Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[the game]

Not to mention that firearms *are* pretty affordable already. It's a completely artificial complaint. The only thing pushing prices up now is basic supply and demand, but in "normal times" you can get a very quality compact or duty-sized pistol in the $400-$600 range, and there are in fact really worthwhile entry level offerings below that (again, subject to demand).

Not even counting the Hi-Point offerings, which, while not going to win you any IPDA matches do go bang when you pull the trigger and do so with more than sufficient minute-of-bad-guy accuracy. Taurus and Bersa have good options, and even FMK (I can't even imagine how they manage to stay in business in CA of all places) have options in the $250-$450 range. Just checked, even right now you can get Taurus TH9 which is it's counterpart to a Smith M&P/Glock 19 tier duty sized pistol on gunbroker for $349.

Unless @Zython has a notion of "affordability" that makes firearms immune to demand or gets you a Walther or H&K for $179.99, this complaint is complete BS.

1911 pistols are available at pretty much any price point as well.

[Ghostpanther]

1911 pistols are available at pretty much any price point as well.

The 9mm Highpoint carbines are about $300. And they have a good reputation for being reliable and effective. The issue now is getting one.

Also, I am now seeing Rural King adds for .22 cal revolvers for less than $200.

[Felya]

The 9mm Highpoint carbines are about $300. And they have a good reputation for being reliable and effective. The issue now is getting one.

Also, I am now seeing Rural King adds for .22 cal revolvers for less than $200.

This needs a...

‘Getting arrested by the feds for having a concealed weapon while storming the capital... Priceless...’

[Svifnymr]

EDIT: Ya know thinking about this and why (mostly) boomers are obsessed with guns and being able to have one on their hip 24/7. I think I blame the absolute barrage of action movies in the 90's that never ended. How so many times random shoot outs would occur out in the streets or grocery stores or banks or what have you and you would see thugs just come out of the woodwork trying to mug old ladies in their bonnet. I think 90's action movies did to the boomers what they were afraid video games would do to their children/grandchildren lol

Honestly (though, anecdotally), guns were as common if not more before the 90's. Granted, my stories are from people that had guns, but it was common enough for kids to have shooting competitions in schools, and to bring their 22's to school for some afterschool plinking. Many folks had firearms and it was not uncommon at all. You could mail order a Caracano with no issue, and Sears sold guns from barrels to pick from. The roaring-20's left an image of criminals with machineguns and semi-auto's were not as popular, but guns were everywhere.

I'd say the big change from then to now is the variety of guns. So instead of having a 22 rifle and a shotgun and a revolver, now you might have a few semi-auto pistols, an AR and a few 22 rifles.

Culturally, of course, there have been a few major shakeups that have accelerated thing. Urbanization concentrating the poor into cities meant a shift in guns from hunting/ plinking to attack/defend. The 80's were the roaring 20's part 2 in some ways, with mac10's instead of tommy guns as the image. Being a wealthy nation also resulted in shooting sports taking off (it's quite expensive to shoot 1000's of rounds a year and the guns are not cheap either, hell, the holsters are a lot!) and of course also gave rise to the nanny state folks that look for causes to fight for to fill their empty lives or blame someone for a personal tragedy.

There are certainly influences by the movies/ video games, Lethal Weapon put the Beretta 92 front and center more than the Army selecting the M9, and those stupid H&K Match 45's were way overpriced but sold great because of Lara Croft. Mostly it's about variety though, not presence/ absence. Folks like getting the good gun in CoD in real life even if it's over priced and doesn't perform any different than others. Most criminals use whatever is available or cheapest, rather than shopping around. (Hence why Lorcins and Ravens were high crime guns, long after they'd gone out of business.)

