April 24, 2014

5 facts about the NRA and guns in America

The National Rifle Association, one of the most politically powerful advocacy groups in the U.S., begins its annual convention today in Indianapolis, featuring a lineup of Republican governors and senators as speakers and also a planned rally. NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the organization, with its focus on protecting rights of gun owners, had more than 5 million members last May, although such claims in the past by the group had been questioned by the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” blog.

Here are five facts related to the NRA and the issue of gun rights and gun control:

1The reasons Americans give for owning funsJust as the NRA’s focus has shifted over time from its start as an organization focused on training and marksmanship to one that is a major player in the battle over gun control, the reasons why Americans own guns also have changed. About half (48%) of gun owners said the main reason they owned a gun was for protection, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in February 2013. About three-in-ten (32%) said they owned a gun for hunting. That was a turnaround from 1999 when 49% said they owned a gun for hunting and 26% said they had a gun for protection in an ABC News/Washington Post poll. 

2Views of U.S. public about the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on gun legislationDespite the NRA’s reputation as a formidable opponent of gun control laws, the public is divided over whether the organization exerts too much influence over whether such laws are passed or not. While 39% held the view that the NRA exerted too much influence, 35% said it was the right amount and 18% said it was too little, according to a survey we conducted last May. An ABC News/Washington Post poll, also conducted last May, found similar results.

3Gun supporters are more politically engaged than gun opponents. Our May 2013 survey found that there was a substantial gap when it came to political involvement between gun control supporters and gun rights advocates, whether NRA members or others. A quarter of those who prioritized gun rights said they had, at some point, contributed money to an organization that took a position on the issue, compared with 6% of gun control supporters. There was less of a gap on other activities, such as contacting public officials or expressing opinions on social media. But when all those activities were combined, gun rights proponents outnumbered gun control supporters by 45% to 26% when it came to those who said they were involved in one or more instances of activism.

4NRA households favor gun rights but also background checksAlthough a measure to expand background checks on gun sales failed in the Senate last year, Americans who live in a household where they or someone else is an NRA member overwhelmingly favored the idea of making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to such checks. About three-quarters (74%) backed these expanded checks compared with 26% who opposed them. But far fewer people in NRA households supported proposed bans on assault-style weapons or high-capacity ammunition clips.

5How widespread is gun ownership? Our February 2013 survey found that 37% of adults reported having a gun in their household, with 24% saying they personally owned the gun and 13% saying it was owned by someone else in their home. The survey also found that 58% of people who did not have a gun in their household said that having a gun would make them feel uncomfortable.

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Domestic Affairs and Policy, Gun Policy

  1. Photo of Bruce Drake

    is a senior editor at Pew Research Center.


  1. Odysseus M Tanner2 years ago

    “Universal” Background Checks means Registration, which is a no-no. Most gun owners are well informed enough to know that.

    1. Daniel Dougan2 years ago

      Because they are conspiracy theorists who have no connection to the real world?

      1. George hanes1 year ago

        Some? Perhaps, but the problem with this is that if the government were to suddenly decide to ban firearms, or ban certain types of firearms they would have a big registry of who owns what.

  2. Valentina Lopez2 years ago

    Preparing and researching about gun control for a high school debate for about gun control, had some great facts, and it was very clearly written and explained, this was a great site to use!
    Thank you!

  3. Terry2 years ago

    What does gun control mean? Ask 10 people you’ll get 5-6 different answers. What does it mean to the authorities? Ask Obama, ask a Soldier, ask a Police officer: different answers. More laws? Stricter enforcement of current laws? There are tons of guns out there, so is confiscation the answer? That sounds like prohibition and we know that doesn’t work. But honestly, what is the real issue here? It isn’t guns, it’s disturbed people with access to weapons. IMO, their focus on resolving this is misplaced.

    1. Daniel Dougan2 years ago

      So why has the GOP repeatedly blocked mental health funding?

      1. George hanes1 year ago

        Riders. Bills have little snippets of things that would not otherwise attached to them. If you wanted to make your opponent either vote for something that had something entirely different attached to it or vote against it and risk looking like they are against a particular topic you attach a little to a bill that would not pass otherwise, or would have no chance of passing.

  4. Frank2 years ago

    Looks at what the right to bear arm is doing to our society, it creating slaughter of Americans. Like President Obama said, we need thorough background and ban on Rifes or weapon of mass destruction to prevent what happen in San bernardino and reduce mass shoooting

    1. David Bloomer Jr2 years ago

      A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere.

  5. Frank2 years ago

    Harvard Injury Control Research Center states
    Where there are more guns, there are more homicides. If guns are available, it is more likely that a violent dispute will become a deadly one.

