Poll: Gun ownership reaches record high with American electorate A record share of voters in NBC News' latest poll say that they or someone in their household owns a gun. More than half of American voters -- 52% -- say they or someone in their household owns a gun, per the latest NBC News national poll. That's the highest share of voters who say that they or someone in their household owns a gun in the history of the NBC News poll, on a question dating back to 1999. In 2019, 46% of Americans said that they or someone in their household owned a gun, per an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. And in February 2013, that share was 42%. "In the last ten years, we've grown [10 points] in gun ownership. That's a very stunning number," said Micah Roberts of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm that co-conducted the poll with members of the Democratic polling firm Hart Research. "By and large, things don't change that dramatically that quickly when it comes to something as fundamental as whether you own a gun," Roberts added. Gun ownership does fall along partisan lines, as it has for years, the poll finds. Read More...
What you are looking at is guns per person. Which is really a misleading stat. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about households with guns in them. About half of the households in the US have guns. Nordic and Scandinavian countries generally have high household gun ownership rates (guns in each household), yet violent crime and murder rates are lower than countries like the UK. See Switzerland. Nearly every household has a gun, and so of course gun crime rates are higher than the UK, but overall violent crime rates are quite a bit lower than the UK. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Switzerland/United-Kingdom/Crime
2021 study estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year... Over 14x more than all gun accidents and murders combined. Read More...
By the very definition, only an "organized" militia has the right to bear arms, as it is assumed they are "well regulated". An "unorganized" militia can be assumed to NOT well regulated. Therefore they have no constitutional right to bear arms. The "well organized militia" part of the Second Amendment has been either ignored or abused for centuries.
Where does it say "only"? Or even "organized"? "Well regulated" at the time (and clear up through the Early 1900s, as I'll show below) simply meant capable, or high functioning. Militia, by definition was unorganized. It was everyone. They even used the term "militia" interchangeably with "the people" in the 2nd amendment, to make it clear that the intent was for all law abiding people capable of fighting to have the right to own, transport, and train with infantry (militia) level weapons. The term "militia" was included to state the reasoning for the protection against government infringement. This is how we know they weren't intending for people to own cannons, tanks, or nuclear weapons, and that the government is within their rights to restrict access to those. The second amendment is very clear. For more on how "well regulated" was commonly used at the time and for over a century after... Here are some excerpts from articles, books etc, along with the date they were written. 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's infantry level arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. Excerpt from: A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)
You're a lawyer, aren't you? Or you probably should be........but pretty much every thing under the sun can be argued to eternity. But sometimes you have to take a stand, especially when it is inarguably (oooooh, irony) in the best interest of the human race......
Not a lawyer. I'm not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult... But I'll go with compliment. Thanks! I don't think trying to further restrict guns from law abiding citizens would be good for the human race. I think the efforts to do so are counterproductive, and in fact, harmful to this country. Guns are too much a part of American culture. Which is why gun ownership rates are only increasing the more gun control we pass. And even as we've passed more gun control over the last 15 years than at any time in history, violent crime and murder rates have only increased after dropping for decades. Guns aren't going anywhere. And as I have shown, there is no correlation between access to guns and violent crime or murder rates. For example, the Nordic and Scandinavian countries having generally far more and easier access to guns than the UK, yet generally far lower violent crime and murder rates. (See links in post above for this data) What the gun control debate actually does is distract people from the real changes that need to happen if we want to save and improve the most American lives. This is why the gun control debate is encouraged by lobbyists for both Republicans and Democrats. And why neither party will actually propose solutions that could actually address the problems they are both claiming to care about, and that could also pass and not violate the 2nd Amendment. Even if they would be easy to implement. For example, adding a weapons restriction to the ID of every person who is currently restricted from buying firearms, and adding the ID number of every restricted American to a freely searchable website. Then make it a felony to supply a gun to any weapons restricted person. In essence, simple, cheap, universal background checks without the need for a database of gun owners. Solves the concerns of both parties, and every state already has the ability to do this starting tomorrow. Real solutions to our violent crime problems like Universal healthcare (including mental and addiction rehabilitation), universal education through college (including trade schools), and a far more generous social safety net (which eliminates homelessness). Couple some of that mental healthcare with schools to identify and treat at risk children before they become dangerous to themselves or others and we'll have solved nearly all of our excess violence problems. Then we can set about moving forward with solutions on climate change and living in better balance with our ecosystem. And helping other countries do so as well. Any one of those solutions would save and improve exponentially more lives than any gun control ever could. And we could do all of them far easier than banning guns. I appreciate the good natured debate!
Is it though? Without the ability for common civilians to arm and protect themselves, what's to stop someone, anyone, any entity from then forcing an unpopular, potentially evil dictatorship over the masses? To ban all guns is putting 100% faith in our government to be on the lookout for the average individual at all times. Are you really willing to do that, considering the issues we have with current law enforcement and aggressive/divisive politics we have in general? I certainly am not. To put it another way, what if Trump and the goons who stormed the white house succeeded and took everything over. Military backed him and he just went full devil on everyone. Its regularly stated around here how close it was to a full on coup, so if it succeeded, wouldn't you want the right to have been owning a gun of your choice, to be able to defend yourself against such a potential tyrant?
Wouldn't do any damn good to have a gun in that circumstance. Unless you just want to kill your neighbor so you can steal his stuff. barfo
Really? How about protecting my self from my neighbor who's trying to steal all my stuff? In any coup there will be a timeframe of near anarchy in the streets. Even if a national coup succeeds, it would take time to get control off all of the cities. In the mean time, its a free for all. And the selfish take and horde form others. Ill take a gun to protect myself and my stuff in that situation please.
