Gun control advocates do support universal background checks which would help address handgun crime. In fact, Connecticut experienced a 40% decline in its gun murder rate after all handgun purchasers were required to pass background checks. Your side is the side that stands in the way of handguns being sufficiently regulated in most states. Your side is the side that stands in the way of lives being saved. So you're in a very hypocritical position when you criticize gun control advocates for not focusing enough on handgun crime.
In 1995, the homicide rate in CT was 4.6 per 100k; in 2005, the homicide rate was 3.0. That's an overall decline of 35%. From 2005 to 2015, CT's homicide rate actually increased about 10% For the US as a whole, the homicide rate went from 8.2 to 5.6, a decline of 32%. That's not a large statistical difference. From 2005 to 2015, the US homicide rate continued to fall by 15% http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ctcrime.htm Also: http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/24/5-questions-about-the-new-study-purporti
None of which does anything to actually address the point that random surveys cannot be scientifically verified. They cannot be used as proof to demonstrate that the rate of firearms ownership in the united states is decreasing, as there is no way of verifying that the responses given are indeed accurate. They do not amount to proof of anything, except for what the randomly selected individuals for survey are willing to say in response to invasive queries by unverified sources.
both types of firearms mentioned are already subject to significant restrictions. Restrictions such as to not use them against others without legitimate cause under any circumstances, because doing such is a felony offense. Why should the public be open to the concept of their constitutional rights being limited because of the actions a known violent individual who had no business being free in society to begin with? There is no evidence that the limitations would have prevented anything from occurring.
Except for the fact that so-called universal background checks are completely unenforceable without corresponding universal registration of every firearm in existence. And even then, under such circumstances, it is still quite easy for prohibited individuals to acquire firearms. There is no evidence that has been presented, which proves the two events are actually linked to one another. It is the correlation/causation fallacy. The side calling for the restrictions of constitutional rights is the party that is obligated to demonstrate whatever degree of proof is called for in showing that their position is actually valid. It is their claim, therefore the burden of proof is on them, rather than on the opposition to disprove the claims being made.
Uh....what the hell are you talking about? Clearly you never attended college because what you just said is complete nonsense, you can in fact validate survey results.
Do you know what google is. 5 seconds......that's all you had to do was take 5 ****ing seconds and the very first link says otherwise. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2343860
Did you read it? Oh but there is more. Let me guess the validation studies were a conspiracy by the FBI and NSA to swoop down and plant microchips in your butt which will let them know when you are shooting your gun. If you want to continue to be willfully ignorant and stay illiterate on this subject then that is your problem not mine. . http://gss.norc.org/Documents/reports/methodological-reports/MR123 Gun Ownership.pdf "First, several validation studies indicate a high degree of accuracy in the reports of household gun ownership. A small-scale study comparing handgun-registration records from Seattle and Memphis with survey reports found that among households with a registered handgun, 97% were corroborated by survey results (Kellerman, et al., 1990). Additionally, a comparison of hunting-license and handgunregistration records from a county in Michigan to results from a telephone survey found that 88.6% of the “likely-gun households” reported having a gun, 8.3% refused to answer the gun-ownership question, and 3.1% reported not having a gun in their household. Given that guns and especially hunting weapons might be kept elsewhere and that the survey was done 1-2 years after the date of handgun registration and/or obtaining a hunting license, the level of agreement was very high (Rafferty et al., 1995). Finally, a study in four states of households with a resident with a concealed-carry permit indicated that in a blinded, seeded-sample telephone survey “Of those who screened in as gun carriers, 94% report that they did have a gun-carrying permit, 3.6% that they did not, and 2.4% refused or gave other responses (Smith, 2003).” These studies thus indicate that falsely denying gun ownership is rare"
The things you own end up owning you. It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything. You have guns.
What is being talked about, is recognizing how falsified statistics have been utilized in the past, in an effort to sell a political narrative. The individual Arthur Kellerman ans his dishonest study on the successful use of firearms for defensive purposes immediately spring to mind as an example of such. Now, even decades after his study has been thoroughly debunked and discredited, and the flaws of his methodology laid out for all to see, those who support firearm-related restrictions continue to cite his work, and claim it is valid. Those who misrepresent actual statistics, and twist the available numbers to try and promote their narrative, even when the facts do not support their narrative, serve to undermine the validity of such for others. Statistics can be twisted and made to say whatever someone wishes for them to say in regard to their position. As such there is little reason to accept random surveys as having actual validity. Those who claim they are valid are addressing the methodology when it is executed properly, but such does not mean the execution was actually done properly. Even if it was done in a proper manner, it is still unable to be verified, as it depends exclusively on the human equation, and whether or not those being surveyed feel like being totally honest with random strangers.
"Let's valid our phone survey process with a phone survey". No, get off the phone and actually count some guns.
You've yet to explain why the number or percentage of households owning guns means a tinker's cuss with regards to gun control, the topic of this forum.
You made that assertion not me. I was responding to someone who claimed that gun ownership was higher when it was not. I never said anything about what it does in regards to gun laws. But you know that already and this is desperate attempt of yours to try and steer the topic away from your flailing incompetence.
There have been multiple polls and surveys of gun ownership over the years. Are you claiming that ALL of them are falsified and nefarious schemes and conspiracies? Ah, to live with the mind of a conspiracy nut job. Say hello to Alex Jones and ask him how all that JADE HELM worked for him. Oh that's right turns out that nothing happened.
When the data itself can't be trusted, the process isn't robust anymore. You may feel that gun owners are honest with regards to surveys about guns. I don't feel that they have any reason to be. Do you feel that the level of gun ownership is important to gun control? If not, the discussion on these types of polls is off topic.
All the polls about gun ownership that claim that gun ownership is down certainly fly in the face of the simple fact that gun sales have exploded in recent years.... as have requests for training. Demand for instruction by new shooters wanting to know how to handle the new guns they're buying is skyrocketing, which clearly indicates that the claims of gun ownership dropping and all the new guns are being bought by a shrinking percentage of existing gun owners adding to their inventory are not based in fact. But then, the polls indicated that Hillary was a lock for the White House, so.....
Who in their right mind is going to tell a person on the phone, who claims to be taking a survey, that they own guns or have guns in the house? I wouldn't.
And if the same incorrect formula and approach is followed multiple times over the course of years, the results will always be incorrect. What of the polls that indicate firearms ownership is actually on the rise rather than on the decline?
Most Americans support banning all semi-auto firearms. Experts agree. I think this is another indication that we are at a tipping point. "But the latest available polling shows that, in fact, more than half of Americans say they would support an across-the-board ban on all semiautomatic weapons. And academics who study gun violence say that such a ban would be an effective way to combat mass shootings and gun violence overall." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-polls-show-otherwise/?utm_term=.8c61247fbbc1
You search for and support and quote anything that proposes a gun ban or restrictions on legitimate gun owners, yet you ignore facts from legitimate sources such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation that indicate that so called £ "Assault Weapons" account for an extremely low incidents of murders and crime, how the Assault Weapons ban accomplished nothing of merrit. Of course other Gun Ban Lovers will state anything that supports further Gun Restrictions on law abiding citizens.