Hell, I'd love to get a sten gun, since they're cool and I used it a lot in an old Wolfenstein game, but I'm not paying over $1000 for a pipe with a trigger. If I was better at welding I'd make my own, but not gonna happen. Others with more disposable income than I will and do spend such money. Trying to link these things to criminal misuse of firearms is a huge misunderstanding of the "gun culture" for the most part, and it's generally quite willful ignorance since many "gun people" are more than happy to explain and show the differences and why the laws are generally as willfully ignorant as the campaigners. But why bother trying to explain the 80% rules or the brace debate to folks that simply do not care to learn?

[Mayhem]

Honestly (though, anecdotally), guns were as common if not more before the 90's. Granted, my stories are from people that had guns, but it was common enough for kids to have shooting competitions in schools, and to bring their 22's to school for some afterschool plinking. Many folks had firearms and it was not uncommon at all. You could mail order a Caracano with no issue, and Sears sold guns from barrels to pick from. The roaring-20's left an image of criminals with machineguns and semi-auto's were not as popular, but guns were everywhere.

Do you have a source for that or is it a bunch of stories from the old folks that tell you this?

Guns were more common in households before the 90's than after, but there was not a huge difference of households with firearms compared to the ones without, it was about 40%-50% in the 70s and 80s and went down to between 30%-40% from then on. I can't find anything on the 20's, 30's or so.

Culturally, of course, there have been a few major shakeups that have accelerated thing. Urbanization concentrating the poor into cities meant a shift in guns from hunting/ plinking to attack/defend. The 80's were the roaring 20's part 2 in some ways, with mac10's instead of tommy guns as the image. Being a wealthy nation also resulted in shooting sports taking off (it's quite expensive to shoot 1000's of rounds a year and the guns are not cheap either, hell, the holsters are a lot!) and of course also gave rise to the nanny state folks that look for causes to fight for to fill their empty lives or blame someone for a personal tragedy.

What thing accelerated? From the 80s to the 90s Gun ownership rate was already on a downward trend, now considering more people moved to the cities in these times, your conclusion seems to be at odds with reality.

There are certainly influences by the movies/ video games, Lethal Weapon put the Beretta 92 front and center more than the Army selecting the M9, and those stupid H&K Match 45's were way overpriced but sold great because of Lara Croft. Mostly it's about variety though, not presence/ absence. Folks like getting the good gun in CoD in real life even if it's over priced and doesn't perform any different than others. Most criminals use whatever is available or cheapest, rather than shopping around. (Hence why Lorcins and Ravens were high crime guns, long after they'd gone out of business.)

Wow, gun owners are easily swayed by action movies, what a great way to make them look like reasonable folks.

Hell, I'd love to get a sten gun, since they're cool and I used it a lot in an old Wolfenstein game, but I'm not paying over $1000 for a pipe with a trigger. If I was better at welding I'd make my own, but not gonna happen. Others with more disposable income than I will and do spend such money. Trying to link these things to criminal misuse of firearms is a huge misunderstanding of the "gun culture" for the most part, and it's generally quite willful ignorance since many "gun people" are more than happy to explain and show the differences and why the laws are generally as willfully ignorant as the campaigners. But why bother trying to explain the 80% rules or the brace debate to folks that simply do not care to learn?

Fun fact, the amount of gun owners that are in favour of a police permit before purchasing a firearm are at about 75% since the 70s.

source

[Svifnymr]

Do you have a source for that or is it a bunch of stories from the old folks that tell you this?

There is no study that I have seen, thus me saying anecdotally. I worked at gun stores for 15 years, so many conversations with a variety of gun people, coupled with many conversations with non-gun people discussing guns as they grew up.

Guns were more common in households before the 90's than after, but there was not a huge difference of households with firearms compared to the ones without, it was about 40%-50% in the 70s and 80s and went down to between 30%-40% from then on. I can't find anything on the 20's, 30's or so.

Part of the issue would be the whole process of surveys and the reliance on it for information of course. Just as a point of discussion, I'd imagine the 80's and 90's would also be when a lot of gun owners would be less likely to trust surveys on gun ownership. Though yeah, I don't see a lot of phone surveys being done in the 20's or 30's, eh? In either case, that would sync with my experience that gun ownership was as/ more common before the 90's.