    1. Anonymous1 year ago

      Except in Chicago. Which is an anomaly obviously. Lots of gun control, and still more murders per capita than anywhere else on the planet. And I wonder how to twist that into “that’s because of law abiding NRA members causing nin-law abiding citizens to obtain a gun, and kill people”

  6. ethan2 years ago

    i think there are manny things to be said for firearms and thier creators and beholders the facts on why i like them be it for the fact that i cant make a gun and want to learn or be it how i was raised there are manny who go against it but manny for it i just look at it as everybody has to have something to balk at and something to have that makes them feel special so we have gun nuts and we have gun haters but honestly if we really wanted to solve any of the problems that guns posses its not making them illegal and its not making the problem sort itself the only thing is to let everybodyhave a say and have those who arent speaking not to get in arms and offended its to try and understand due to the fact that fire wont stop fire but rather understanding it will so you know how to stop it, i am a gun nut myself and i am only 17 yrs old i can listen to somebody blow thier top but i look at it as a chance to share my side instead of stop thiers because as much as i like them i dont think my rights are worth somebody elses life so i explain it then listen to what they have to say about it and what thier side of the story is and in this manner i have gained manny a good friends one of wich after listenng to my story and addvise has turned to a gun nut and others i have listend to have even changed me so dont look to change just look to make an agreement

  7. Steve Vinzinski2 years ago

    In all the research I have done and as an attorney for forty one years I have never heard of a NRA member committing and murder.The individuals who do these awful things in general have serious health or wellness problems.There is no indication they have ever been a member of the NRA.I know one can be corrected since one may of missed something but i must say i have used Google and search engines.

    1. Mo2 years ago

      I’m just wondering why being an attorney matters at all in this instance?

      As an attorney, you would not be privy to every single instance of murder by NRA members across the country. Even law enforcement officials wouldn’t automatically have that information available to them.

      And you stated you used Google and search engines to conduct research…
      Is this a joke? Maybe a parody of some sort? Because based on your use of English and basic grammar, I find it difficult to believe you are an attorney. In fact, I would feel comfortable estimating that you didn’t even graduate from high school.

      From what college did you receive a law degree?

      1. Syd2 years ago

        Mo, I think he was just simply stating that everyone is pointing fingers at all NRA members but you never hear of anyone going completely nuts and doing the unthinkable. Google is a good resource, where else would you find any of your information exactly? And also with him being in law he could have experience of murder cases around him and could be coming from a personal experience.

      2. Paul M Edwards2 years ago

        You can quickly verify using Google that there is an attorney by his name practicing for about the amount of time indicated. He went to Widener University and his practice is primarily concerning Wills, Estates, and Real Estate in the area of Millville, New Jersey. Not everyone is a proficient typist; some persons even make typographical, punctuation, and casing errors. However, as an attorney, he would have access to case law databases containing many details pertaining to all sorts of legal matters. If he were so inclined, he could review a large number of murder cases where the attorneys would likely establish via discovery processes whether the accused were a member of the NRA or not.

        1. Clinny Bacon2 years ago

          Paul; Your research skills are impressive, but in my experience they are wasted on someone like Mo.

      3. salviation2 years ago

        Guess what I found using Google. And Mr. Vinzinski is correct NRA members are not going around committing murders. So infringing on the rights of innocent citizens will not deter violence.


  8. Ron R2 years ago

    Ultimately the debate is about less gun crime and how laws effect crime outcome. Prohibition created a massive unintended criminal market that was largely uncontrollable by the government. Laws banning drugs have been massively ineffective, drugs are everywhere. Lets forget the second amendment for now. Just purely a matter of enforcement and effectiveness, perhaps I as a lawful citizen would turn in my gun. I do not believe criminals would. The underpinning to the logic is that guns could actually effectively be removed from the criminal population by disarming everyone. I really, don’t see that happening in the real world. Also, the effectiveness of banning things has always been dubious. Australia is held up as an example, but look at violent crime overall, what an awful outcome for them.

    1. Gwen Samelson2 years ago

      Appreciated your comment here Ron R.

  9. Jason B2 years ago

    If the pro gun control logic implies that heavily restricting or banning firearms outright will severely reduce gun crime, the same logic can be implied that the police will no longer be needing their firearms as well?

  10. Michael O.2 years ago

    I have a question for the men, of which I am one. What is about guns that gets you so up in arms? Can you go deeper than it’s the 2nd amendment? I think it has to do more with being men and protecting, evolution of men and guns, but also a deep fear of not being in control, projecting their own violence onto others. (ie I could kill somebody but instead it comes out as They could kill ME).

    And also, instead of rehashing forever the liberal vs conservative thing, what are WE
    MEN doing to curb our own violence? If all both sides can do is sling arrows, then nothing gets better. What can we do about mental health, do we need to have yearly checks on gun use, what can we do to solve things without weapons, why is manhood based on whether you have a gun? Do you only feel manly because you have a gun ?? These are some of the deeper questions that ALL need to answer, no matter what so called side you are on. Otherwise, to quote an old James Brown song, we are all “Talkin Loud and Sayin Nothin.”

    1. Donja2 years ago

      Excellent point, Michael O.

