every other year and stop in 2010?

Exactly what political agenda do you believe these researchers were pursuing and why? Your hypothesis simply doesn't make any sense. If you're going to say 'more likely than not' you should have some evidence outside of the fact that they simply stopped asking that particular question. They also have added and dropped other questions in 2012 and past years. Do you believe those were politically motivated as well? Why or why not?

Which would be supported by this graph. Yet we do not have updated numbers to go off of so anything beyond 2010 is pure speculation.

The survey shows a stable, consistent trend over time. A major departure from it over the last two years is possible, but unlikely.

 

[fskimospy]

It could be because if he had taken actions against guns it would have jeporadized his ability to get a second term. Actually Obama hasn't been the scariest one in the whole deal. . . I think Diane Feinstein is much more agressive with the agenda.

It could have been one of a million reasons. Regardless, Obama as a national candidate basically ignored gun control until this incident. I find the idea that he was secretly plotting a gun control move in his second term to be.... implausible.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Exactly what political agenda do you believe these researchers were pursuing and why? Your hypothesis simply doesn't make any sense. If you're going to say 'more likely than not' you should have some evidence outside of the fact that they simply stopped asking that particular question.They also have added and dropped other questions in 2012 and past years. Do you believe those were politically motivated as well? Why or why not?The survey shows a stable, consistent trend over time. A major departure from it over the last two years is possible, but unlikely.

Trend over time does the future not make. Guns sales are up over the past two years which flies in the face of your graph and your pure speculation that its "unlikely". Not to mention your graph is only from those polled not a national figure like the graphs below.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/NICS/11_Nov12_NSSF-AdjustedNICS.pdf

 

[monovillage]

Trend over time does the future not make. Guns sales are up over the past two years which flies in the face of your graph and your pure speculation that its "unlikely". Not to mention your graph is only from those polled not a national figure like the graphs below.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/NICS/11_Nov12_NSSF-AdjustedNICS.pdf

You also have to include the bias of the organization running the survey and the changes over time for gun owners to answer honestly to a survey when they understand more about databases. I have never and would never answer a poll about gun ownership and the majority of people I know would also either refuse to answer or lie.

Rising Costs and Declining Response Rates in Recurring Surveys

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/mms/nsf04_211a.pdf

 

[Fenixgoon]

Trend over time does the future not make. Guns sales are up over the past two years which flies in the face of your graph and your pure speculation that its "unlikely". Not to mention your graph is only from those polled not a national figure like the graphs below.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/NICS/11_Nov12_NSSF-AdjustedNICS.pdf

gun sales and gun ownership are not necessarily the same thing.

if 10 people out of 100 own guns, that's 10% ownership rate.

but those 10 people might own 100 guns total, leading to 1 firearm per person.

the two statistics have to be taken together, IMO.

 

[NoStateofMind]

gun sales and gun ownership are not necessarily the same thing.

if 10 people out of 100 own guns, that's 10% ownership rate.

but those 10 people might own 100 guns total, leading to 1 firearm per person.

the two statistics have to be taken together, IMO.

Oh I agree but the increased guns sales would have to go to the same amount of people or less for his little graph to stay true and that's just not practical.

 

[fskimospy]

Trend over time does the future not make. Guns sales are up over the past two years which flies in the face of your graph and your pure speculation that its "unlikely". Not to mention your graph is only from those polled not a national figure like the graphs below.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/NICS/11_Nov12_NSSF-AdjustedNICS.pdf

Only those polled? Are you saying it isn't a random sample? If so, why? If you agree it is a random sample, then what is your argument?

Gun sales being up over the last two years means nothing as to whether or not the proportion of households with a gun is increasing. Nothing about that 'flies in the face' of anything I wrote. It is possible for nationwide trends spanning decades to change, but considering it has held up this long I see no particular reason to think it has changed, particularly considering that gun sales also significantly increased when Obama was elected the first time, yet the overall downward trend continued.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I agree but the increased guns sales would have to go to the same amount of people or less for his little graph to stay true and that's just not practical.

