Number of guns in society falling sharply

[sfcalifornia]

I live in the US and tend to put more stock in my US English spell check than the UK Guardian.

We get it. You speak Amurican.

And you speak British? I assumed you lived in the US.

I assumed you didn't know urbanization can be spelled with a z or an s since you erroneously stated to Saigon otherwise.

 

[Missourian]

Missourian -

That is undoubtedly true in some cases, but given the NY Times survey finds the number of households owning guns has dropped from 50% to 35%, there is more going on than people being reticent to answer. Certainly there are plenty of people out there buying more weapons, but clearly there are also many others losing interest in owning guns for whatever reason.

This represents a clear shift across the country and culture, I would have thought.

The only rational measure is new gun sales - which are SHARPLY up.

{Washington (CNN) -- FBI background checks on gun sales have now topped two million in each of the past four months, according to the latest figures made available on Monday.

Although the law enforcement agency does not offer public analysis of its figures, the high check rate occurs amid debate in Washington over new gun control measures mainly in response to December's school shooting in Connecticut.

The agency performed more than 2.3 million checks in February using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

'Universal background check:' What does it mean?

The numbers do not reveal how many guns were purchased because some buyers could have bought more than one.

The monthly record of 2.7 million occurred in December. January was the second-highest month at 2.4 million. Prior to November, the number of monthly FBI background checks had never exceeded 1.8 million.}

Gun checks top two million for fourth-straight month - CNN.com

And properly maintained, they remain fully functional for decades, if not centuries.

My grandfathers 1892 Winchester 32-20 still puts meat on the table from time to time, although the ammunition is a little harder to come my today than is was when it was purchased in 1922.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And properly maintained, they remain fully functional for decades, if not centuries.

My grandfathers 1892 Winchester 32-20 still puts meat on the table from time to time, although the ammunition is a little harder to come my today than is was when it was purchased in 1922.

Big slug, little powder. I can see why they retooled to the 30-30 for the 1894 model. I have a 1926 purchased 94. Perfect condition.

 

[The Rabbi]

And properly maintained, they remain fully functional for decades, if not centuries.

My grandfathers 1892 Winchester 32-20 still puts meat on the table from time to time, although the ammunition is a little harder to come my today than is was when it was purchased in 1922.

Big slug, little powder. I can see why they retooled to the 30-30 for the 1894 model. I have a 1926 purchased 94. Perfect condition.

Not really. The 32-20 was the .357SIG of its day: slim light bullet moving fast. They made both rifle and pistol ammo for it and people blew up their revolvers shooting the rifle ammo. It's a little light for deer but I'm sure brought plenty down. Now, the 30-30, that's one of my favorite guns. Very undervalued as a defensive gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The title of this thread is a lie, and nothing in it supports the claim made.

 

[Political Junky]

Rabbi -

It may be that sales of guns in 2013 do push the overall numbers up over time so that next year we will see some kind of spike, but at the moment that increase seems to exist largely in your own imagination. By all means present data that backs your position.

I have to say, in general I have been really surprised at how little argumentation the pro-gun lobby here has been able to muster. Your entire argument seems to come down to "Ignore these statistics because I don't like them", rather than any logical, coherent case.

btw. As I am sure you are aware, the NRA tends to exaggerate it's membership by a factor of around 50%. The real current membership is estimated to be 3.11 million as of Dec 31, 2012 - a drop from 3.16 million a year earlier.

Does the NRA really have more than 4.5 million members? - The Washington Post

You continually ignore or dismiss evidence that contradicts your preconceived notion. I have already explained why the surveys are meaningless and offered proof to the contrary.

You are guilty of this, yourself.

 

[Katzndogz]

Folks are keeping that information to themselves these days.

Trust in government is low, and trust in anonymous folks ringing your line and asking questions about what you own is even lower.

Call me and ask me if I own a gun and I will say no.

Now that you mention it, I'd say no too. Expect that anything you say is going to be reported to some government agency.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oxford spelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxford spelling can be recognized by its use of the suffix ‑ize instead of -ise: organization, privatize and recognizable instead of organisation, privatise and recognisable. The spelling affects about 200 verbs, and is favoured on etymological grounds, in that -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs.[3] The suffix -ize has been in use in the UK since the 16th century, and continues to be the spelling used in American English. Since the 1990s[citation needed], -ise has become more common in the UK, with the result that -ize may be regarded incorrectly as an exclusively American variant.[4] The OED lists the -ise form of words separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE...". The OED explains its use of -ize as follows:

n mod.F. the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from L., as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in Eng., as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or Eng. from L. elements, retaining -ize for those of Gr. composition. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. -ιζειν, L. -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize. (In the Gr. -ιζ-, the i was short, so originally in L., but the double consonant z (= dz, ts) made the syllable long; when the z became a simple consonant, (-idz)

 

[jon_berzerk]

Folks are keeping that information to themselves these days.

Trust in government is low, and trust in anonymous folks ringing your line and asking questions about what you own is even lower.

Call me and ask me if I own a gun and I will say no.

Now that you mention it, I'd say no too. Expect that anything you say is going to be reported to some government agency.

of course never freely give out that info

 

[westwall]

Can it be that the fascination with guns is slowly coming to an end?

And can it be that the reason the US homicide rate is falling is because the number of households owning guns is falling?

It seems so, according to both the NY Times and LA Times, Gallup and the General Social Survey:

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The major point is that the American “culture of gun ownership” that one often hears about has been strikingly on the wane for the past generation. A similar decline has taken place in the number of Americans who hunt, now about 5% of the population.

Crime is down -- and so is gun ownership - Los Angeles Times

It's far more likely that people are no longer admitting to owning firearms thanks to the criminal behavior of our current administration.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Can it be that the fascination with guns is slowly coming to an end?