    2. Logical2 years ago

      I get what you’re saying. I would suppose there may be some or a lot of men that would fit the bill you’ve described. I, however, do not. The gentlemen I associate with do not either. I do believe that to not be prepared for violence in a violent society is not smart. When I think there will be rain I bring a rain coat. When I go camping I bring all the things needed for a successful camping trip. When I’m traveling down the road I ensure I have plenty of fuel to get me to the next stop. Carrying a fire arm when out in a violent world is no different. Sure, I could take a risk and not carry a fire arm when I’m out and about trying to enjoy my life with my family and instead use my wits if the time came that it would be more prudent to have carried an equalizer. It is easier to carry a fire arm attached to my hip than lets say a ball bat, car, machete, or any number of devices that could inflict harm if needed. Or, I could curl up in a fetal position and let a person of mischief do as they will to me and the family until the police show up. That would be a heck of a risk there. No sir. I know it is the second amendment that stated that I as a US citizen do have the right to keep and bear arms. And that it will not be infringed upon. I don’t remember it stating that I can only do it sometimes, what the arms may or may not be, where I can carry the arms, or that I need permission to do so. In essence it gives me the opportunity to thrive in a violent, selfish world. The chances of myself ever having to use force against someone is slim since I have the better judgement to try to stay away from the sort of scenarios that could invoke the use of it. From time to time though the ignorance does find you and you will either have to react, or possibly pay for the ignorance. Maybe some people have the best life and live in a world virtually free of aggression and see no need of these types of devices to help keep them safe. Until we’ve walked in others shoes I think our minds should remain active and try to understand their thinking. I’ve read what you have to say and don’t agree or disagree with your view. For me your thoughts are many I have the opportunity of discovering for more thinking. Yes sir; carrying an equalizer does help me to feel more confident in this violent society. But not to the point that I feel it will quell every violent scenario. A person bent on causing pain will cause pain regardless of whether I carry or not. Please understand that I would rather enjoy life free of bullying, theft, murder, malice, and many other negative traits we humans carry. But I don’t live in a world free of these things. And because of that I will prepare myself for a possibility that requires me to respond in the face of a danger; and you my friend may rest easy knowing that I am prepared and am willing to do what is needed to ensure our survival should it arise.

    3. Clinny Bacon2 years ago

      Why do you need to write something that you feel is thought provoking and deep even though it lacks substance. Does it make you feel more manly and wise? You failed to mention anything that shows why taking away a right produces a value that exceeds the value of the right. If you are going to take away a right it is up to you to show the value. Not the gun owners to show you the value of the existing law.

  11. John Harris2 years ago

    Unless there is some legal requirement to answer the question of gun ownership (such as a police officer entering my home due to some probable cause), gun owners have a better reason to lie. If a stranger asks if there is a gun in the house, is this stranger really just taking a survey? It’s not even some stupid, complicated Big Brother conspiracy theory. Is this person a slightly smarter than average criminal? Recently, there have been 3 gun store break-ins in Ohio. Why? There were guns there to be stolen. If a criminal finds out there are guns in a particular house, he will watch the house to make sure everybody is gone, break in and steal the gun(s). It would be similar to asking if lady of the house has more than $5000 worth of jewelry in the house, only more dangerous. Answering “Yes.” to the question could very easily set off a chain of events that WOULD put firearms on the street, in the hands of people who have already committed multiple felonies.

  12. Debi2 years ago

    Where do get that 75% of the American public supports gun rights? When only 24% of us claim to personally own guns. Another thing to consider, I am one of the 13% who has guns in their home not owned by me. And I HATE guns. I would like to see all of them thrown in a smelter. So, please stop listening to the NRA like they are God. The majority is against gun rights. Which is why the legislation is moving towards gun control. Not away.

    1. John Harris2 years ago

      If a stranger came to your door with an ID badge that said he worked for an opinion poll company, would you trust him? What if he asked how much jewelry you keep in the house? Would you suddenly develop doubts about the authenticity of his credentials? Even if he doesn’t ask such invasive questions; he just asks if you are married (for the sake of the discussion, we’ll say yes). Do you and your spouse both work? Are there any children in the house? He found out if there was a dog as soon as he rang the bell (unless it’s my dog because he’s lazy).

      You’ve just given a stranger all of the pieces of information he will need to time a break-in. Between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. if it’s just you and a spouse. He has to be out of there by 2:30 if there are kids (9 months out of the year). He can see what jewelry you wear and determine how much you keep in the box on your dresser for nights out. If he’s really slick, he’ll see if there are credit card bills around (the whole account number is on the paper bill) and grab the laptop while he’s at it.

      Your jewelry is gone. Your credit is frozen for a month or two at least. Worst of all, your home; your sanctuary from the rest of the world has been violated. Some guy you don’t know just looked through your underwear drawer. You were selected. You were selected because you trusted a guy in a suit from Goodwill and a name-tag he made at Fed-Ex/Kinko’s.

      Should a gun owner tell a survey worker he owns a gun? It’s probably not the safest idea. I might be overthinking this, but I don’t think so.

    2. Paul M Edwards2 years ago

      I am one of the people you suggest do not exist… I do not own a gun, have never shot a gun, was not raised by gun owners, but am in support of the right to defend one’s self, family/friends, and property using any force necessary. My wife competitively shot archery and Skeets (clay pigeons) many years before we met. We have talked about getting his & hers handguns for target practice as an outdoor activity we can do together, but have other priorities at present… Such as home improvements including the $26,250 solar panel system I had installed, paying off some medical and other debt, traveling, etc.