Why is that not practical? Also, have you conceded that there's no political reason for dropping the question? If you haven't conceded, please tell me what political angle the makers of the GSS are playing and how you came to this conclusion?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Guns are designed to kill people, but they dont. People kill people, or if that answer is too realistic for you then how about bulltes kill people, either way its not guns.

There we go, someone who gets it, mostly.

The fact that they can be used for recreation or other purposes doesn't change that fact.

 

[monovillage]

There we go, someone who gets it, mostly.

The fact that they can be used for recreation or other purposes doesn't change that fact.

No, it's a stupid point that isn't accurate and wouldn't matter even if it was.

 

[CrackRabbit]

No, it's a stupid point that isn't accurate and wouldn't matter even if it was.

Ok then, what are guns designed to do?

 

[monovillage]

Ok then, what are guns designed to do?

Some guns such as the Hammerli 150 were designed from the ground up to be target pistols.
http://www.prc68.com/I/Hammerli150.shtml
There are also rifles and pistols designed and built for Olympic competition and there are also a number of rifles, even cartridges and bullets that are designed and manufactured for target shooting. (.22 or 6mm BR)

So your flat ass blanket statement isn't accurate.

 

[cubby1223]

Ok then, what are guns designed to do?

Guns are a tool, like a butcher knife or a harpoon, or an alligator. Guns are designed for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here shoving you around. Do you want that? Do you?

Guns also open beer cans, turn on televisions, and off light bulbs.

 

[thraashman]

Guns are a tool, like a butcher knife or a harpoon, or an alligator. Guns are designed for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here shoving you around. Do you want that? Do you?

Guns also open beer cans, turn on televisions, and off light bulbs.

Thanks Homer Simpson. Guns are a tool, a tool for which the direct use is to kill something. Most people who own guns hope to never have to use it for its actual purpose. For those who want to say "it's a tool used for defense", well to use it in that fashion you fire it at someone with the intent to kill them. I'm not trying to say gun owners are trying to be killers. But to claim that guns have a designed purpose other than to kill is just a flat out falsehood.

 

[thraashman]

Some guns such as the Hammerli 150 were designed from the ground up to be target pistols.
http://www.prc68.com/I/Hammerli150.shtml
There are also rifles and pistols designed and built for Olympic competition and there are also a number of rifles, even cartridges and bullets that are designed and manufactured for target shooting. (.22 or 6mm BR)

So your flat ass blanket statement isn't accurate.

And the hammer was designed and created for building. But at some point someone created the war maul, a large hammer designed for use in war. Does that change that the hammer was designed for building because someone else created a version designed for killing, no. Does the fact that a hammer can be used to kill someone change that its purpose is to build, no. Does the fact that a few of the hundreds of designs of guns that have been created were not designed with the purpose to kill change that guns themselves were invented and are designed for killing, NO!

It's not a question on Jeopardy designed to confuse you. Guns purpose is to kill. Doesn't mean they HAVE to be used that way, but they sure as shit weren't designed to put holes in paper.

 

[monovillage]

And the hammer was designed and created for building. But at some point someone created the war maul, a large hammer designed for use in war. Does that change that the hammer was designed for building because someone else created a version designed for killing, no. Does the fact that a hammer can be used to kill someone change that its purpose is to build, no. Does the fact that a few of the hundreds of designs of guns that have been created were not designed with the purpose to kill change that guns themselves were invented and are designed for killing, NO!

It's not a question on Jeopardy designed to confuse you. Guns purpose is to kill. Doesn't mean they HAVE to be used that way, but they sure as shit weren't designed to put holes in paper.

No, Crackrabbit asked and it was answered accurately and honestly. There are some firearms that were not "designed to kill" if you continue to say so then you're just another lying anti-gun nut.

