Does owning a firearm make an individual a pre-criminal?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	0 (0%)
	No
	16 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Boom Sound 416]

1. Does being born make you one?

[In_The_Wind]

3. Only if you are a male.

[Boom Sound 416]

4. Who said that!

[Common Sense Party]

2. Does owning a car make me a pre-speeder? Or a pre-plower-into-crowds?

Does owning a cat make me a pre-animal abuser?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Clearly you don't have a cat.

Anyone with a cat knows that the cat is owner and the person, mere chattel.

[Common Sense Party]

6. I can still dream of my emancipation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Good luck

[ileus]

9. I started to abuse one of my kitties last night after it puked on my side of the bed.

[Niceguy1]

18. I was utterly cruel

And mean when I kicked mine out of the bedroom cause he was rummaging through the closet and waking me up. He may be plotting revenge

[Jgarrick]

21. Only sports cars make you a pre-speeder. Cars with "common sense" limits to horsepower are ok.

For now.

[oneshooter]

22. My truck has twin turbos. What does that make me? n/t

[Jgarrick]

36. Lucky?

[oneshooter]

37. $$$Broke $$$ n/t

[Eleanors38]

45. Illegal high-capacity.

[oneshooter]

48. OK then $$$Broke$$$ and FAST________________________________________________________________________

[ileus]

7. All gun owners are hidden criminals...Where's our Italian buddy to explain this?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I thought he was from New Jersey and...

...he's maybe been on a cruise w/o any nets: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=272768

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. ~~~

[CreekDog]

94. well how do you know that?

and why don't you call out or criticize actual trolls that get banned?

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. How do I know what? Your reply is rather cryptic

[CreekDog]

100. you just accused someone of being a troll and another person of lying about being from Hawaii

...when he's actually from Maryland.

why are you running away from the allegations you just made?

friendly_iconoclast (9,964 posts)
78. Perhaps he's with our Hawaiian friend who really lives in Maryland...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=141226

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. UPDATE, w/ partial retraction: I was wrong, the Hawaiian really *is* a Hawaiian

Mind you, I still disagree with him about his position on guns- just not his geographic
position.

The troll, however, is still very much a troll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117288301?com=search

[CreekDog]

118. so what do the terms of service say about your posting personal information?

or have the Admins given you special dispensation to ignore that one?

[beevul]

119. Are those rules in the TOS anything like the rules that govern outing alerters in GD? N/T

[CreekDog]

120. what i quoted is an actual rule in the TOS

[beevul]

121. And? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Hint: That would not be you, as evidenced by your post in GD, among other things:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024744231

[CreekDog]

122. so you're trying to show the difference between violating the TOS and not violating it?

because posting personal information as Friendly did, is expressly against the TOS.

and me posting some opinions about debating is not at all against the TOS, nor even against the SOP (and against the SOP would not actually be a rule or TOS violation, for that matter...)

[beevul]

123. Aww, isn't that cute. Ignoring the people whos responses in your thread I was refferring to.

Not to mention your own words:

"There can be no fruitful political discussion with people who are insincere or hiding their views"

You posting in this forum, has nothing to do with, and in no way constitutes "sincerity", except that you sincerely despise pro-gun posters - which is entirely your motivation to do what you're doing.

You aren't here discussing ANYTHING sincerely.

You come here to play "gotcha" which is your version of "are you now or have you ever been a communist".

Which is what you're doing now.

Besides that, I believe, that the TOS refers to information which a poster themselves considers private, rather than information which they themselves choose to share.

One can not point a finger at someone for repeating information which was made public, by the person which the information applies to.

Revealing an anonymous alerter, on the other hand, not so much.

Whats your excuse again?

[CreekDog]

124. The TOS says even if the information is publicly available elsewhere

not to post it on DU.



stop lecturing me on reading comprehension. friendly iconoclast was wrong.

[beevul]

125. I'm sure he'll lose sleep over it.

Whats your excuse for outing anonymous alerters in GD?

You were equally wrong.

By the way, if you don't want to be lectured on reading comprehension, ceasing to deliberately misinterpret what people post would go a long ways.

Feel free to call me on that champ, I have a few examples ready to go, and I expect that those posting in your GD thread have some of their own as well. Some folks happen to be better at digging through years of posts to find damning statements, than you are, and I'm one of them.