      The quandary we are all in is that guns do exist and they are absolutely for certain in the possession of criminals intent on doing harm. The police force, though certainly well meaning and generally righteous in their cause, are simply insufficient and truly incapable of protecting everyone, everywhere, at all times. They honestly have a very hard time keeping up with the influx of present crime, let alone trying to anticipate future crime sufficiently to be able to stop it before or even as it happens. Certainly there are times when undercover police and detectives have enough evidence of mounting criminal activity (which has usually at least partially already occurred) sufficient for warrants and sting operations. However, such activities are not as frequent or voluminous as the officers who document crimes which have already occurred, often with people already injured or killed, and/or property already damaged or stolen.

      If it were possible to remove all guns from everyone simultaneously, people would still find ways to harm and kill each other. It’s simply our nature as fallen, sinful, humans. Swords and stones have been used as deadly weapons in the past before there were guns, as have fists and open hands. The problem is not the weapon, it is the human wielding it.

      1. Logical2 years ago

        I absolutely agree.

  13. Charles king2 years ago

    Very informative I was on the fence with respect to own a firearm until I encountered a situation where I couldn’t protect myself Hence I am going through the process legally to obtain a firearm

  14. JOHN CUNNINGHAM2 years ago

    Please fwd statistics re gun-ownership and voting in general. Do gun owners vote more than non-gun owners?

  15. William2 years ago

    The bottom line is the 25% or so against gun ownership have a right to their view and a right to vote folks into office supporting that position. Same is true for the majority that supports gun ownership. Both sides can demonstrate all they want. Keep in mind the constitution was written such that amendments can change anything……..if you get 66% or 75% support. (check out constitutional amendments for methods) Calling those of the other belief names is really counterproductive……for both sides. We’ve all read some idiotic comments made by ignorant people from both sides. Keep your cool, be logical, be factual. Don’t exaggerate to prove your point.

    In the meantime, both sides do need to continue to find ways to reduce murder by all means including firearms. Illegal death by firearms will never be zero. In a free society, you are free to do good and free to do bad.

    1. John Harris2 years ago

      If elections were called on a single issue, things might be different. The way things are, a candidate or incumbent is voted into or out of office, based on the politician’s stand on the issues that matter to each individual voter. Some people vote exclusively based on Pro Choice/Pro Life. Some vote on Universal Healthcare. Yes. Some people vote on the politician’s view of gun control. The issue may be as abstract as Economics or as clear cut as marijuana legalization. The votes are cast based on how much weight a voter lends to each issue. Some modern Americans might vote for Hitler because he was a vegetarian (yes. this is a tremendous exaggeration, but it illustrates the point.)

  16. Rebecca2 years ago

    You should add what kind of guns people have?

  17. krystian2 years ago

    please tell me how criminals follow laws

  18. DK2 years ago

    Guns dont kill people people kill people

    1. Man-of-Reason2 years ago

      Without guns, fewer people are killed.

      1. ReadyNWilling2 years ago

        Guns can be gotten even under a ban. Criminals find ways.

        1. Matthew Mulgrew2 years ago

          Of course because if we can’t get rid of all crime we shouldn’t even try?

          1. Philip2 years ago

            No, that means that just because cocaine and Meth are illegal, it can still be had if you know where to find it. Those are illegal because they obviously do nothing but harm, they don’t save lives, they can’t. Firearms, if used the right way, can be used to save lives.

        2. joe2 years ago

          criminals don’t obey laws, that’s why they are criminals.

          1. Ryan2 years ago

            If guns were band they would be bought on the black market. This would drastically inflate the price to a point the common criminal couldn’t afford.

      2. Ryan2 years ago

        So your saying people shouldn’t own guns? Agreed

        1. Sellick2 years ago

          Regarding your previous comment about the affordability of criminal’s gun ownership, do you really think that these criminals look at the price of guns and say to themselves, “That’s too expensive, I can’t afford to buy that gun for my next crime.” No. Criminals use YOUR money to obtain guns.

      3. Jonny2 years ago

        No guns make killing easier but guns are awesome for hunting and shoting shit

      4. Trent2 years ago

        Dear Man of Reason: Without guns MORE people are killed. After D.C. banned hand-guns there was a 75% increase in murder rates. The same thing happened in Chicago.

      5. Anonymous2 years ago

        Without guns less people would be killed….. by guns…… but the crime will still be committed. Only difference will be the weapon involved. Would you rather be murdered by being beaten with a golf club or shot in the head.

        1. chrispennington851 year ago

          I’ll take the golf club. I might be able to defend myself against that. Gunshot to the head? Highly unlikely.

    2. Tracy2 years ago

      People with Guns kill people

    3. eileen Sharp2 years ago

      That old saw [guns don’t kill people, people kill people] has already been said a million times. If you can’t come up with anything original or thoughtful to contribute, just don’t post at all.

