Just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters would feel safer living in a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun over one where they could have a gun for their own protection
The question Rasmussen asked was, ”Would you feel safer moving to a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun or a neighborhood where you could have a gun for your own protection?” From this, outfit drew the conclusion that ”Americans prefer living in neighborhoods with guns. This seems fair to me. After all, if you have the right to own a gun, everyone else does too. At the very least, though, one can take from this inquiry that the vast majority of Americans want the capacity to own a firearm for their protection, and that they would not want to move somewhere where it was prohibited….(read more)
Source: A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters would feel safer living in a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun over one where they could have a gun for their own protection.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) would feel safer in a neighborhood where guns are allowed, while 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.
Robert VerBruggen writes:
In a new Voxsplainer on gun violence, Dylan Matthews claims:
Protestations of gun rights supporters aside, public health researchers who study firearms generally agree that increased firearm ownership rates are associated with higher rates of homicide. … Developed countries with more guns generally have more homicide; states within the US with more guns have more homicide…
The two assertions at the end are not true, and the first sentence explains why: If you want to give a good account of a debate about gun statistics, you don’t treat the consensus of “public health researchers” as gospel. The field is notorious for its anti-gun bias, and there’s a whole literature of work outside of it.
It’s true (as Matthews notes) that there are some studies showing guns to be associated with increased homicide once other factors have been statistically “controlled” (a highly subjective process that can be manipulated, even subconsciously, to make the data say whatever the researcher wants them to say). But there is no simple relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates as such, either among developed countries or among states in the U.S. Read the rest of this entry »
“There’s a reason I’m admitting to all of this. It’s a kind of public service.”
I received fair warning that this would happen. Even before we were married, my husband announced his general intention to own a gun. A year or so back he started researching the topic more earnestly, and then one afternoon there was a gun sitting on my kitchen table. It was unloaded, of course.
“The thing is, I don’t come from a gun-happy culture. Apart from my husband, I doubt any of my near relations have experience with firearms.”
We had extensive conversations about trigger locks and all the other safety measures. I know that the kids can’t get it, and are in fact far more likely to be injured by stairs or cleaning solutions or sporting equipment. Intuitively it still feels like a menace.
“Gun violence is not some mysterious malady that simply befalls us against our will, like a cancer or a natural disaster.”
The thing is, I don’t come from a gun-happy culture. Apart from my husband, I doubt any of my near relations have experience with firearms. Mind you, I was raised by conservatives, but Mormons trend towards a communitarian, good-government brand of conservatism. They’re rarely drawn to the more suspicious and individualistic culture of the N.R.A. If my parents had any gun-owning friends when I was growing up, I wasn’t aware.
Awr Hawkins writes: Since 1998, John Lott‘s seminal work More Guns, Less Crime has been used to show that areas with the highest gun ownership in America experience the least crime on a per capita basis.
It now appears that what Lott discovered as true for the U.S.A. is true for the world as well as.
Delusional Guardian Op-Ed Writer Plots Fantasy Invasion of U.S.A., Under Guise of ‘Humanitarian Emergency’, Begs U.N. SupportPosted: September 22, 2013
American gun use is out of control. Shouldn’t the world intervene?
Perhaps still upset by the anti-Monarchial outcome of the Revolutionary War, in a breathlessly-sincere royal snit fit, The Guardian Observer’s Henry Porter reveals how deeply alarmed he is about America’s out-of-control “gun” problem, and calls upon civilized world powers to mount an intervention! ‘America, come to your senses, and impose much stricter gun-control measures! ‘ appears to be his prescription. Even though the evidence proves stricter gun control laws don’t work, they don’t reduce murder rates, and in fact may increase violent crime rates–or as Cam Edwards said: “If gun control laws worked, Chicago would be Mayberry“–alas, the former colonists are just a little too wild for Porter’s delicate sensibliites. Using the same misleading statistics all pro-control activists like to repeat, Porter whips up a righteous fury.
Revealingly, Porter’s original article mistakenly said that Edward Kennedy was shot in 1968. This has since been corrected. If this is any indication of the author’s grasp of basic historical facts, the reader will know what to expect. We hope some of his other errors are corrected soon, too.
Example: reference to this study “high gun ownership makes countries less safe, study finds” — but when you get to the conclusion, it weasels out with “Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths…” (note: studies such as this intentionally make no distinction between homicides and suicides, masking them beneath the singular term “gun deaths’, to enable the less observant reader to more easily conclude that each death represents a violent murder) Perhaps Porter should take note of the more recent Harvard Gun Study, which, like all credible studies on the subject, concludes that Gun Bans Don’t Reduce the Murder Rate.