Want to have a discussion about it and get it all out on the table?

I'm game if you are.

[CreekDog]

126. please quote me the thing that says that they are anonymous

and the strange thing is that you're saying the TOS, verbatim, shouldn't be followed, but your made up rule that doesn't exist should be followed?



have a good weekend.

[beevul]

127. If you're referring to posters that alert...

If you're referring to posters that alert, they are by default anonymous, EXCEPT to those that read alerts.

You changed that state when you outed, to the DU population, someone who alerted.

If you'd like to argue that it was simply an oversight, and that the admins INTENDED for alerters to be publicly known...by all means, please proceed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Take your faux outrage elsewhere, he was amenable when I told him I was going to do it

There's no TOS violation. I told him I was going to do it beforehand, and he had no objections.
Ask him yourself if you don't believe me.

Unlike certain other posters we are all too familiar with, he is entirely forthright about what he believes and seems willing to engage in mutually respectful dialogue with his opponents.

Would that everyone here felt the same way...

[CreekDog]

131. So if you announce that you're violating the TOS , it's ok

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. There is no TOS violation. The DUer whose information it is agreed to it.

And he most certainly did not appoint you to be his personal representative
in this matter, so to put it as bluntly as possible:

As difficult as it seems to be for you to accept, your opinion is irrelevant.

Up until now, I had thought that a certain Canadian attorney (now banned) that previously
posted here had displayed the most overweening sense of self-importance that
could seen on DU.
I see now that my previous estimate needs to be reconsidered.

[beevul]

133. You know, if she were here, she'd chastise you for saying attorney instead of barrister.

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 05:00 AM - Edit history (1)

You know, if she were here, she'd chastise you for saying attorney instead of barrister.

Then she'd say something rude about USAmericans, menz and their guns, cloaking devices, festooning ones self with firearms...etc.

I almost miss her.

Strike that, I'm nowhere close to missing her.

[NYC_SKP]

135. I wish I had a dollar for every time....

...I would buy a Ford Pinto.

[beevul]

102. How many of them really were trolls...

How many of them really were trolls, VS casualties of the little crusade that everyone truly involved on both sides of the gun issue here on DU knows has been waged to silence ostracize, marginalize, and eliminate pro-gun sentiment and those that post it?

Why aren't you denouncing the gun control group that attempted to sabotage a fundraiser for Democrats:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140392

On the other hand, it seems you're also rather silent about the gun trafficing charges against Sen. Leland Yee.

One could quite logically conclude that the gun issue is more important to you than party - an assertion full of sentiment that folks like you quite regularly like to make against pro-gun posters.

[CreekDog]

103. are you saying Skinner and EarlG banned people for being gun trolls improperly?

why are you saving this accusation for me? why haven't you asked them?

if you have so much distrust of the admins here that you think they banned people as gun trolls who weren't, why are you even here on this site?

[beevul]

104. You're so cute when you mischaracterize what people say.

are you saying Skinner and EarlG banned people for being gun trolls improperly?

why are you saving this accusation for me? why haven't you asked them?

if you have so much distrust of the admins here that you think they banned people as gun trolls who weren't, why are you even here on this site?

I'm saying you guys have done a stellar job making posters look like gun trolls, leaving those in charge to draw a conclusion based on a picture you guys have gone to great lengths to paint. Certainly, some were trolls, but certainly, some were not.

I don't blame the admins at all.

Care to comment on Yee, or the gun control group that tried to sabotage a fundraiser for Democrats?

I thought not.

[CreekDog]

107. well sounds like you have something to discuss with the Admins, since you think they got it wrong

beevul (7,505 posts)
102. How many of them really were trolls...

How many of them really were trolls,...

I'll be waiting to see if you truly have courage to go with your convictions which if you post an ATA message outlining which of the members PPR'd as gun trolls, was not actually a gun troll.

But if you just hide that little passive accusation of the Admins in here, away from the Admins, I will think it's just the usual bluster and bluff that you seem to think nobody sees because it's in here.

[beevul]

108. Remedial reading might help...

You must have missed where I said :

I don't blame the admins at all.

[CreekDog]

109. Of course you do, you're saying the Admins' actions were wrong in banning some gun trolls

and when you try to deny that you meant that, you end up saying the Admins didn't realize what they were doing, and thus acted wrongly.

how hard are you trying to get off this island without appearing to try?

