I keep seeing this posted over and over and over again, and I’d like to see some solid cites. Can you show me that recreational shooting is such a widespread event that most people that own guns participate in it?
This link says 45 million people have hunted. It’s painful how they got to that number for what it’s worth.
The rising number of gun massacres doesn’t track any increase in the availability of firearms; so it isn’t like there used to be all these would-be killers out there previously thwarted for lack of guns. Somehow, committing slaughter/suicide has become a fad. I think it’s a cultural phenomenon, with many contributing factors. The publicity over such killings, ever-more realistically violent shooter games, the Internet letting even the most depraved find like-minded people, and probably others.
There are 16,000+ indoor firing ranges in the United States.
According to NBC about 1/3 of Americans own guns.
Now if you deduct criminals and people that only have guns for work (security guards etc.)
You are left with one hell of a lot of people that own guns for recreation.
Don’t forget the outdoor ranges and in rural area a “range” is the field out back.
The gun issue is dead for the foreseeable future. But hey, maybe some of these arguments can be recycled against military armament programs. Focusing on new planes, new tanks, etc. is misleading. It’s not so much about the tool as what’s in the person’s heart. Planes and tanks don’t kill people, people kill people. You can kill someone with a shovel or knife if you really want to.
What percentage of people that own handguns use these firing ranges?
The only thing that might cause action on any kind of gun restriction is if some lunatic got into the House chamber with a 100 rd clip in an assault rifle and mowed down about 30-40 of them, mostlly republicans.
First off, “over and over and over again”? Can I have a cite you’ve seen this claim a minimum of 3 times? The post you quote from obbn doesn’t count since that post isn’t making the claim you state.
Second, what kind of cite are you looking for? The claim you identify in your post is not the claim you quoted - did you make a mistake in characterizing the claim or did you intentionally change the claim for some reason? Who is making the claim that recreational shooting is such a widespread event that most people that own guns participate in it? These questions, and ones like this:
What point are you trying to make? If the answer is 10%, 20%, 80%, or 100%, what would be your response? If it’s simply for your own personal edification have you made any effort whatsoever to answer your own question? If there is a point to your JAQ, beyond some not very subtle attempt at a gotcha, please enlighten me.
In any event, a more reasonable way to parse and interpret obbn’s post #160 is as follows:
[ol]
[li]The vast majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens; and[/li][li]who use their weapons for recreational shooting; and[/li][li]have them for the rare chance that they might be used in defense of self and family[/li][/ol]
For #1, this seems self evident. With 80+ million gun owners, the number that are criminals is no where near a majority. You can define “vast” however you’d like.
For #2 and #3, the following 2005 Gallup pollindicates that:
Around 2/3 for each of #2 and #3. This 2013 survey shows similar results, though the questions have changed so it is not directly comparable:
So yes, this took about zero seconds to find. My search parameters were “gun owner use reason” without quotes. It was the first hit.
Past a certain point I’d suspect that the raw numbers are less of an issue than the availability of guns and restrictions thereof.
In the USA, pretty much anyone can get their hands on a handgun and there are hundreds of millions already out there. So no, give or take a hundred million guns I don’t think the actual amount matters unless you drove it down to other, first-world levels.
Of course the problem with your suggestion is that all those cultural phenomena you mention apply to other countries just as easily but they have
a) an order of magnitude less weapons than the USA
b) far more restrictive controls with access to weapons severely curtailed
And similar shootings are far, far less prevalent than in the USA, I’d suggest that limitations on access to guns and a far lower level of legal gun ownership contributes greatly to keeping those incidents at low level.
Bone, I don’t disagree with any of your points in that post, but I do wonder about the stats. The US Fish and Wildlife survey in 2011 found that 13.7 million people hunted in one year. 58% of 80+ million is a lot more than 13.7, so some of the estimates seem way off.
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2011_Survey.htm
Rather than restrict guns, I’d prefer that we somehow go back to 2005, when there were just as many guns but fewer massacres.
We keep being told that Obama and the Democrats are causing runs on gun stores, spiking sales. Gun advocates love to claim people are clamoring for more guns because of gun control advocates.
So, how could there be the same number of guns?
I wasn’t looking to “parse and interpret” obbn’s post #160. I was wanting to see if the claim he made was true or not. Is it?
And if the vast majority of guns are used recreationally, how can Obama be the cause of the spike in sales?
It’s obviously true as I illustrated in my post. Your interpretation of his claim was in error. Do you see your mistake now?
Your “mistake” was seeing interpretations that just weren’t there. To paraphrase Freud, “Sometimes a question is just a question.”
Nonetheless, I don’t see a case for claiming that the upsurge in massacres has been caused by increased access to guns.
So, despite being wrong, you’re still right? 