The survey has nothing to do with attitudes, and everything to do with where guns are.
After a census on who owns guns, which doesn't really impact the issue here, was this:
While 21% of urban gun owners say there would be more crime if more Americans owned guns, only 9% of rural gun owners agree. Another 57% of rural owners say there would be less crime, a view shared by 47% of urban owners.
That's attitude/feeling. Followed by:
One key and defining characteristic of gun owners is the extent to which they associate the right to own guns with their own personal sense of freedom.
That's more feeling in lieu of science. Then it talks about how they store their guns. And none of it addressed what I called for or impacted this discussion meaningfully.
Where guns are is a lower violent crime rate. Where guns aren't is a higher violent crime rate.
That's just not true and nothing you've advanced makes it so.
Now here's a little something on point for you, a link to a recent release by a Stanford University study on whether good guys carrying guns reduces crime.
Excerpts:
Economist John Lott first developed this “More Guns, Less Crime” theory in his 1998 book of the same title, and has since popularized it via frequent legislative testimony and op-eds. The NRA has deployed Lott’s work to beat back calls for new curbs on guns and their use. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, when NRA leader Wayne LaPierre made his infamous assertion that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he was tapping into the already well-seeded notion that hidden guns at arm’s reach of their private owners increase public safety.
It’s a powerful, seductive idea, particularly to Americans who favor personal liberty over communitarian ideals. It’s also completely wrong, according to a new analysis of nearly 40 years’ worth of crime data...Examining statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting data, the authors estimate that states with stricter concealed-carry laws saw crime fall by 42 percent from 1977 to 2014. That drop is more than four times greater than the 9 percent decrease seen in right-to-carry states.
Link
What else is going on where the higher crimes rates are, and directly related to most violent crime, is gangs, black markets, and broken families.
You said that already, without particular backing, but I responded I'm fine with continuing to try and alter much of what flows from poverty and poverty itself, but those problems have been historically resistant and they're a lot more complicated. Do that, by all means, but in addition and not as a yellow brick road.
You don't care about poverty.
I spent a lot of my life working for poor people, protecting them as a lawyer, helping their children with Americorps, etc. Lay off lying directly about me because it suits your narrative.
Poverty isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence. You might say the disparity of income has a strong correlation with violent crime, but not poverty itself.
lain:
Not precise, but obfuscating with unimportant details.
That's a load of bull along the "too many notes" line.
The reason to try shooting with a jackhammer is to impress your friends that you can do it.
No, it's one among many reasons, the juvenile one and one that were it the primary would be an even more sound reason to eliminate it, both for its impact as an aide to mass shootings and because of the juvenile mindset directing the weapon.
You think taking useless things that other people own away from them will somehow fix a problem without knowing if it will or not. It won't fix any problem except for making innocent people angry because you are taking their stuff for no reason.
Actually, as I've noted repeatedly, you're wrong and every Western democracy outside of our own with universal, tougher gun laws gives evidence of your error. So you try to reduce it to paranoid conspiracy theory, mind reading, and "taking".
I have too. And my ideas are magnitudes more directly relatable to the problem than yours.
Your opinion of your opinion is as unsupported by empirical data and bereft of serious reason as your solutions are vague and tenuous, to the extent they palpably exist.
Having held off most gun regulation (in fact 'shall issue' and 'constitutional carry' have become the most popular forms of carry legislation) we see crime continue to fall in areas where guns are less restricted. Let's extend that to the high crime areas and see the violent crime rates fall even further.
Rather, crime in this nation has fallen most everywhere as the Baby Boomer generation ages, but as the study from Stanford illustrates, it falls faster where the opposite of your beliefs are in play.
And, more to the point, violent mass shootings are dramatically less frequent in societies that have strong and universal gun laws, which is the ultimate consideration here.
But I care more about people...
All evidence to the contrary.
Your regulations will do nothing to slow the horrible violence...
The opposite is true and observable in any of the Western democracies with universal and tougher gun laws.
And poverty kills a great many more people than violent crime.
Poverty is a serious problem and, again, I'm all for an intelligent and sustained effort at reducing poverty and its impact, including its sponsorship of violence, directly and indirectly.
My solutions do more than yours do by lowering crime and making people richer.
You have a rich fantasy life, but that's not the topic here. What solutions? You've declared some general principles that when pressed you've avoided speaking to and otherwise suggested a general war on this or that. You don't have solutions, Yor. You have rhetoric, you play politician here.
Seriously? You think if your solutions aren't implemented things will get worse?
I think that if we look at models that work better at keeping incidents like the one in Las Vegas from happening, we can manage that here instead of the roughly 30 to 1 disadvantage we have in relation to Australia per million, or the near 30 to near 8 we have over our nearest Western neighbor. That sort of thing. You know, the point here.