[beevul]

110. My dear creekdog...

When there are things which are blue which are allowed, and things red which are not, people in charge, make sure those red things are not present.

Of course, when a certain bunch go around deliberately painting some blue things red, one does not blame those whos job it is to remove the red things.

One blames the people who went around maliciously painting blue things red.

They are responsible, not the admins.

You knew that, even as you penned this weak argument you're unsuccessfully trying to make.

You could...put down the paintbrush.

[clffrdjk]

8. No but

If you go look in the echo chamber you can find all sorts of quotes showing how it makes you and I less than normal. One that jumps out at me, gun owners are toothless rednecks or sociopaths.

[upaloopa]

10. Gun owners are a minority.

Not pre criminals though.

[clffrdjk]

11. Toothless rednecks or sociopaths

That is not quite the same as saying more people don't own guns than do.

[upaloopa]

85. I don't get what you mean?

I own a gun and have teeth and try to get a full body tan at the beach. Not a sociopath at least don't act like one. My gun is only for plinking and target shooting though not a bad guy stopper type gun .

[clffrdjk]

88. I am just pointing out a line that I remember from the echo chamber

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12626040
You are going to have to talk to secular motion if you want to get his meaning.

[upaloopa]

89. Well I dismiss that type of shit. It doesn't belong here.

We can disagree but we should treat each other with respect and even I fail that test at times.

[clffrdjk]

90. I agree with you there.

But I can only ignore so much.

[upaloopa]

91. I understand.

I offer an apology to you for my bad times at least.

[clffrdjk]

93. Lol no apology needed

[geckosfeet]

12. The most popular taunts are "compensating for small penis" - was never sure how to

apply this to women gun owners, and the ever popular "gun nut". Just rolls off the tongue.

[oneshooter]

19. Don't you mean "rolls off the keyboard"

I wonder how many haters would insult someone face to face in the manner they do on line.

[geckosfeet]

31. I stand, er, sit corrected.

[spin]

96. I sometimes wonder who actually ran the survey on the penis size of male gun owners. ...

In fact I doubt if one was ever done.

If I am wrong and the researcher who conducted the survey was a male, he must have far more guts than I do. I would be quite hesitant to walk up to the male shooters at the range with a measuring tape and ask them if I could measure the length and circumference of their "Third Leg."

[geckosfeet]

98. I know. But it is a good example of the emotionally immature arguments that are often

put forth. I know it is not really an argument for gun regulation per say, but it helps bolster the emotional superiority of gun regulators, while at the same time attempting to belittle gun owners. IMO almost all gun regulation argument rest on an appeal to the emotions because it is hard/impossible to refute the meaning and intent of the second amendment.

[spin]

114. The penis size insult is, as you suggest, an attempt by those who intensely dislike firearms ...

to feel superior to those who own such weapons.

I'm not sure why they need to feel superior and how making such an immature insult would accomplish this, but since the penis size insult is so common it must satisfy some need. If it makes them feel better that's fine with me.

The penis size insult is not just reserved for gun owners. Males who own large pickup trucks also often get the same insult as do male motorcyclists who own extremely powerful bikes and even men who drive large cars.

Perhaps the reason that I find such insults hard to understand is that I personally have no desire or need to feel superior to anyone else. I realize that people have different interests than mine and that doesn't make them either superior or inferior to me. Perhaps that's one of the main reasons I always try my best to be respectful and polite to others.

I can only wish that those who wish to degrade those like me who own firearms would come up with some new and more creative insults as the old ones they often use are trite and well worn.
Insults never bother me anyhow as I feel that they merely show that I am winning the debate,

[SecularMotion]

13. No

Not as long as the individual has passed a background check and the firearm is registered as needed.

[clffrdjk]

16. Is a lie to a sociopath really a lie?

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. Generally yes.

It's not that most sociopaths are unaware that they're not telling the truth. It's just that they don't care.

[clffrdjk]

40. And that is where

The conundrum comes from. The sociopath will lie that is a given, but is it ok to return the favor in an attempt to maintain or gain ground? This is all purely accidemic. I only asked because secmo believes I am either a toothless redneck or a sociopath (I got the quote from him).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. For politicians and bureaucrats...

