Area gun sales, fears rising

Area gun sales, fears rising

There are 7574 comments on the North Port Sun story from Nov 14, 2012, titled Area gun sales, fears rising. In it, North Port Sun reports that:

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at North Port Sun.

xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6085 Apr 2, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly something to brag about, the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world – by far, it has also the highest rate of homicides among any advanced countries. Even while gun crime has been declining and gun ownership increases.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2...
See my above response about gun ownership increasing.

The lower violent crime rate is proportional with the leniency of gun laws in the US--particularly with more states allowing citizens to carry and use their firearms. While there is no direct study of this, it's pretty coincidental.

Regardless of what happens in other countries, we are on the right path and we don't need Democrats messing with a successful trend. People should not be experiments for political points. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Recreational narcotics have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet the US has the highest percentage of their people in prison compared to the rest of the industrialized world, and narcotics is the main reason.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6087 Apr 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>Not according to the Huffington Post:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-04-27-s...
Interesting.
Did they quote sources for that information? Was it poll information? Was that new gun purchases only? How do they track inherited, gifted, or person to person transferred guns?

I'm certainly not above admitting being incorrect. But this also comes from the source that claims 70-80 million gun owners in the US and also claims 47% of the US claims gun ownership, in the same article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/...
Last time I checked, 47% of the US population is nearly 150 million people.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6088 Apr 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Did they quote sources for that information? Was it poll information? Was that new gun purchases only? How do they track inherited, gifted, or person to person transferred guns?
I'm certainly not above admitting being incorrect. But this also comes from the source that claims 70-80 million gun owners in the US and also claims 47% of the US claims gun ownership, in the same article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/...
Last time I checked, 47% of the US population is nearly 150 million people.
I've done some research on this, and from what I've found, experts say there is no possible way to track all firearms in the country. Sure, they may survey, use new gun purchases, used gun purchases, but because we have no strict system where everybody must register all firearms, there is no scientific way to tell.

But what I will conclude from these studies is that there is not an increase in armed citizenry. A decrease? Possibly. But certainly not an increase. Who knows, maybe it's the same. I think that the amount of citizens owning firearms is irrelevant. As I stated before, I believe the decrease in violent crime in our country is because more citizens are armed along with more lenient gun laws for law-abiding citizens.

Here in Oho, it was not that long ago where shooting an intruder in your home would lead you to being arrested. Granted, they didn't slap the cuffs on you and take you downtown, but what you had to do was appear in court and defend yourself from a manslaughter charge. In fact, no matter what was ruled, you were still liable for the injury or death of your intruder.

That's all changed now. Now, you don't have to leave your home if possible when an intruder breaks in. You don't even have to have your doors locked. You can legally kill an intruder with no ramifications at all. That gives criminals something to think about before they break in.

Deterrent is the key. The more deterrent you offer an attacker, the less likely you are to being attacked. There are a lot of Americans who won't own a gun--but the criminals don't know who those people are.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6089 Apr 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>I've done some research on this, and from what I've found, experts say there is no possible way to track all firearms in the country. Sure, they may survey, use new gun purchases, used gun purchases, but because we have no strict system where everybody must register all firearms, there is no scientific way to tell.

But what I will conclude from these studies is that there is not an increase in armed citizenry. A decrease? Possibly. But certainly not an increase. Who knows, maybe it's the same. I think that the amount of citizens owning firearms is irrelevant. As I stated before, I believe the decrease in violent crime in our country is because more citizens are armed along with more lenient gun laws for law-abiding citizens.

Here in Oho, it was not that long ago where shooting an intruder in your home would lead you to being arrested. Granted, they didn't slap the cuffs on you and take you downtown, but what you had to do was appear in court and defend yourself from a manslaughter charge. In fact, no matter what was ruled, you were still liable for the injury or death of your intruder.

That's all changed now. Now, you don't have to leave your home if possible when an intruder breaks in. You don't even have to have your doors locked. You can legally kill an intruder with no ramifications at all. That gives criminals something to think about before they break in.