BTW the first hammer was designed as a weapon, not a tool.
More people are murdered every year by hammers and clubs then rifles.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

[cubby1223]

Thanks Homer Simpson. Guns are a tool, a tool for which the direct use is to kill something. Most people who own guns hope to never have to use it for its actual purpose. For those who want to say "it's a tool used for defense", well to use it in that fashion you fire it at someone with the intent to kill them. I'm not trying to say gun owners are trying to be killers. But to claim that guns have a designed purpose other than to kill is just a flat out falsehood.

This is the trigger and this is the thing you point at whatever you want to die!

The Gatling gun was designed to save lives by eliminating the need for large armies on the battlefield.

 

[monovillage]

This is the trigger and this is the thing you point at whatever you want to die!

The Gatling gun was designed to save lives by eliminating the need for large armies on the battlefield.

See! The Gatling gun was designed as a battlefield weapon. It was designed to kill (not that there's anything wrong with that) but not every firearm was designed as a weapon.

 

[Abraxas]

No, Crackrabbit asked and it was answered accurately and honestly. There are some firearms that were not "designed to kill" if you continue to say so then you're just another lying anti-gun nut.

That is the sort of meaningless distraction that only serves to degrade the conversation. Yes, there are a tiny handful of guns built expressly for the purpose of target shooting but it is such a tiny minority that it isn't worth mentioning unless you are intentionally trying to derail the conversation. This line of argument would be like a debate about monetary policy and arguing that not all coins are a unit of currency, some are commemorative. Technically true but completely and utterly worthless for advancing the discussion at hand.

Frankly the entire question of what is a gun designed for is unimportant, what matters is what they are used for and to what effect.

 

[klinc]

Gun control still do not get rid of illegal firearms. You just basically disarm license holders and take away their self protection.

 

[monovillage]

That is the sort of meaningless distraction that only serves to degrade the conversation. Yes, there are a tiny handful of guns built expressly for the purpose of target shooting but it is such a tiny minority that it isn't worth mentioning unless you are intentionally trying to derail the conversation. This line of argument would be like a debate about monetary policy and arguing that not all coins are a unit of currency, some are commemorative. Technically true but completely and utterly worthless for advancing the discussion at hand.

Frankly the entire question of what is a gun designed for is unimportant, what matters is what they are used for and to what effect.

So what I said is true and accurate, but somehow "derails" the conversation because you don't like it? Is worthless because you don't like being accurate? You're like Eskimospy that doesn't like to admit there's measurable bias in the media because it "derails" his sweeping lie that there's no bias in the media.

*EDIT*
What you are saying is that even though the anti-gun nutters want to make the claim that all guns are designed to murder/kill/destroy that when it can be proven that it isn't accurate that somehow the pro-gunners (including myself) have to shut up about the facts because to do otherwise would "derail" the anti-gun nutters debate? That somehow the facts are a "distraction" to the debate?
Damn, sorry about being accurate.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Feintstein was already shot down...by her own party. She proposes the same shit every year, making presentations in ways where she looks like an accident waiting to happen while holding "assault rifles" to "demonstrate" how "evil" they are. She'll probably accidentally shoot and aid one of these years.

Also:
http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gunownership.gif

Is at odds with the NY Times data. All reporting data on gun ownership is either a guess, or inaccurate due to reporting being voluntary. The only data really available to people is: number of guns bought every year, number of guns in buyback, number of CPLs per state, number of other licenses where states require them. Beyond that, if someone doesn't feel safe or secure admitting they own a gun to some survey, they won't, and the ownership numbers will come out low.

As for the design of guns...there are some designed for "defense", some for hunting, some for target shooting, some for competition. There's some knives designed for cutting meat, some for utility knives/all purpose, some for killing and so forth. Big flipping deal.

 

[monovillage]

Feintstein was already shot down...by her own party. She proposes the same shit every year, making presentations in ways where she looks like an accident waiting to happen while holding "assault rifles" to "demonstrate" how "evil" they are. She'll probably accidentally shoot and aid one of these years.