What thing accelerated? From the 80s to the 90s Gun ownership rate was already on a downward trend, now considering more people moved to the cities in these times, your conclusion seems to be at odds with reality.

Accelerating "things", I missed an S. Things being that gun owners converted more towards the current competition/ defensive use and a wider variety of guns rather than just a few closet guns. It would be handy if you'd view this as a conversation rather than trying to disprove a gun-nuts conclusions, we're not drafting law or solving the worlds problems, so there's not a lot of reasons to look for means of attack in every conversation, especially when you don't apply such a policy equally.

Wow, gun owners are easily swayed by action movies, what a great way to make them look like reasonable folks.

You have no collectibles? Never wanted the A-team van or the Knight rider car? Guns also hold their value pretty well, and there are many attached hobbies besides competition and stuff. Granted, whatsisname is gone now, but some in this thread over the years have been bewildered by collectible guns that were never designed to be shot.

[Mayhem]

There is no study that I have seen, thus me saying anecdotally. I worked at gun stores for 15 years, so many conversations with a variety of gun people, coupled with many conversations with non-gun people discussing guns as they grew up.

I am just interested in information about gun ownership from before the 70s to get some sort of perspective.

Part of the issue would be the whole process of surveys and the reliance on it for information of course. Just as a point of discussion, I'd imagine the 80's and 90's would also be when a lot of gun owners would be less likely to trust surveys on gun ownership. Though yeah, I don't see a lot of phone surveys being done in the 20's or 30's, eh? In either case, that would sync with my experience that gun ownership was as/ more common before the 90's.

Why would they be less likely to trust surveys? The majority of them were and are for stricter gun control.

Accelerating "things", I missed an S. Things being that gun owners converted more towards the current competition/ defensive use and a wider variety of guns rather than just a few closet guns. It would be handy if you'd view this as a conversation rather than trying to disprove a gun-nuts conclusions, we're not drafting law or solving the worlds problems, so there's not a lot of reasons to look for means of attack in every conversation, especially when you don't apply such a policy equally.

Ok, can you write this again in one paragraph? Maybe without the things part? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You have no collectibles? Never wanted the A-team van or the Knight rider car? Guns also hold their value pretty well, and there are many attached hobbies besides competition and stuff. Granted, whatsisname is gone now, but some in this thread over the years have been bewildered by collectible guns that were never designed to be shot.

You weren't talking about collectibles when saying people were influenced by movies and video games to buy Berettas and H&K Match, were you? Buying something that is used in a movie without any resemblance to that movie does not make it a collectible.

Every gmc vandura bought after the A-Team was on TV does not make it a collectible.

[Kellhound]

The 9mm Highpoint carbines are about $300. And they have a good reputation for being reliable and effective. The issue now is getting one.

Also, I am now seeing Rural King adds for .22 cal revolvers for less than $200.

Ruger Wrangler .22 revolvers are $200.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a source for that or is it a bunch of stories from the old folks that tell you this?

Guns were more common in households before the 90's than after, but there was not a huge difference of households with firearms compared to the ones without, it was about 40%-50% in the 70s and 80s and went down to between 30%-40% from then on. I can't find anything on the 20's, 30's or so.



What thing accelerated? From the 80s to the 90s Gun ownership rate was already on a downward trend, now considering more people moved to the cities in these times, your conclusion seems to be at odds with reality.



Wow, gun owners are easily swayed by action movies, what a great way to make them look like reasonable folks.



Fun fact, the amount of gun owners that are in favour of a police permit before purchasing a firearm are at about 75% since the 70s.

source

Well, in junior high in a bedroom community of a liberal city, we were required to pass the state hunter's safety program as part of gym class, including demonstrating the safe handling and firing of school owned rifles.