Deterrent is the key. The more deterrent you offer an attacker, the less likely you are to being attacked. There are a lot of Americans who won't own a gun--but the criminals don't know who those people are.
That, I will agree with.
I will add that those new laws removing that moment of indecisiveness from the homeowner's response, will save more law abiding citizens' lives as well. It will cost more criminals' theirs for that matter.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#6090 Apr 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I've done some research on this, and from what I've found, experts say there is no possible way to track all firearms in the country. Sure, they may survey, use new gun purchases, used gun purchases, but because we have no strict system where everybody must register all firearms, there is no scientific way to tell.
But what I will conclude from these studies is that there is not an increase in armed citizenry. A decrease? Possibly. But certainly not an increase. Who knows, maybe it's the same. I think that the amount of citizens owning firearms is irrelevant. As I stated before, I believe the decrease in violent crime in our country is because more citizens are armed along with more lenient gun laws for law-abiding citizens.
Here in Oho, it was not that long ago where shooting an intruder in your home would lead you to being arrested. Granted, they didn't slap the cuffs on you and take you downtown, but what you had to do was appear in court and defend yourself from a manslaughter charge. In fact, no matter what was ruled, you were still liable for the injury or death of your intruder.
That's all changed now. Now, you don't have to leave your home if possible when an intruder breaks in. You don't even have to have your doors locked. You can legally kill an intruder with no ramifications at all. That gives criminals something to think about before they break in.
Deterrent is the key. The more deterrent you offer an attacker, the less likely you are to being attacked. There are a lot of Americans who won't own a gun--but the criminals don't know who those people are.
Excellent post. One item for me to address with a different take;

"But what I will conclude from these studies is that there is not an increase in armed citizenry. A decrease? Possibly. But certainly not an increase."

"Sure, they may survey, use new gun purchases, used gun purchases, but because we have no strict system where everybody must register all firearms, there is no scientific way to tell."

My take on this, from my own first hand experience serveral years ago with a survey...as a gun owner, having been "targeted" generically in the news media with continued contempt over the years...I wouldn't reveal any information on a telephone survey regarding my gun ownership.

Maybe that's just me...but I'm willing to bet there's more than just me not giving out that type of information on some telephone survey. So for me, I also take that into consideration whenever I see or hear that gun ownership is decreasing.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#6091 Apr 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your proof he had no reason? Deaths occur in war. Is one more intelligent than another? Your tangent is irrelevant to the topic that was being discussed.
Funny. I don't recall him attaining his objective. Especially since he could never confirm them in the first place!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#6092 Apr 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
DumBama does both:
It's Bush's fault. It's still Bush's fault. It's the Republican Congress's fault. It's Rush Limnbaugh's fault. It's Fox News fault.
lol! Boy! You sure do love to give yourself doors to escape from don't you son?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6093 Apr 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the Huffington Post:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-04-27-s...
consider the source

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6094 Apr 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Funny. I don't recall him attaining his objective. Especially since he could never confirm them in the first place!
Do you think the US public gets briefed on all criteria leading to war?
Do you think the POTUS declares war by himself?
You offer nothing more than opinions.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#6095 Apr 3, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
You offer nothing more than opinions.
Unlike you who documents all your "hearsay" posts - yemoron!
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#6096 Apr 3, 2013
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The United States is the most gun-obsessed of any modern societies. You can bet, when it’s time to defend gun rights, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is never far from being invoked.

One must understand that, back in the days, Negroes outnumbered whites for most of the south, and the state militia were used to both prevent and put down slave uprisings. History tells us that – slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of the Southern police state was the explicit job of the militia – as protected by the Second Amendment. Also, leading up to the Revolutionary War, British Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces, enticing many Southern slaves to flee northward. Ultimately, numerous freed slaves served in Gen. Washington’s army.

Originally, there were state-mandated militias nationwide. In the South these were called “slave patrols,” and were used to suppress slave uprisings, to keep them in chains on the plantation and to round up runaway slaves. Militia laws in the Southern states required most white men between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun and be a member of one of these militias. Southern states’ slave militia remained in place until the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th through 16th Amendments, when they converted to vigilante groups, the best known being the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Second Amendment remained intact, though its original purpose became obsolete.

Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment, as encouraged by Thomas Jefferson, was:“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
To appease the Southern states’ powerful slave-holding politicians, the language was edited and made unambiguous.

Madison subsequently changed the word “country” to “state” and rewrote the Second Amendment as thus:“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Madison could never have imagined that one day his slave patrol militia amendment would be used to protect the right of gun manufacturing corporations — now declared a person by our Supreme Court — aided and abetted by the NRA. The right-wing Supreme Court recently broke with centuries of precedent by deciding that the “militia” phrase was mere “throat-clearing” and that the right to keep and bear is an individual right.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6097 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? So according to your brilliant logic, US drug manufacturers make products specifically made to kill?
I did NOT say "US drug manufacturers make products specifically made to kill". I said that drugs from regulated pharmacuetical companies kill more people than guns every year.

But, using your TWISTED logic, gun and ammunition manuafacturers produces guns ONLY to kill people. Thus, the DHS plans on killing millions of people based upon their current purchases.

