CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[Fenton Lum]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Not really. Many woman and people of small stature have a hard time with shot guns. My Mother and Wife being a couple who cant manage them. An AR15 on the other hand they can manage. I have defended my self with a gun. .556 does nasty things to flesh.

Yeah? Guns do nasty things to flesh? Good to know, thanks. A)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, B) stupid choice for home defense.

 

[2aguy]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

As this article points out...and you can see from your abstract......they just look at wether there is a gun in the home....not the nature of the home the gun is in.....

http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots



These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.



Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments.

Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Not really. Many woman and people of small stature have a hard time with shot guns. My Mother and Wife being a couple who cant manage them. An AR15 on the other hand they can manage. I have defended my self with a gun. .556 does nasty things to flesh.

Yeah? Guns do nasty things to flesh? Good to know, thanks. A) I think you're full of shut, B) stupid choice for home defense.

Maybe he can try the Liberal method and just hope they follow laws, or government employees show up in tights and a cape to save the day... and that they don't stand outside for three hours while everyone gets transformed into corpses by a criminal that didn't follow the law.

 

[2aguy]

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Nevermind that it's worked in every major industrialized country on earth. Except ours.

Cuz, you know. Murica.

I guess if you get REALLY high and then read the statistics, then they could say that.

Or you could just read them.

Weren't you the one trying to explain to me how evolution is made up and the bible true? Yeah, go play.

No, I'm not. I haven't claimed to believe one or the other, I only said that scientists working for the government lie to us(Much like everyone else working for the government).

Every time gun laws are made more strict, the crime rate goes up. Chicago is a good example.

No, actually that's terrible example. The gun laws are very lax in neighboring Indiana and the Chicago suburbs. That's where the guns come from. Chicago is actually an exception to the rule. In states where there are stricter gun laws, there are fewer gun homicides and suicides.

Wrong...again....

Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than New York and L.A. combined........

So...for your theory, for the anti gunners to be correct.....

Chicago has 3 million people......New York 8 million...they have the same gun control laws...

you blame Indiana and and the suburbs....that would mean that New York would have a higher gun murder rate since they border Vermont...which has the most lax gun control laws in the country....and Pennsylvania....which also has gun control laws less extreme than New York.....

L.A.......that would mean L.A. gangs don't know how to drive to Arizona or Nevada.....

You are wrong....

And it is also wrong that states with stricter gun laws have lower murder rates or gun murder rates...this is also not true....

 

[Fenton Lum]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

American society will never come to any sanity in regards to either guns or race, all it takes it a few fringe nut job bomb throwers to ignite shit all over and torch any progress made by the majority of decent folk.

 

[2aguy]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

And this also shows how just counting guns in a home, without taking into account the drug, alcohol abuse, criminal record or interaction with police record of the home...little factors that actually matter more than the gun does...

too often the anti gunners just look at the gun...not the people who own them...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

yes they did........

 

[Fenton Lum]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

yes they did........

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

 

[2aguy]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

yes they did........

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

To humans......all around the world...

 

[2aguy]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

Here is another problem with the study.....

There were 320,000,000 gun in private hands in 2013.......there were a grand total of 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.......

So....looking at hard numbers from the CDC Wiqars data base for deaths by unintentional discharge of a firearm....

WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports
320,000,000 to 505 deaths......

Do you see how irrelevant on this level that study is?

So this study did not seem to take into account wether there was a drug user or alcoholic in the home...or wether there was a convicted criminal in the home...or a history of violence associated with an individual in the home........all actual risk factors for death, not the gun.......

Then....you have the actual count of dead bodies from the CDC......in 2013...you had 505 accidental gun deaths....with 320,000,000 guns in private hands......

By 2016...there are now 357,000,000 million guns and about 586 accidental gun deaths......

The actual bodies on the ground do not support the study you linked to......

 

[Fenton Lum]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

yes they did........

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

To humans......all around the world...

No one does denial like we do, you're a prime example shoog.

 

[2aguy]

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

yes they did........

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

To humans......all around the world...

No one does denial like we do, you're a prime example shoog.

How is pointing out that you want to say lying is fundamental to American culture and I point out it is fundamental to the human race......you just hate America, so that clouds your understanding of reality.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I came to that conclusion because you're advocating a ban on Assault Rifles, meaning criminals can use them and law-abiding citizens can't. You're essentially weakening citizens so they're easier targets for criminals.

People defend themselves a lot more often than you seem to think.

So, you're expecting a criminal (or the dreaded Federal black-booted thugs) to use assault weapons to invade your house....and you're ready to fight thwm off with YOUR assault rifle.....is THAT the scenario your sick mind is envisioning?

I fail to see how that's sick. It's logical. If a thug felt like robbing someone, or just killing a person or people, then they'd want a weapon like that. It's better to be prepared than to just assume it would never happen.

That's one take.

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

And my 3 decades of gun ownership show I am not likely to shoot anyone in my house so what's 5 times ZERO?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

That is a personal statistic. Those are the only statistics I use in evaluating my own behavior and in making my own choices.



And none of that changes the fact that 5 times 0 is still 0

 

[Skull Pilot]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Not really. Many woman and people of small stature have a hard time with shot guns. My Mother and Wife being a couple who cant manage them. An AR15 on the other hand they can manage. I have defended my self with a gun. .556 does nasty things to flesh.

Yeah? Guns do nasty things to flesh? Good to know, thanks. A)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, B) stupid choice for home defense.

The best gun for home defense is the one you can shoot accurately.

 

[BULLDOG]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Yet when they restricted machine guns in 1986, that pretty much got them off the streets. Why did it work that time?

 

[BULLDOG]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Yet when they restricted machine guns in 1986, that pretty much got them off the streets. Why did it work that time?

How many fully automatic rifles were actually in the public's hands in 1986?

I've owned guns since I was 16 and have been shooting for over 30 years and never once in the thousands of gun owners I have met did one ever own a fully automatic gun

 

[Skull Pilot]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

 

[BULLDOG]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Yet when they restricted machine guns in 1986, that pretty much got them off the streets. Why did it work that time?

How many fully automatic rifles were actually in the public's hands in 1986?

I've owned guns since I was 16 and have been shooting for over 30 years and never once in the thousands of gun owners I have met did one ever own a fully automatic gun

You are right. Extremely few fully automatic guns on the street now, but it's mot because it would be hard to convert any of those ARs to full auto. If crooks will get what they want no matter what the law says, why don't they have tons of fully auto ARs?