  19. conner2 years ago

    This was a great way of information to get on gun control. I like it told both sides with support and evidence. 🙂

  20. Kuhn Kan2 years ago

    The liberal argument that someone is not law abiding because they have committed a crime in the past is bogus and plays on their need to control society. If someone had a driving while intoxicated 20 years ago when they were 20 years old the liberals want to say for the maybe 8 hours this person broke the law, that the ofenders 350,000 hours of good life don’t count towards being a good productive member of society. Liberals determine who is good and who is bad and they base this off of superficial prejudice not based on morality or freedom. Control, control, control…the second amendment, which abrogates federal and state laws, does notbsay only people who do not have an OUI in their pas can protect themselves. The second amendment recognizes the immorality of government control and was created to stop the governments control of individuals. If someone is dangerous, please put them in jail, if they have done there time, recognize the citizens rights to defend themselves.

  21. Joe2 years ago

    I support the NRA when it comes to training and safety for gun owners, but disagree that additional background checks and regulation are a bad thing. The 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was written in a time where 85% of Americans relied on guns for safety and food.

    The NRA has taken the 2nd amendment argument out of context. With all of the increased gun violence in this country, a little more background checks are what we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. Not recommending that we confiscate guns, but make sure that mentally unstable people and criminals can’t just go to the county fairgrounds and buy an UZI/AK-47 for $100.

    Back in the early days of this country, most people were farmers/hunters and feared attacks by Indians on a daily basis. The 2nd amendment was written so that those people could protect themselves.

    Many of these NRA gun owners claiming to buy for protection purposes today live in upper middle class suburbs where crime is almost non-existent. They are also likely to have a home monitoring service like ADT, decreasing the need for a gun even more. They have enough free cash flow to spend thousands on a nice gun with brass and engravings-guns can be really expensive. There are some who actually live in the country and hunt for substinance, but many just want to go deer hunting to get away from the wife and kids for a few hours during hunting season.

    1. Brian Masayesva2 years ago

      Didnt Gun Violence Decrease in the country?

    2. franco2 years ago

      There is no proof that background checks of any kind help Reduce crime. I’ve been to plenty of gun shows and there just isn’t the widespread sale of private guns that everyone talks about. As a gun owner for over 50 years I’ve seen the assault on certain types of guns to reduce crime too many times. Remember the Saturday night special? Now it assault weapons that are rarely used in crime. The attack on gun ownership will never end and we should never give in on one single right

  22. Brady2 years ago

    (The following is an email I received pertaining to gun rights. Long but interesting read. Thought I’d share.)

    If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

    This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.

    PS: Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:
    “Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of “D.H. Garrison, Jr.”

    Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
    Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

    I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not John Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

    About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

    If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God?The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

    Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority”developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

    Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Benjamin Franklin

    Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

    I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

    Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

    “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.”

    This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns.If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

    For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

    “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
    government.” -Thomas Jefferson

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence …
    From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and
    happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference –they
    deserve a place of honor with all that is good.” -George Washington

    “The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
    arms.” -Samuel Adams

    I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People”will lose our power of enforcement.

    We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives (?)” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

    A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

    Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

    It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

    If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right (obligation?) to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

    Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their“elected servants(?)” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

    I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

    Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

    I am not the “subversive” here, it is the “political representatives (?)” who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

    If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

    This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

    I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

    I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They (the “OFFICIALS”) are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

    You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

    I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us (an overt act of aggression) and we will act accordingly. We are within our Constitutional rights to do so.

    For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself this very simple but important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have already chosen your side;

    Are you willing to die to take my guns?


    1. darrin2 years ago

      Thank you Brady, very good post I pray the people take the time to read this in its entirety. I agree the time is near when the patriots of these United States will have to take a stand against a tyrannical government. ( The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots it is it’s natural manure) Thomas Jefferson.

  23. camilla huxford2 years ago

    I read that the number of nra members was @ 5 million,while the number of licenced hunters was 65 mllion in the us. Could you verify that?

  24. marineimaging2 years ago

    This is an old article but still relevant. I can offer with 100 percent certainty that the greatest percent of gun owners, NRA members, and other relative forms of authorized gun owners including police officers (active and retired), security officers, moms and dads with CHL’s, have and will continue to avoid announcing that they have anything related to guns. The first thing I consider when someone calls to conduct a poll is, this person, regardless of who they represent, has no business asking me any questions about what is a right, not a privilege in America. This person is not going to find out anything about me. As a matter of fact I am going to answer so that it looks like I don’t have what I do have, do believe what I don’t, and throw the questioner off because I think they are not relevant. Call it paranoid, call it cautious, call it what ever you wish. The numbers of gun owners are fare more than these polls convey.

    1. j c b2 years ago


  25. Gunnut123142 years ago

    In regards to #4

    An ammunition clip is not used today in modern firearms. Ammunition clips are used in early model bolt action rifles such as the WWI lee enfield. “Assault style” refers to a pistol grip with and muffler/suppressor. Any semi-auto rifle can do the same lethal damage as a fully-auto which requires a level 3 clearance anyway. Both can be fired rapidly and both have devastating effects on the human body. By calling it an ammo “clip” you prove how lacking in knowledge you are in firearms. The correct terminology is magazine. This misnomer is a result of anti-gun culture/hype and the overexposure of the “call of duty” and other such shoot-em-up video games.