[Mayhem]

Well, in junior high in a bedroom community of a liberal city, we were required to pass the state hunter's safety program as part of gym class, including demonstrating the safe handling and firing of school owned rifles.

Ok, how is this related to my post?

[Theleftarefilth]

I love how this piece of filth known as Elgiac, the fat virgin nerd who in 2021 sits all day on a crappy forum board (holy shit MMO, update your tired site), can literally sit there wishing nothing but harm against someone who won't immediately take the vaccine straight away, no question asked. His view is that if you don't want to take the vaccine for *any* reason, you are a piece of garbage who should be exposed to as much Covid as possible.

Scum. But that's the left for you.

[Zython]

It is more complicated than that, if you'd like to have a real discussion about it.

I'm sure the NRA had very good justification for disarming black people.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention that firearms *are* pretty affordable already. It's a completely artificial complaint. The only thing pushing prices up now is basic supply and demand, but in "normal times" you can get a very quality compact or duty-sized pistol in the $400-$600 range, and there are in fact really worthwhile entry level offerings below that (again, subject to demand).

Not even counting the Hi-Point offerings, which, while not going to win you any IPDA matches do go bang when you pull the trigger and do so with more than sufficient minute-of-bad-guy accuracy. Taurus and Bersa have good options, and even FMK (I can't even imagine how they manage to stay in business in CA of all places) have options in the $250-$450 range. Just checked, even right now you can get Taurus TH9 which is it's counterpart to a Smith M&P/Glock 19 tier duty sized pistol on gunbroker for $349.

You've...never talked to a poor person, have you?

Unless @Zython has a notion of "affordability" that makes firearms immune to demand or gets you a Walther or H&K for $179.99, this complaint is complete BS.

Well, ideally, affordable = free. That way, even the most destitute of us can defend ourselves against oppression from capitalistic forces and the state.

[Svifnymr]

Why would they be less likely to trust surveys? The majority of them were and are for stricter gun control.

That's a bit of circular logic though, really. Surveys saying people want more gun control, so the people should be expected to answer questions about guns/ gun control truthfully?

You weren't talking about collectibles when saying people were influenced by movies and video games to buy Berettas and H&K Match, were you? Buying something that is used in a movie without any resemblance to that movie does not make it a collectible.

Every gmc vandura bought after the A-Team was on TV does not make it a collectible.

It doesn't have to be a registered collectible sold as such to fill the same niche for the buyer. If someone buys a black gmc vandura with a red stripe, but it's not labeled "A-Team commemorative edition!", it doesn't mean they didn't buy it because it reminded them of the A-team van. There was no H&K Match, Tomb Raider Edition, but plenty of people wanted to own one due to the connection. The van could still be driven, the gun can still be shot, but the influence to buy it is due to the link with the other material. In the past, I've mentioned such things as engraved Colt SAA's whose value is derived from their artistic work and they are not meant to be fired at all, but was told they aren't real guns then, even though they are perfectly capable of being fired.

Either way, the other posters theory was that gun ownership increased due to action movies. My counterpoint was that the variety of guns increased for many reasons during that time, but that overall gun ownership did not really increase.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure the NRA had very good justification for disarming black people.

Didn't figure you did.

You've...never talked to a poor person, have you?

Have you? What sort of guns do you believe they own? Or are you postulating that they do not, indeed, have guns in poor areas of the country?

The government should not be increasing costs, but the idea of government subsidizing the costs is a different argument.

[Mayhem]

That's a bit of circular logic though, really. Surveys saying people want more gun control, so the people should be expected to answer questions about guns/ gun control truthfully?

Surveys report what people answered. If you don't trust anonymous surveys why would you participate or lie? Why would you answer in a way that might lead to something you don't like? What's the logic in that?