...not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.

[oneshooter]

20. What if the firearm need not be registered?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. registration is just another word for submission

[rrneck]

14. Always with the negative waves...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. just for you

[rrneck]

27. We oughta start a Church of Oddball. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Do you have a dog imitation?

[rrneck]

30. Betcher ass.

It'll be like speaking in tongues back home.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. ~~~

:wuff:

[Loudly]

17. It just makes them deadlier if the criminal spirit moves them. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Any chance....

...the voting spirit might move you?
Come on; you know you want to.

[Loudly]

33. The poll is rigged IMO, and side-steps the truth.

The truth is that guns and ammunition are for settling personal grievances, enabling crime, and generally lashing out.

The truth is that the sanity of any of us dangles by the thinnest of threads, and that any of us can go around the bend at any time, from causes hypothalamic and otherwise.

The truth is that the ability to fire multiple rounds and flee the scene of a shooting coupled with the deliberate policy of making it difficult or impossible to trace guns impairs accountability for their misuse.

The truth is that the risk of their misuse far exceeds claims on their behalf of responsible use.

The truth is any claim of a "right" to their access expired at Appomattox Courthouse Virginia in 1865.

[oneshooter]

35. Well then just continue to hide safely, Bless your little heart. n/t

[Jgarrick]

41. There are roughly 12 billion rounds of ammunition sold each year in the United States.

The truth is that guns and ammunition are for settling personal grievances, enabling crime, and generally lashing out.

Given your assertion that the main purpose of ammunition is to "settle personal grievances, enable crime, and generally lash out", one could reasonably expect a significant portion of these 12 billion rounds to be used for just that.

It is estimated that there are 300,000 crimes involving firearms each year in the United States. Let's consider the all the rounds in the guns used in such crimes to be ones that are settling personal grievances, enabling crime, and generally lashing out. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, so we'll assign an average of 10 rounds per gun. That means 3 million rounds of ammunition per year are being used to settle personal grievances, enable crime, and generally lash out.

That's 1 round of ammunition out of 4,000.

If the purpose of ammunition is to settle personal grievances, enabling crime, and generally lash out, it doesn't seem to be very good at it!

Care to retract your assertion?

[Loudly]

43. Tell me why twelve billion rounds are sold.

Target practice?

That's why video games were invented.

[clffrdjk]

44. Yes and other legal uses

Why play inside when I can go outside an learn a skill, compete with others, socialize and see the sun.

[Loudly]

47. Because your plaything is bad for civilization.

So stop thinking that you are the sun and everything revolves around you.

[clffrdjk]

53. The only thing that revolves around me is me.

You are picking a very hard road, you have just claimed that civilization has declined because of the invention of the gun, care to prove it?

[Loudly]

55. Not from its invention. From its proliferation in the hands of the public.

[clffrdjk]

58. It has always been in the hands of the public.

The costs have just gone down.
The ball is still in your court to prove your claim.

[Loudly]

60. None so blind as those who will not see.

Have you become desensitized to it?

The dismal tide speaks for itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chardon_High_School_shooting

[clffrdjk]

61. So you can't prove your claim?

[Loudly]

63. What proof of gravity will you require?

[clffrdjk]

65. Well you claimed that guns are a detriment to society

So let see some before and after numbers.

Edit that, from their proliferation so you have some digging to do.

[Loudly]

68. Well this looks fairly persuasive:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/

More guns = more gun deaths.

In other news, water is wet and gravity causes things to fall.

[clffrdjk]

69. Sorry you missed the basic elements

You need numbers before proliferation. And then a set after proliferation. Odds are population went up so you should look for something with a rate and not just raw numbers.

[Jgarrick]

59. So governments using guns is good, but citizens using guns is bad.

[Loudly]

62. Who are you talking about? The police?

The police have guns because guns are in the hands of the public.

[gejohnston]

67. what about Norway and Iceland

where guns are in the hands of the public (more so than Florida) but not in the hands of the police? On the other hand, cops in Japan have guns.

[Loudly]

71. They have them in the car, and must ask the station commander to use them.

Norwegian and Icelandic populations don't pretend to have a right of access to guns and ammunition.

Unlike goofy America.

Those societies sensibly make you prove why you want one and at least TRY to limit your access to the authorized purpose.

