Democrats Need to Drop the Gun-Control Issue

[basquebromance]

A 2013 Department of Justice memorandum determined that “Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime” and that “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

/thread

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the data shows clearly that guns were commonly owned among the pre-revolutionary settlers. Ignoring the data won't make it go away.

Well, again, your "...because I say so" claims are not usefull outside of the orbit of rabid leftists.

It doesn't show anything of the sort, and simple logic would indicate otherwise.

In a pre-industrial era, they just weren't manufacturing that many guns to start with. It's why France backing the revolution was kind of a big deal.. .The French sent guns.

Idiot.....guns were vital to surviving in the wilderness...you moron........not to forget that each man had to provide a musket for his militia service... a private weapon with enough powder and shot...you moron.

Hey, stupid, a few things here.

First, the Colonial Army was never bigger than 40,000 men at any one time.

Most of those guns were not "privately owned".

In fact, they really couldn't be, they'd have a hell of time with logistics.

In fact, the second most common Musket after the Brown Bess imported from the UK for standing militias, was the French Charleville musket.

Charleville musket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What little manufacture of weapons in the US required European components.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, the data shows clearly that guns were commonly owned among the pre-revolutionary settlers. Ignoring the data won't make it go away.

Well, again, your "...because I say so" claims are not usefull outside of the orbit of rabid leftists.

It doesn't show anything of the sort, and simple logic would indicate otherwise.

In a pre-industrial era, they just weren't manufacturing that many guns to start with. It's why France backing the revolution was kind of a big deal.. .The French sent guns.

Idiot.....guns were vital to surviving in the wilderness...you moron........not to forget that each man had to provide a musket for his militia service... a private weapon with enough powder and shot...you moron.

Hey, stupid, a few things here.

First, the Colonial Army was never bigger than 40,000 men at any one time.

Most of those guns were not "privately owned".

In fact, they really couldn't be, they'd have a hell of time with logistics.

In fact, the second most common Musket after the Brown Bess imported from the UK for standing militias, was the French Charleville musket.

Charleville musket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What little manufacture of weapons in the US required European components.

Actually, the data supplied to you utterly contradicts your "... because I say'', claims.

It really is interesting how divorced you are from facts .

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

"For example, in the itemized personal property inventories of white males in the three databases listed, gun ownership ranges from 54% to 73%. Because the Jones database is weighted to match the entire country in 1774, we can estimate that at least 50% of all wealth owners (both males and females) owned guns. We also show that our counts are generally consistent with other published counts of guns, including those of Alice Hanson Jones, Gloria L. Main, Anna Hawley, Judith McGaw, and Harold Gill.''


From the link above:

"Although Anna Hawley's article is not about guns, she compared the frequency of common items in 221 probate inventories in Surry County, a relatively poor agricultural Virginia county, from 1690 to 1715. She notes that in this county, the staple crops-tobacco and corn-needed to be hoed several times a year, 7 yet only 34% of Surry estates list any hoes.'" Hawley found that guns were the most commonly listed of the six items she counted. In the middling to affluent groups (the 60% of estates ranked from the 30th to the 90th percentiles), there were the following percentages of these common items:
Guns (63-69%),
Tables (50-64%),
Seating furniture (40-68%),
Hoes (35-41%),
Axes (31-33%),
Sharp knives (18-20%).
19 Among the wealthiest 10% of estates, only 4% had sharp knives, but 74% had guns. None of the six items she counted were as common as guns, which appear to have been present in 50% or more of estates overall.20''




Curious how the actual data conflicts with your, ''... because I say so'', nonsense.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the data supplied to you utterly contradicts your "... because I say'', claims.

It really is interesting how divorced you are from facts .

No, it just proves that people who were wealthy enough to leave estates listed guns, because guns were a rare commodity back in those days.

Do you really think that only 50% of people had "tables"?

 

[Hollie]

Actually, the data supplied to you utterly contradicts your "... because I say'', claims.