See, I can play your childish game too!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6098 Apr 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>He invaded a country for no reason, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and over 4,400+ dead troops not to mention the cost.
What part of any of this is intelligent son?
No, according to libbies: Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. And yet, we still have skyrocketing gas prices.
BTW, more U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded during President Barack Obama’s first term in office than former President George W. Bush’s two terms. And the anti-war mainstream media that regularly counted the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, for the most part, has been silent on the number of deaths and casualties that have resulted under Obama.
Under former President George W. Bush, 575 American soldiers died and fewer than 3,000 were wounded in Afghanistan. This means under Obama, at least 1,405 soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 additional soldiers have been wounded, which means 70% of the deaths and nearly 80% of the injuries in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama’s watch.

I thought messiah was gonna get our boys home? Guess he's a bigger warmonger than Bush, eh?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6099 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The United States is the most gun-obsessed of any modern societies. You can bet, when itÂ’s time to defend gun rights, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is never far from being invoked.

One must understand that, back in the days, Negroes outnumbered whites for most of the south, and the state militia were used to both prevent and put down slave uprisings. History tells us that – slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of the Southern police state was the explicit job of the militia – as protected by the Second Amendment. Also, leading up to the Revolutionary War, British Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces, enticing many Southern slaves to flee northward. Ultimately, numerous freed slaves served in Gen. Washington’s army.

Originally, there were state-mandated militias nationwide. In the South these were called “slave patrols,” and were used to suppress slave uprisings, to keep them in chains on the plantation and to round up runaway slaves. Militia laws in the Southern states required most white men between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun and be a member of one of these militias. Southern states’ slave militia remained in place until the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th through 16th Amendments, when they converted to vigilante groups, the best known being the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Second Amendment remained intact, though its original purpose became obsolete.

Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment, as encouraged by Thomas Jefferson, was:“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
To appease the Southern statesÂ’ powerful slave-holding politicians, the language was edited and made unambiguous.

Madison subsequently changed the word “country” to “state” and rewrote the Second Amendment as thus:“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Madison could never have imagined that one day his slave patrol militia amendment would be used to protect the right of gun manufacturing corporations — now declared a person by our Supreme Court — aided and abetted by the NRA. The right-wing Supreme Court recently broke with centuries of precedent by deciding that the “militia” phrase was mere “throat-clearing” and that the right to keep and bear is an individual right.
Aside from your first paragraph, which we all know verbatim, please state your source for the remainder of your post.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#6100 Apr 3, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I did NOT say "US drug manufacturers make products specifically made to kill". I said that drugs from regulated pharmacuetical companies kill more people than guns every year.
But, using your TWISTED logic, gun and ammunition manuafacturers produces guns ONLY to kill people. Thus, the DHS plans on killing millions of people based upon their current purchases.
See, I can play your childish game too!
I know what you said ... just following your moronic logic!!
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#6101 Apr 3, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from your first paragraph, which we all know verbatim, please state your source for the remainder of your post.
Don't you know how to read history books?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#6102 Apr 3, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I did NOT say "US drug manufacturers make products specifically made to kill". I said that drugs from regulated pharmacuetical companies kill more people than guns every year.
But, using your TWISTED logic, gun and ammunition manuafacturers produces guns ONLY to kill people. Thus, the DHS plans on killing millions of people based upon their current purchases.
See, I can play your childish game too!
How does one argue with someone that does not have the mental capacity to even acknowledge simple facts ... guns are specifically made to kill or inflict damage to incapacitate!! The fact that they also give some, like you, a friggen hard-on is strictly a byproduct!!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6103 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you know how to read history books?
Avoidance. What a surprise. Typical liberal!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6104 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you said ... just following your moronic logic!!
No. You demonstrated a failure of logic.

Not surprising since libbies pluck heart strings over fact and true logic.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6105 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
How does one argue with someone that does not have the mental capacity to even acknowledge simple facts ... guns are specifically made to kill or inflict damage to incapacitate!! The fact that they also give some, like you, a friggen hard-on is strictly a byproduct!!
Don't assume just because inanimate objects get you excited and hard gets other excited and hard by them as well.

Once again, failed logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Top StoryTrump says more must be done to protec... 1 hr Simple Fact 48
News Jimmy Kimmel Blames Trump, GOP After School Sho... 9 hr Nematron 5
News Opinion: Anyone who believes the Second Amendme... (Dec '12) 15 hr papa 7
News Aide of Florida lawmaker: Outspoken survivors o... Tue Pat Robertson s F... 2
Taurus 24/7 pro .45cal (May '06) Tue Colin 464
News CNN's Richard Quest Won't Believe Mass Shooting... Tue Get Out 2
News Cities and states take the lead on banning bump... Tue Get Out 322
More from around the web