Yes, the article is "interesting." Reminds me of statistics in general: "Statistics are like a bikini; what they reveal is 'interesting' what they conceal is vital." The poll was taken by CBS and reported by Washington Post, both of which are unabashedly anti-Second Amendment.
Our population demographics have changed considerably since 1978; a lot more illegal immigrants and a move to more urban life style. The former may or may not have firearms and are totally unlikely to admit it if they did. Law abiding citizens who can legally own firearms are also very suspicious of anyone inquiring about firearms ownership and may not answer questions truthfully.
Folks living in cities are less likely to own firearms for a variety of reasons. Significantly, places like Chicago, NY City, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and Newark make it virtually impossible for citizens to excersise their God given and constitutional rights.
Though the percentage of households with firearms may definitely show a decrease, I doubt that the numbers cited are accurate.
superbowl: Wrong. Perfectly legal to own an automatic firearm as defined by the National Firearms Act 1934. It requires submitting a Form 4 to the ATF along with a fingerprint card for an F.B.I. background check. Takes about four to six months to process. Once approved, the buyer has to pay a $200.00 "transfer tax" to the ATF. All transfers have to go through a Class III dealer. No license to own a machine gun is necessary.
Actually the fact that those cities ARE run by demoKrats has a LOT to do with gun laws and murder rates. Look at the demographics of those cites along with welfare population, drugs, unemployment, and restrictive gun laws imposed by the respective state or city. There is not one single gun law which actually prevents a bad guy from obtaining a firearm if he really wants one. Gun laws ONLY hinder the law abiding citizen.
How did I change the topic? Explain.
Good point. Most, if not all, of those cities have been run by democrats for decades.
You are CORRECT in assuming my implication; "...gun owners in the U.S. who don't have cc permits...by default don't even have a gun..." considering that some states are very restrictive in issuing carry permits. If you can't use your gun when you need it, then you don't have a gun. Simple.
Of course the criminals in these states don't have to worry about it since they don't obey laws to begin with. I suggest you check out the crime statistics for Chicago; as I last recall, there is not even one gun shop in the entire city. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and also has the one of the highest murder rates as well.
You still neglect to address the question on "how" stricter gun laws would prevent an incident like the terrorist attack in Paris.
I got this from a web site by a psychiatrist:
The issue goes deeper than laws. It’s also psychological. The underlying assumption in gun control/gun bans involves a subconscious fantasy. It’s basically: “If guns are against the law, then I will not have to see them or think about them. It will be as if they don’t exist.” End of story, psychologically.
Yet the reality is otherwise. People will continue to acquire and own guns, and use them, whether the government outlaws them (or further restricts them), or not. If guns become completely illegal, then peaceful gun owners will go underground, and millions of Americans who would never harm a fly will become potential criminals overnight.
To fantasize about government ridding the world of guns is an absurdity. The whole perceived need for gun control in the first place is based on the fact that some people are violent. It takes more than a childlike, naïve trust in the capacity of government to eradicate violence by eradicating guns.
You don't get my point; firearms are strictly controlled in France. Individuals CANNOT legally do concealed carry. If you CANNOT use and carry your firearm in France, then by "default" you don't even have a gun. FACT. The strict laws in France did NOT prevent the terrorists from killing lots of people. There is NO possible gun control law which would have prevented Orlando. Not a single one...
While France consistently ranks among the top countries for per capita civilian gun ownership worldwide, closely behind its Teutonic neighbors to the east and Vikings to the north, French gun ownership is heavily regulated by placing weapons into different categories based on their function and caliber.
Weapons categories range from the 1ère catégorie that includes fully-automatic weapons and fighter jets to the 8ème catégorie of historic and collectible weapons. Yes, that’s right, fighter planes and full-auto rifles are in the same weapons category under French law. Go figure.
To simplify the explanation of French gun categories, it is best to divide them into the four “European” categories that will likely be adopted in the coming two years, as new gun regulations passed the French parliament in 2012 and are waiting to be signed into law.
Category A – Prohibited Firearms
Category A is a big no-no and includes everything from tanks to fighter planes. Most importantly it prohibits the ownership of fully-automatic firearms for civilians, so if you were thinking of visiting France to get some trigger time behind a FAMAS, think again. Of course, this hasn’t stopped gangs in French cities from getting their hands on some surplus Yugo-AKs or the terrorist Mohammed Mehra from acquiring an Uzi, but that’s a topic for another day.
Category B – Subject to Authorization
Category B includes anything shorter than 47cm, including handguns, or semi-automatic, with a removable magazine and a capacity larger than three rounds, and requires a sports shooting license to own. How do you get a sports shooting license? Be an active shooting club member and hit the range at least three times a year, go see a doctor every year who attests that you are physically and mentally capable of owning a firearm and prepare for some major paperwork.
Once you have cleared the hurdles of French bureaucracy, prepare to rinse and repeat every three years, as category B ownership is contingent on
So, France is “11th in the world in personal gun ownership?” Kinda like saying, “A Prius is an automobile.” French “subjects” can own long arms and some handguns. Caliber and type are strictly limited. Concealed carry in public is restricted to law enforcement personnel only. These restrictions did nothing to hamper radical muslim terrorists from wrecking carnage on dozens of innocent people.
No, "facts" are NOT always "facts." I don't know where you got YOURS from, but they sure as hell do not reflect reality.
Those "background checks" really did a fine job keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists in Paris last year. By the way, private gun ownership is virtually impossible anywhere in France.
Actually, an "assault rifle" is a rifle of intermediate caliber which can fire both full auto or semi-auto. An AR-15 is NOT an "assault rifle." Second Amendment has nothing to do with duck hunting. Our founding fathers intended for civilians to have the same firearms available to the military. That fact is spelled out very well in SCOTUS United States vs. Miller 1939. Worth looking up and reading. For those who don't know it; it is perfectly legal to own a fully automatic firearm like an "assault rifle" as far as the federal government is concerned. To own a machine gun, one has to fill out an ATF Form 4 and go through an F.B.I. background check. Once approved, the buyer has to pay a $200.00 "transfer tax" to the ATF. All of this has to be handled through a Class III dealer.
Well, I don't own one. However, I think the concept of having a handgun capable of shooting several different pistol calibers could be good in certain situations especially when there are ammo shortages. The most popular handgun caliber is 9mm so it's generally available when some other calibers may not be.