    1. Keith2 years ago

      Spot and and well stated. It’s scary when even the lawmakers that get to vote on gun issues do not understand firearms. One would hope that the lawmakers that do not posses any firearms knowledge would do a simple google search before voting. I am referencing Rep. Diana DeGette who was a lead sponsor on legislation to ban so called “high capacity” magazines (which are standard capacity magazines). As stated on the Denver Post website, when she was asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

      “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

  26. OrangeDeath932 years ago

    Can someone educate me on something: Fact 4 above seems to indicate that there is no background check at gun shows. When I purchased a pistol at a gun show in PA 3 years ago and again last year they did a background check both times. Is it a different background check that the gun control crowd wants? Or is the background check just a PA/state thing?

    1. marineimaging2 years ago

      Owner background checks are required at gun shows for business and retailers and federal licensees. Individuals who buy and sell are not required to just as car sellers are not on craig s list. (If the buyer of a car goes out and drives intoxicated and kills someones child or grandparent, the seller is not responsible so why should a gun buyer) The majority of gun sellers will demand ID and a bill of sale because they are MORE liable for the consequences if they sell it to a convicted felon or domestic violence nut or straight-out crimina. You can also be assured that legitimate buyers don’t want to buy stolen guns and end up in jail.

    2. Nate2 years ago

      To answer that question they want to close the peer-to-peer loophole that allows a private citizen to sell a handful of guns a year (depending on the state) to another citizen with no check. This can be easily exploited by criminals who can sell to their fitness under the guise that “they didn’t know their buddy was a criminal” and so can’t be prosecuted for breaking the federal law that prevents people from selling to criminals. The other issue is that criminals exploit (stupid) law abiding gun owners by lying to them about their record, which the gun owners selling to them have no way of verifying. Granted this isn’t abused as often as liberals think, most criminals get guns by paying a law abiding citizen to go into a gun store for them, but it’s still an exploitable loophole.

  27. Voice of Reality2 years ago

    Polls regarding gun ownership is skewed by the fact most concider it none of your business. They believe in all rights including privacy.

    Regarding #4
    Every legal gun sale in the US must have a FBI background check and be approved.
    NO EXCEPTIONS. Every legal gun sale is recorded on Form 4473.
    National Firearms Act gun sales require a photo, fingerprints and local law enforcement sign off. Legal gun ownership is just theat- LEGAL
    Stop messing with law abiding folks and go after the criminals.
    Ever see RED DAWN?

    1. Chris2 years ago

      Fingerprints? I don’t think so. Background check are super loose and vague. When I purchased my handgun they asked for an ID and had me fill out a form where my SSN was optional. Pretty weak.

      1. Ron2 years ago

        He said National Firearms Act gun sales (I.E. NFA or class 3 weapons: full-auto, silencers, SBR etc…) had the added requirements. Normal firearms purchases only require the standard background check.

  28. Terry Nitzel3 years ago

    Wheather you hate guns or love them, do not forget that guns are an inanimate object and do not kill people. Cars are also inanimate objects. Should we “ban” cars because many people are killed in car accidents. Far more people are killed in car accidents than any mayhem involving guns or weapons of any sort How many people per year are killed by “drunk” drivers??

    1. Flo2 years ago

      This is not exactly the same. Guns are officially weapons and weapons are made to threat or kill. However cars are made to move, not to kill. I understand your point but maybe it would be more relevant to use something else. Knives ? Although the rate of people killed by knives is not really high I reckon…

      1. Mako Koiwai2 years ago

        My guns are for target shooting. They could be used as a weapon, just like my car or kitchen knives.

  29. Andrew3 years ago

    I read the NRA had 5 million members- that number seems small compared to America’s total population of 320 million. Means that 1.5% of americans are NRA members. How is it that such a relatively small number of people can have such a major impact on US policy?

    Real question, would like some replies- Thanks

    1. Voice of Reality2 years ago

      To answer ANDY… simple….. We are employed, retired, etc. and VOTE
      The NRA is but a single organization and note that Turkey hunter, self defense people, deer hunters, police and many, many more organizations support gun organizations.
      The NRA was the first organization to promote ecological use of natural resources too!!
      Even before it became politically correct.

      1. Ann W2 years ago

        It’s a much smaller amount of people that have such a big influence, and those are very very very rich men who use their $ to buy politicians’ votes. Sad truth.

        1. Alan Wilson2 years ago

          I’m a new citizen from another country after a long legal immigration process, I did not like guns when I arrived due to unfamiliarity and my home country’s gun control agenda.
          I am now an NRA member because I’ve seen the untruthful hysteria manifested in trying to deny a constitutional right to the law abiding public.
          No proposal ever trotted out by the usual suspects would have made any impact on the rare scenario that gets inordinate media attention, it is all about civilian disarmament.
          Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of time a year in self defense, either at home or outside (at a minimum – possibly many more due to reporting variances).
          For your safety reference, CCW permit carriers commit crimes at a rate 1/10th that of police officers. They are also much less likely to shoot bystanders as the NYPD and others often do.
          This country has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
          The large concentrations of people in cities and the disparate ethnic and social makeup all contribute to a higher base level of violence than many other countries to which the USA is compared.
          The difference is anywhere from 4x to 8x the level of overall violent crimes, guns not considered.