It doesn't have to be a registered collectible sold as such to fill the same niche for the buyer. If someone buys a black gmc vandura with a red stripe, but it's not labeled "A-Team commemorative edition!", it doesn't mean they didn't buy it because it reminded them of the A-team van. There was no H&K Match, Tomb Raider Edition, but plenty of people wanted to own one due to the connection. The van could still be driven, the gun can still be shot, but the influence to buy it is due to the link with the other material. In the past, I've mentioned such things as engraved Colt SAA's whose value is derived from their artistic work and they are not meant to be fired at all, but was told they aren't real guns then, even though they are perfectly capable of being fired.

Either way, the other posters theory was that gun ownership increased due to action movies. My counterpoint was that the variety of guns increased for many reasons during that time, but that overall gun ownership did not really increase.

Yeah, it actually fell.

[Edge-]

That's a bit of circular logic though, really. Surveys saying people want more gun control, so the people should be expected to answer questions about guns/ gun control truthfully?

What the hell does this even mean?

So people are influenced by response to previous surveys? People don't have opinions? People lie on surveys for the lulz? For some kind of social points despite them being anonymous? That surveys are all worthless and why even take them?

This is sure a weird way to try to argue against data, but here we are.

[Svifnymr]

What the hell does this even mean?

So people are influenced by response to previous surveys? People don't have opinions? People lie on surveys for the lulz? For some kind of social points despite them being anonymous? That surveys are all worthless and why even take them?

This is sure a weird way to try to argue against data, but here we are.

If you don't want to tell a random person on the phone that you have guns, you will probably lie or not answer. Either way would swell the anti-numbers. You seem to be assuming I said that proves anything, but what I was saying was that Mayhem's idea of "why lie when surveys show X" is flawed. If surveys show people are for more gun control, that would not encourage folks that oppose gun control to take more surveys or answer truthfully or take those surveys more seriously.

[Mayhem]

If you don't want to tell a random person on the phone that you have guns, you will probably lie or not answer. Either way would swell the anti-numbers. You seem to be assuming I said that proves anything, but what I was saying was that Mayhem's idea of "why lie when surveys show X" is flawed. If surveys show people are for more gun control, that would not encourage folks that oppose gun control to take more surveys or answer truthfully or take those surveys more seriously.

You haven't clicked the link, have you?

[Edge-]

If you don't want to tell a random person on the phone that you have guns, you will probably lie or not answer.

Why would you lie about this? Is there some secret, concerted effort on the part of gun owners to lie about their positions in polls or something? Aren't gun owners proud, and frequently making their ownership and love of firearms very public?

Either way would swell the anti-numbers.

No, not answering is a non-response. It doesn't change the numbers. Only responses affect polls and surveys.

You seem to be assuming I said that proves anything, but what I was saying was that Mayhem's idea of "why lie when surveys show X" is flawed.

But you haven't actually established that. You've just claimed that, "Well, people are probably lying." without evidence, because the result of the survey doesn't support your beliefs.

If surveys show people are for more gun control, that would not encourage folks that oppose gun control to take more surveys or answer truthfully or take those surveys more seriously.

Or...wait for it...this is gonna be wild so hear me out...

The surveys are accurate and the people opposing any gun control measures are truly a tiny minority and the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, back various limits and requirements for gun ownership.

Which has been the case for decades and decades.

Unless this is part of a multi-generational con-job by gun owners, in which case you need to get me into these meetings, dude. They sound absolutely fascinating to plan our multi-generational survey manipulation to harm their own cause.

[Svifnymr]

You haven't clicked the link, have you?

I looked at it, sure. Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you lie about this? Is there some secret, concerted effort on the part of gun owners to lie about their positions in polls or something? Aren't gun owners proud, and frequently making their ownership and love of firearms very public?

Gun owners vary, obviously, but many will not broadcast their gun ownership. Some will have bumper stickers for their favorite companies.

No, not answering is a non-response. It doesn't change the numbers. Only responses affect polls and surveys.