[gejohnston]

73. actually they don't

they have specialized swat teams like UK.
Actually, those societies are completely different than ours. BTW, other countries that passed even stricter gun laws, the kind you like, all make us look like Iceland.
You don't have to prove anything, they just ask why.

[Loudly]

75. Wait. We resemble Iceland how??

In the USA we pretend to have a "right" of access to guns and ammunition.

And our per capita ownership of guns is threefold theirs.

And we don't ask why we just say because.

[gejohnston]

76. when you look our murder rate with

"gun free" paradises like Bermuda, South Africa, Brazil, Jamaica, Greenland, Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, Belize, yes we are.

[Straw Man]

87. You forgot Japan.

Where the police are armed but the population is not. It has been ever thus in that neo-feudal state.

[Loudly]

92. You're recommending armed rebellion by the Japanese people?

Is there some kind of simmering discontent with their government ready to boil over?

[Straw Man]

112. No. Did I say any such thing?

You're recommending armed rebellion by the Japanese people?

You make some rather bizarre leaps. I may be Straw Man, but I'm not that straw man. I was addressing your contention that one only needs armed police where there are armed civilians.

Is there some kind of simmering discontent with their government ready to boil over?

Simmering discontent? Oh, absolutely. Hard to have faith in government when feudal oppression was replaced with a corrupt pseudo-democratic oligarchy. But aside from the Japanese Red Army terrorist group in the '70s and '80s, nothing has approached a boilover.

Did I say it had? No, I thought not. Anything else you'd care to misrepresent?

[Jgarrick]

113. The police...that would be these guys, right?

[Loudly]

117. So you think you're going to war with the police.

Are you going first, or are you following the guy who's going first?

[Jgarrick]

129. So you think I think that? How very odd, given that I've made no indication of such.

[wendylaroux]

105. Civilization may not have declined,

but,more people have been shot since the invention of the gun. A whole lot more.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. "more people have been shot since the invention of the gun."

I suppose we'll have to concede that point.

[Eleanors38]

139. "I walked with a Zombie."

[Jgarrick]

56. Since you're wondering how they're actually used:

The vast majority of them are, in fact, used in target practice. A smaller amount are used for hunting. A very small percentage of them (0.025%, a number you have not disputed) are used either in crime or in defense of one's self.

That's why video games were invented.

Really? That's the best argument you have?

[Loudly]

66. Your argument appears to be

that all Americans must pay the price for your hobby.

It's not a good trade off for us.

[clffrdjk]

70. How does the deaths/gun (owner/hour of use/time in existence) rate compare to other hobbies?

[Loudly]

72. Wouldn't that be irrelevant due to the availability of guns to be used OUTSIDE the hobby?

In other words, the whole society must suffer just to indulge the hobby?

Again, that's overtly bad policy.

[clffrdjk]

74. Actually that just gives you an advantage

Because per my original statement you can include illegal use of guns. But if you want to limit yourself go right ahead.

[clffrdjk]

42. You are projecting

My sanity is held by far more than just one thread. If you are really that close to the edge you need to go see someone now before you hurt someone or yourself.

The truth is that someone who reaches that breaking point does not car if they get caught or not it is over for them anyways.
The truth is if a person truly breaks a gun is a far less effective tool than even gasoline.
The truth is that the gun is the perfect defensive weapon in that it provides the most protection and the most discrimination, I can pick out the threat and end the threat with the least amount of risk to myself.

The truth is your Appomattox claim has been beaten six ways to Sunday you need to find a new stick.

[Loudly]

46. Here. This is for you.

Perfect and efficient. Least amount of risk.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2014/03/27/11-year-old-fatally-shot--in-st-louis/6962497/

[clffrdjk]

50. Yep there are some very evil people in the world

Luckily I have a means of defending myself that does not involve just hiding and waiting for him to run out of ammo and hope he goes away.

[Loudly]

52. That was a guns-as-solution-to guns response.

Your access to a gun is HIS access to a gun.

The trouble started with access to a gun.

[clffrdjk]

57. Except odds are he is already breaking the law in the mere possession of his gun.

Do you have a better solution for me? Or are you suggesting we go door to door grab them all and heck while we are at it we can't help but notice drug use in our search so grab them too. Then we can go back to baseball bats and bombs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. "Your access to a gun is HIS access to a gun."