    2. Benjamin Franklin2 years ago

      Just like minorities have major influence US policies. The majority feel that illegal Aliens should be deported, but La Raza influenced policies.

  30. Robert M3 years ago

    Some interesting facts Bruce. I think it is important to also point out that gun regulation is a lot about our rights. We wrote recently a post regarding gun control. You can find it here: nationalcarryacademy.com/regulat… Would love some feedback from you. Anyways, great content as usual. Looking forward for more
    – Robert M

  31. Paula braden3 years ago

    how many accidents or deaths are attributed to republican, gun toting NRA members? Like woman, allegedly skilled gun owner, shot by 2 yr old son in Walmart, was she a republican? The guy who shot Gifford was republican. Cheney, rep. Hastings, former ok republican house of rep. Sandy Hook killer, was his mom a republican, NRA member? Interested in those statistics. Not sure that can be discerned. May be worth printing, though. Thanks, paula

    1. oldtimered3 years ago

      The guy who shot Gifford was a democrat. Nice try though.

      1. Benjamin Franklin2 years ago

        No way, now the liberals will harm you with snares, bottle throwing, labeling, and name calling.

    2. please do your research.2 years ago

      youre “facts” are very incorrect.

  32. Tony The Tiger3 years ago

    Guns + Good people = World Peace

    1. Caleb3 years ago

      Guns have been around for a long time. Good people have been around for a long time. But since mankind has existed, has there ever been world peace? I would suggest being more specific with your words in the future.

      1. oldtimered3 years ago

        The Broco Harem Moslem terror group just killed thousands of unarmed Christian Nigerians. ISIs has killed thousands of unarmed Christians in the Mideast and is already here to kill us.
        The USA ramped up for WWII and built more guns than ever built before. With prayer and guns the US beat the Axis powers.
        You surrender your weapons and hope someone else protects you and your family from the enraged terrorists and Black Muslims.
        In the aftermath of hurricane Andrew judges ordered local and state police to stand down. They parked their cruisers. The gangs roamed freely until Marshal Law and the 82nd Airborne showed up, 2 things; one, the people were armed and stopped a lot of crime while the people paid to do to were restrained by leftists judges. Second when the military showed up the gang members quickly ran home to mommy.
        Pray for the USA and the world.

  33. G. Snyder3 years ago

    One issue with research is on the ownership side. Given the current state of hysteria being purported by the anti-gun organizations, a given degree of paranoia is generated among owners. Therein many owners do not report accurately to research questions.

    How many million guns and owners are there? And do you see mayhem related to such a degree of owning a so-called lethal weapon(s)? No.

    The firearm is not the motivator nor the cause when misuse occurs. It is odd that firearm advocates are in the position to defend what is already a right and often discriminated against. Plenty of examples where this would not be tolerated where other Constitutional rights are concerned.

    The NRA is much misunderstood, at times even by firearm owners.

    As an American citizen you should be open to protect any and all the rights spelled out in the Constitution, no matter your particular person opinion. To not is the equivalent of fighting against what the Country is built on and stands for.

  34. coleman3 years ago

    charles that is so right you have a great point

  35. Adam3 years ago

    bad people + guns = DEATH

    1. Voice of Reality2 years ago

      Stricter rules- You do not know that EVERY legal gun sale has to be approved by the FBI?? Are you willing to give up photos, fingerprints and a criminal background check?? Gun owner currently do.
      At what point does anyone believe a gun is the problem?
      The problem is PEOPLE not taking responsibility and grasping for anything else to take the blame… Go any courthouse and sit for a criminal trial that used a gun.. YOU WILL BE PISSED on how easy it is to plea the gun charge away…
      Call 911, the police will come..of course it will be after the criminal has had his way with you and left. The police will call ambulance and the coroner on your behalf.

  36. gibers3 years ago

    bad people + guns = DEATH
    BAN THOSE GUNS!!!!!!!

    1. Robert Jansky1 year ago

      Guns don’t kill people people KILL PEOPLE

  37. charles3 years ago

    The truth is that whether or not your pro or con on this topic look at this fact.The definition of a criminal is a person who breaks the law, so what stops a person from getting a gun if they want to use it to commit a crime or not. Drugs are illegal and yet they are everywhere and they kill people, so what makes guns any different.Guns don’t kill people,people kill people.Next they will out law knives because they can kill people.The topic of gun control is just stupid to take guns away from everyday law abiding citizens does not take them out of the hands of a criminal it just makes it harder to defend ones self.Guns are not the only problem ,drugs and gangs are the real problem. why not just make it so people with bad backgrounds and who have committed major crimes have no right to own a weapon.

    1. oldtimered3 years ago

      Felons can not legally own a weapon now. Felons by definition do not follow laws. Again you are right, guns don’t commit crime, people do.