It really is interesting how divorced you are from facts .

No, it just proves that people who were wealthy enough to leave estates listed guns, because guns were a rare commodity back in those days.

Do you really think that only 50% of people had "tables"?

No, it just provides data that you find offensive because the data counters your ''... because I say so'', nonsense.

You're a bit slow on the uptake. Tables, as well as the other items listed, were possessions commonly identified. They were valued possessions which is why they were part of the estate listings.

Do you really think your factless opinions are taken seriously in view of the data that exists?

 

[JoeB131]

No, it just provides data that you find offensive because the data counters your ''... because I say so'', nonsense.

Except it's incomplete data... it only covers "People rich enough to have an estate that needed to be clarified by a will".

Most people didn't leave estates back in the day. Their relatives just swooped in and divided their stuff.

So that rich people owned guns and listed them in their property just shows guns were something only rich people could afford.

You're a bit slow on the uptake. Tables, as well as the other items listed, were possessions commonly identified. They were valued possessions which is why they were part of the estate listings.

Naw, slow is thinking only 50% of people had tables. More likely, they didn't consider them that important. The gun was important because it was something that had to be imported. Imported goods were expensive.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, the data supplied to you utterly contradicts your "... because I say'', claims.

It really is interesting how divorced you are from facts .

No, it just proves that people who were wealthy enough to leave estates listed guns, because guns were a rare commodity back in those days.

Do you really think that only 50% of people had "tables"?

And people who weren't wealthy simply handed down the guns without a record, you idiot.

 

[JoeB131]

And people who weren't wealthy simply handed down the guns without a record, you idiot.

No, people who weren't wealthy couldn't afford them. That's the whole point.

Putting something on a boat and shipping it from England or France was expensive, which is why they were limited to luxury goods back in the day. That's why Taxing Tea was such a big deal. Tea was a luxury item, and people didn't like paying more for it.

 

[Hollie]

No, it just provides data that you find offensive because the data counters your ''... because I say so'', nonsense.

Except it's incomplete data... it only covers "People rich enough to have an estate that needed to be clarified by a will".

Most people didn't leave estates back in the day. Their relatives just swooped in and divided their stuff.

So that rich people owned guns and listed them in their property just shows guns were something only rich people could afford.

You're a bit slow on the uptake. Tables, as well as the other items listed, were possessions commonly identified. They were valued possessions which is why they were part of the estate listings.

Naw, slow is thinking only 50% of people had tables. More likely, they didn't consider them that important. The gun was important because it was something that had to be imported. Imported goods were expensive.

The data indicates nothing about "People rich enough to have an estate...". That is, as usual, you inserting your specious opinion in the absence of fact. "Estate" is a term to identify the money, debts, personal property, etc. of an individual at the time of their death. You should take the time to learn some pretty common terms and definitions.

As we see with regularity, your "table complex" is resolved with "... they probably...".

Your tactic of dismissing the data with specious "... because I say so" nonsense is simply not credible.

 

[2aguy]

And people who weren't wealthy simply handed down the guns without a record, you idiot.

No, people who weren't wealthy couldn't afford them. That's the whole point.

Putting something on a boat and shipping it from England or France was expensive, which is why they were limited to luxury goods back in the day. That's why Taxing Tea was such a big deal. Tea was a luxury item, and people didn't like paying more for it.

The had gun smiths in the colonies you idiot.

 

[JoeB131]

The data indicates nothing about "People rich enough to have an estate...". That is, as usual, you inserting your specious opinion in the absence of fact. "Estate" is a term to identify the money, debts, personal property, etc. of an individual at the time of their death. You should take the time to learn some pretty common terms and definitions.

Um, yeah.. exactly my point. People who actually had money, not the majority of dirt farmers who made up the population of the colonial US.

The had gun smiths in the colonies you idiot.

They had gun smiths who relied on importing the mechanisms from Europe. The two most prevelant models of guns were the British Brown Bess and the French Chevelier...