So if 100 people are surveyed, and 50 are pro gun and 50 are antigun, and 25 of the pro gun people don't answer, how accurate is the poll? But again, since that wasn't what I was talking about, why are we going down this road?

But you haven't actually established that. You've just claimed that, "Well, people are probably lying." without evidence, because the result of the survey doesn't support your beliefs.

Oh, is that what I said? Weird, maybe you're just reading into a discussion from your own personal bias rather than trying to have a conversation?

Or...wait for it...this is gonna be wild so hear me out...

The surveys are accurate and the people opposing any gun control measures are truly a tiny minority and the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, back various limits and requirements for gun ownership.

Entirely possible, certainly. A "tiny minority" is a bit unspecified of course, especially when comparing gun ownership rates to gun misuse rates, double especially when discussing rifles, but so be it.

Which has been the case for decades and decades.

Unless this is part of a multi-generational con-job by gun owners, in which case you need to get me into these meetings, dude. They sound absolutely fascinating to plan our multi-generational survey manipulation to harm their own cause.

You wouldn't be invited to the meetings, you don't seem to know how to have a conversation without accusations when it's a subject you're biased about. At least you're just dismissive rather than personal attacks, granted.

To continue the discussion though, when you look at trust numbers on various surveys (trust in press, trust in government, et cetera), it is not a vast conspiracy of interlinked people planning out how they distrust systems. It is a lot of people that don't trust X. People not answering surveys accurately is not a new thing, I don't know if it's more or less than before. But, the idea that answers to surveys prove people answer surveys because you like the answers they gave is really not a thing for me.

[Edge-]

So if 100 people are surveyed, and 50 are pro gun and 50 are antigun, and 25 of the pro gun people don't answer, how accurate is the poll? But again, since that wasn't what I was talking about, why are we going down this road?

That's not how polling works, and is fundamentally an argument against the entire premise of surveys/polls as data points. People can lie so all information is meaningless etc. etc.

Oh, is that what I said? Weird, maybe you're just reading into a discussion from your own personal bias rather than trying to have a conversation?

You've offered nothing beyond, "Well, maybe they're not telling the truth or not responding." as an unsupported claim. Excuse me if I don't treat it as serious.

Entirely possible, certainly. A "tiny minority" is a bit unspecified of course, especially when comparing gun ownership rates to gun misuse rates, double especially when discussing rifles, but so be it.

Ownership, misuse rates, and rifles are irrelevant here. None of those are the question. The question is whether or not there is support for limits and restrictions, where there is, or whether there's support for largely stripping any limitation or requiring any process to get guns, which there's not.

If you have data that shows otherwise, I'd love to read it!

You wouldn't be invited to the meetings, you don't seem to know how to have a conversation without accusations when it's a subject you're biased about. At least you're just dismissive rather than personal attacks, granted.

It's a joke, mostly, because the foundation of the argument seems to be that gun owners have been intentionally or unintentionally misleading pollsters for decades which is...a bold claim.

To continue the discussion though, when you look at trust numbers on various surveys (trust in press, trust in government, et cetera), it is not a vast conspiracy of interlinked people planning out how they distrust systems. It is a lot of people that don't trust X.

Which is a much more recent phenomenon and doesn't account for or explain the decades of data we have on this topic that predate this shift to lunacy.

People not answering surveys accurately is not a new thing, I don't know if it's more or less than before. But, the idea that answers to surveys prove people answer surveys because you like the answers they gave is really not a thing for me.

Again, whether you intend it or not, this is an argument against polls/surveys as a whole. And I don't care about the answers from a survey, I care more about the methodology. Good methodology gets you better results, whether you "like" the results or not. I'm not here just for results that confirm my biases or beliefs, I'm here for results that are closer to the truth so that I can have a better understanding of people and topics.

[Mayhem]

I looked at it, sure. Why?

So in all the years, the ones conducting the survey found just by chance year after year the same amount of people where roughly 70% are for stricter gun control?