And can it be that the reason the US homicide rate is falling is because the number of households owning guns is falling?

It seems so, according to both the NY Times and LA Times, Gallup and the General Social Survey:

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The major point is that the American “culture of gun ownership” that one often hears about has been strikingly on the wane for the past generation. A similar decline has taken place in the number of Americans who hunt, now about 5% of the population.

Crime is down -- and so is gun ownership - Los Angeles Times

It's far more likely that people are no longer admitting to owning firearms thanks to the criminal behavior of our current administration.

thats true

plus the number of new background checks

the past 4 years says the "poll" is bogus

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

It may be that sales of guns in 2013 do push the overall numbers up over time so that next year we will see some kind of spike, but at the moment that increase seems to exist largely in your own imagination. By all means present data that backs your position.

I have to say, in general I have been really surprised at how little argumentation the pro-gun lobby here has been able to muster. Your entire argument seems to come down to "Ignore these statistics because I don't like them", rather than any logical, coherent case.

btw. As I am sure you are aware, the NRA tends to exaggerate it's membership by a factor of around 50%. The real current membership is estimated to be 3.11 million as of Dec 31, 2012 - a drop from 3.16 million a year earlier.

Does the NRA really have more than 4.5 million members? - The Washington Post

You continually ignore or dismiss evidence that contradicts your preconceived notion. I have already explained why the surveys are meaningless and offered proof to the contrary.

You are guilty of this, yourself.

No, I consider all arguments and evidence. So-gone simply ignores contrary evidence. See the difference?

 

[Missourian]

And properly maintained, they remain fully functional for decades, if not centuries.

My grandfathers 1892 Winchester 32-20 still puts meat on the table from time to time, although the ammunition is a little harder to come my today than is was when it was purchased in 1922.

Big slug, little powder. I can see why they retooled to the 30-30 for the 1894 model. I have a 1926 purchased 94. Perfect condition.

You'd be surprised what that 32-20 can do. I think what happened to the 32-20 is what you see happening to the 30-30 today...it isn't new enough or "sexy" enough. If it weren't for the Leverevolution and the resurgence of the lever action, you'd never hear a peep about the 30-30.

 

[Missourian]

And properly maintained, they remain fully functional for decades, if not centuries.

My grandfathers 1892 Winchester 32-20 still puts meat on the table from time to time, although the ammunition is a little harder to come my today than is was when it was purchased in 1922.

Big slug, little powder. I can see why they retooled to the 30-30 for the 1894 model. I have a 1926 purchased 94. Perfect condition.

Not really. The 32-20 was the .357SIG of its day: slim light bullet moving fast. They made both rifle and pistol ammo for it and people blew up their revolvers shooting the rifle ammo. It's a little light for deer but I'm sure brought plenty down. Now, the 30-30, that's one of my favorite guns. Very undervalued as a defensive gun.

What do you think about the Rossi Rio Grande in 30-30?

 

[Saigon]

Folks are keeping that information to themselves these days.

Trust in government is low, and trust in anonymous folks ringing your line and asking questions about what you own is even lower.

Call me and ask me if I own a gun and I will say no.

Now that you mention it, I'd say no too. Expect that anything you say is going to be reported to some government agency.

of course never freely give out that info

No - you'd decline to be interviewed.

The people who responded to the questions DID NOT decline to be interviewed.

This is one of those talking points that people cling to like flotsam after a boat accident, isn't it?

 

[Saigon]

Number of guns in society falling sharply

Nothng presetned here shows that the number of guns in society has fallen.
Nothing.

Yea, there is no way there are less guns now than 20 or 30 years ago.

That is not what the survey measures.

The survey measures how many households have guns.

That isa very big difference.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Oxford spelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxford spelling can be recognized by its use of the suffix ‑ize instead of -ise: organization, privatize and recognizable instead of organisation, privatise and recognisable. The spelling affects about 200 verbs, and is favoured on etymological grounds, in that -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs.[3] The suffix -ize has been in use in the UK since the 16th century, and continues to be the spelling used in American English. Since the 1990s[citation needed], -ise has become more common in the UK, with the result that -ize may be regarded incorrectly as an exclusively American variant.[4] The OED lists the -ise form of words separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE...". The OED explains its use of -ize as follows:

n mod.F. the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from L., as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in Eng., as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or Eng. from L. elements, retaining -ize for those of Gr. composition. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. -ιζειν, L. -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize. (In the Gr. -ιζ-, the i was short, so originally in L., but the double consonant z (= dz, ts) made the syllable long; when the z became a simple consonant, (-idz)

The dictionary on the UK/World side of our website gives alternative ‘-ise’ spellings at the main entries for all ‘-ize’ words where it’s appropriate. In British English, it doesn’t matter which spelling convention is chosen: neither is right or wrong, and neither is ‘more right’ than the other. The important thing is that, whichever form you choose, you should use it consistently within a piece of writing.
-ize or -ise? | OxfordWords blog

 

[Saigon]

Yes, I do use British English, as most people in Europe do.

It is taught more in schools here, simly because England is closer to us than the US is. I apologise if it confuses people, but I'm not even aware of it - I just write what I write.

Words like 'color' look strange to me!

 

[Franticfrank]

Pfff, the gun situation isn't going to change without some major legistlation nobody wants to pass through. Whatever about the amount of guns, statistics show the number of gun shops is still very high.

 

[The Rabbi]

Number of guns in society falling sharply

Nothng presetned here shows that the number of guns in society has fallen.
Nothing.

Yea, there is no way there are less guns now than 20 or 30 years ago.

That is not what the survey measures.

The survey measures how many households have guns.

That isa very big difference.

So you admit your own thread title is a lie?