Also:
http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gunownership.gif

Is at odds with the NY Times data. All reporting data on gun ownership is either a guess, or inaccurate due to reporting being voluntary. The only data really available to people is: number of guns bought every year, number of guns in buyback, number of CPLs per state, number of other licenses where states require them. Beyond that, if someone doesn't feel safe or secure admitting they own a gun to some survey, they won't, and the ownership numbers will come out low.

As for the design of guns...there are some designed for "defense", some for hunting, some for target shooting, some for competition. There's some knives designed for cutting meat, some for utility knives/all purpose, some for killing and so forth. Big flipping deal.

Another reason there's increasing gun ownership is covered in this pretty decent (for the NY Times) article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?hp&_r=1&

Tina Wilson-Cohen, a former Secret Service agent who founded She Can Shoot, a women’s league with 10 chapters and 3,000 members across the country, said 90 percent of women who joined did so because “they’ve been a victim at one point of their life, of stalking or date rape or domestic violence, or they have just felt so vulnerable, and they want to feel competent and like they can protect themselves.”

 

[Abraxas]

So what I said is true and accurate, but somehow "derails" the conversation because you don't like it? Is worthless because you don't like being accurate? You're like Eskimospy that doesn't like to admit there's measurable bias in the media because it "derails" his sweeping lie that there's no bias in the media.

Sorry, but it's accurate, it you don't like it go take a flying fuck at the moon.

It derails it because it isn't relevant to the conversation at hand. the conversation is about gun control. Why does one side feel gun control is necessary? Not because of what a gun is but because they are used to kill and enable people to inflict greater violence in a shorter time than would otherwise be possible, or, in short, that the presence of guns makes the world and society more dangerous. On the other hand, those in favor of gun legality point to things like the ineffectiveness of gun regulations, the usefulness of firearms in home defense, and the legitimacy of the government punishing society as a whole by removing firearms for the potential acts of a relative few, or, at least those who aren't busy raising stupid arguments. Whether or not some tiny handful of guns are produced for firing hotdogs into stadiums or Olympic events or whatever other inane distraction you want to bring to the table doesn't fucking matter in the context of that discussion. It is worthless to the debate and if this is the best you've got, so are you.

I don't like it. I don't like it because this is an important issue and you lower the quality of discussion about it. I don't like it because reasonable and rational people who would otherwise debate on the anti-gun control side are reluctant to take a position in line with yours because you are such a mouth-breathing moron. I don't like it because with people like you, productive discussion on the issues that matter because every thread on the topic gets buried under the freight train full of inane bullshit you insist on derailing every time the topic comes up. It would just be lovely if you and people like you would operate under the principle of if you have nothing intelligent to say just shut the fuck up but you won't. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you post what you do because you are angry, or bitter, or just entertained by being a troll in general or some combination of the above and aren't actually this stupid but you and those like you both hurt your cause an hurt the level of discourse in America. If you don't care or you just can't do any better, fine, whatever, continue on your one man crusade to convince the internet you don't have clue one, that's your prerogative and I can't stop you, but as one person opposed to gun control to another; knock it the fuck off, you make us all look ridiculous.

*EDIT*
What you are saying is that even though the anti-gun nutters want to make the claim that all guns are designed to murder/kill/destroy that when it can be proven that it isn't accurate that somehow the pro-gunners (including myself) have to shut up about the facts because to do otherwise would "derail" the anti-gun nutters debate? That somehow the facts are a "distraction" to the debate?
Damn, sorry about being accurate.

I'm saying that whether or not 99.999% of firearms are designed to kill people or a full 100% doesn't fucking matter. Such an overwhelming majority of them are that belaboring the point of a handful of Olympic shooters and a single model of pistol in the entire history of guns aren't makes you look like a semantics whoring grammar Nazi at best and a drooling moron intentionally trying to divert the discussion at worst.