American manufacturers were well into the future... and they fucked up everything. Smith, Colt, Winchester.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The data indicates nothing about "People rich enough to have an estate...". That is, as usual, you inserting your specious opinion in the absence of fact. "Estate" is a term to identify the money, debts, personal property, etc. of an individual at the time of their death. You should take the time to learn some pretty common terms and definitions.

Um, yeah.. exactly my point. People who actually had money, not the majority of dirt farmers who made up the population of the colonial US.

The had gun smiths in the colonies you idiot.

They had gun smiths who relied on importing the mechanisms from Europe. The two most prevelant models of guns were the British Brown Bess and the French Chevelier...

American manufacturers were well into the future... and they fucked up everything. Smith, Colt, Winchester.

Efforts were also implemented to make use of the limited production capabilities within the Colonies. An estimated 2,500 to 3,000 gunsmiths were available, of which perhaps two-thirds favored the American cause (Moller I). Early in 1775, local “committees of safety” were already placing orders with those makers. (Some modern collectors describe all American Revolutionary War muskets as “committee of safety” guns. This term should only refer to those arms produced under a “committee” contract. Few survived and most were not identified by the makers who feared retaliation by Royal authorities.)

An Official Journal Of The NRA | American-Made Muskets In The Revolutionary War

As galloping express riders and ringing church bells spread across New England during the early hours of April 19, 1775, thousands of farmers and tradesmen carrying a variety of firearms poured out of their homes and headed toward Lexington and Concord to intercept the British Army column...

www.americanrifleman.org

 

[JoeB131]

Efforts were also implemented to make use of the limited production capabilities within the Colonies. An estimated 2,500 to 3,000 gunsmiths were available, of which perhaps two-thirds favored the American cause (Moller I). Early in 1775, local “committees of safety” were already placing orders with those makers. (Some modern collectors describe all American Revolutionary War muskets as “committee of safety” guns. This term should only refer to those arms produced under a “committee” contract. Few survived and most were not identified by the makers who feared retaliation by Royal authorities.)

That's kind of the point. There are very few examples of "Committee of Safety Guns" because there weren't a lot of them made.

Most of the guns used in the Revolutionary War (Or War of Independence, if you prefer) were imported from Britain and France. And there weren't that many of them.

The colonial Army never exceeded 40,000 men.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Hollie]

The data indicates nothing about "People rich enough to have an estate...". That is, as usual, you inserting your specious opinion in the absence of fact. "Estate" is a term to identify the money, debts, personal property, etc. of an individual at the time of their death. You should take the time to learn some pretty common terms and definitions.

Um, yeah.. exactly my point. People who actually had money, not the majority of dirt farmers who made up the population of the colonial US.

The had gun smiths in the colonies you idiot.

They had gun smiths who relied on importing the mechanisms from Europe. The two most prevelant models of guns were the British Brown Bess and the French Chevelier...

American manufacturers were well into the future... and they fucked up everything. Smith, Colt, Winchester.

You didn't have an actual point. Your argument is classic leftist "... because I say so", despite the data that you can't refute.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Efforts were also implemented to make use of the limited production capabilities within the Colonies. An estimated 2,500 to 3,000 gunsmiths were available, of which perhaps two-thirds favored the American cause (Moller I). Early in 1775, local “committees of safety” were already placing orders with those makers. (Some modern collectors describe all American Revolutionary War muskets as “committee of safety” guns. This term should only refer to those arms produced under a “committee” contract. Few survived and most were not identified by the makers who feared retaliation by Royal authorities.)

That's kind of the point. There are very few examples of "Committee of Safety Guns" because there weren't a lot of them made.

Most of the guns used in the Revolutionary War (Or War of Independence, if you prefer) were imported from Britain and France. And there weren't that many of them.

The colonial Army never exceeded 40,000 men.

if true it doesn't mean guns still weren't made in the home regardless of where the parts come from