Your access to alcohol is the drunken wife beater's access to alcohol.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

138. An excellent point

Loudly was PPRed (way to go EarlG) a little while ago or that would be just another fact to be dodged, ignored or denied....
...because GUNZ...

[cheyanne]

49. Yes, yes, yes

I believe that owning a gun actually changes the way one thinks and acts.

First, by owning a gun, you accept that you may have to use it some day.

Second, you are unconsciously scanning situations for the one that will compel you to use your gun at a moment's notice.

Thirdly, you are constantly aware that you do not have to walk away from a confrontation, but can stand your ground.

These are ways in which your reaction to events has changed.

This does not even go into the underlying individual psychology that might include feeling that some people deserve what they get; hair trigger anger; feelings of inferiority and being despised by others.


The saying "power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts" is true. and carrying a gun gives one a power over others.

[SQUEE]

82. WOW!

I believe that owning a gun actually changes the way one thinks and acts.

it does.

First, by owning a gun, you accept that you may have to use it some day.

I plan on using every firearm i build or purchase, EVERY SINGLE ONE, repeatedly.

Second, you are unconsciously scanning situations for the one that will compel you to use your gun at a moment's notice.

I have addressed this in many posts, it is why I no longer conceal carry, the heightened awareness, that is necessary and a responsibility while carrying detracts from the day, having to be on guard to AVOID the derp of everyday life...

Thirdly, you are constantly aware that you do not have to walk away from a confrontation, but can stand your ground.

AND here, wow are you projecting or what, any responsible and SANE CCWer views all confrontation in the opposite light, I feel compelled to turn the other cheek in anything less than an overt and deadly threat.

These are ways in which your reaction to events has changed.

This does not even go into the underlying individual psychology that might include feeling that some people deserve what they get; hair trigger anger; feelings of inferiority and being despised by others.

You are obviously the person you are afraid of and should under no circumstances own or carry a gun, please seek help with your anger and insecurity issues.

[Eleanors38]

51. I'm feeling a movement about now.

[Loudly]

54. If you're full of it, something's definitely got to give.

[Eleanors38]

64. Thank you for the laxative effect; I'm so refreshed!

[SkatmanRoth]

34. Does owning matches make an individual a pre-arsonist?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. If you start having arsonistic thoughts it could make you deadlier.

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. Matches embolden arson in the same way guns embolden crime

[SkatmanRoth]

116. What?? I couldn't hear you

You were not speaking loudly enough

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

128. yes, I know

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. Obviously not.

There are somewhere between 50 and 90 million gun owners in the US. There are c. 1.2 million violent crimes of any type (not just gun-related). Gun crimes are a relatively small portion of that. The math is pretty obvious.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

83. It's closer to 90 million

Of the world's 600 million privately held firearms, half are in the US. Why don't we have half of all the world's crime?

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. Agreed.

I included a range of estimates, but I consider the low range to be unlikely. That lower bound and the related polling indicating a smaller percentage of households with firearms are both more of an indication of people's willingness (or lack thereof) to tell some stranger that they have guns.

[spin]

115. Actually far more people in our nation own firearms than the 90 million figure commonly...

reported.

When I was married my wife and I used to go target shooting at a pistol range on a frequent basis.

She personally liked one of my Ruger revolvers so we adjusted the sights for her use and it became her revolver although I would have been considered the owner as I had bought the weapon. I no longer used this revolver as I would have had to readjust the sights to suit me.

I know a number of hunters whose wives also hunt. The husband may have originally bought the rifles but the wives have one they use. (Deer and hog hunting are very popular activities in the area of Florida where I currently live.)

Often young adults in a household own their own rifles, shotguns or handguns which were purchased as presents for them by their parents.

That's why gun owners can make the difference in a close election. Not only do the husbands go to the polls to vote against a candidate who strongly supports gun control but their wives and voting age children go with them.

[SheilaT]

79. Good grief.

While I am adamantly anti gun, even I don't think that owning one automatically makes one a pre-criminal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. You seem rather fair minded

[CreekDog]

95. This thread is like a tribute album of Wayne La Pierre's greatest hits

[Eleanors38]

134. And the One Hit Wonder bought the whole cut-out bin!