  38. Jake3 years ago

    I no longer own guns.I no longer hunt. But my reasons are very personal.I have no objections to people who do either,as long as they don’t go nuts. When I came home from my third tour in Vietnam,I promised myself,my wife,and my children,that I would never hold a gun in my hand again,for any reason.I realize that some of you gun people out there,may think I am “wimping out” but frankly, I don’t care. You do not have to wave a gun around to be a man. My ranger training makes me perfectly capable of defending my family,and I am very good with a knife,with which I can take any shooter out before he clears leather. Again,I have no issue with gun owners. Most of my neighbors,in my rural town own them. But they know better than to bring them onto my land when they visit. I respect their rights,they respect mine.

    1. Keith2 years ago

      While I also respect your decision and appreciate your acceptance of the 2nd amendment, I would like to pose a question to you. What if this shooter that is trying to “clear the leather” had equal or superior training to yourself and is also armed with a firearm? Please take a look at MickiB’s comment a few posts down from this.

    2. Ron R2 years ago

      Gun owner here.

      Mad respect for you. Its a personal choice that I fully respect. Thank you for your service.

  39. GFRF3 years ago

    In Oklahoma, if Mark Vaughan didn’t have his gun, Alton Nolen would have beheaded more people!
    Pro gun-control advocates have no common sense.
    Chicago has some of the worse gun violence in the nation, why,
    You take the guns out of law abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of criminals!

  40. Rhonlynn3 years ago

    I have to eye roll the NRA politics. I’m above the political part of the organization, (I’m a strong democrat, female). But the training courses are top notch. I’m getting my C and C in a couple of weeks, I’ve used my son’s Glock pistol for years to shoot targets. Now I want one of my own. The NRA certifies with their programs, like Refuse to be a Victim. I’d love to be a certified instructor. Joining opened up a whole new world. It was free, I got a Cabela’s gift card the same amount. If I can put the politics below the training, this will be beneficial to me. But one must be strong to be able to eye roll the organization politics.

  41. Diogenes3 years ago

    To many gun opponents, a gun is a gun is a gun. I own three firearms, a single-shot, bolt-action Remington 514 .22 (which I inherited from my father and used as a kid growing up on a farm), a Type 38 Japanese infantry rifle (which I inherited from my father and which he brought back after the war, and a Remington 870 12-gauge pump-action shotgun (which I bought a few years ago to replace a single-shot 20-gauge which I bought as a teenage and which I gave to my nephew). That’s it. I’m considering buying a Ruger 10/22, to use along with my of old single-shot .22 on the firing range. I don’t hunt, I’ve never had occasion to have to use a gun to protect myself and I doubt I every will.

    So, I’m one of the 37% of Americans who own guns, and to many of the gun opponents here, apparently I’m just as much a problem as they fellow who carries a .357 concealed in his coat, waiting for a chance to kill someone. So to, apparently, are the several members of my family who are hunters. Since the overwhelming number of gun deaths in America each year actually involve the use of a handgun, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to segregate out how many Americans own a handgun and not lump all gun owners together as if owning a single-shot .22 was in anyway equivalent to owning a 9mm Glock? For that matter, wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to go even deeper than that, distinguishing between owners of Ruger Single Sixes and Browning Buckmarks, both .22s used primarily for plinking and target shooting, and high powered handguns which are the ones most used to kill other people? But no, the opponents of gun ownership make no such distinctions. A gun is a gun is a gun and anyone owning one is a menace to society. A law abiding citizen whose never harmed anyone in his life with whatever guns he owns is indistinguishable from the criminal who uses one to kill. We are all the same to the gun opponents. In fact, most of the opponents posting here have no idea what any of the guns I mentioned are and can and cannot do. They’ll have to research to find out, but that’s too much work. Let’s just condemn all guns and all gun owners and be done with it.

    And they smugly assert that conservatives are the prejudiced ones.

    1. Keith2 years ago

      Interesting…so people that own 9mm Glocks are bad. I’m glad my Glock is a .40. But wait…I love me some 45 Automatic Colt Pistol, does that go under the good or bad person list?

  42. ntpasaoljr_61@yahoo.com3 years ago

    It’s just a tool. One way of how to kill or to die. It’s just a tool.

    1. MickiB3 years ago

      A very effective and easy to use, at a distance, tool…

      1. Keith2 years ago

        I’m glad you get it. That’s what is so great about firearms. If you come across a bad guy with a gun, would you rather have a gun to fight back “at a distance”, or a knife?

  43. Chazim763 years ago

    As for the first one the NRA is still number one with the Eddy Eagle program in training people on how to use a firearm. They have plenty of NRA instructors that teach people around America on how to use a firearm safely and advanced techniques. They even have a DVD series you can get.

    1. Scott3 years ago

      You do realize…those “NRA” instructors are actually paying for that supposed certification since it does nothing more than make the NRA and the instructor look good? As a result, the certification itself means…nothing. I can get certified by the NRA tomorrow for gun instruction. I don’t even own a gun. But I do have a few hundred dollars for the certification fee.

      1. Sarah Brown3 years ago

        Some people don’t do it to look good. Some people do it so they can help other people. A lot of camps for guns, won’t let you instruct unless your certified. The test isn’t easy either. You actually have to BE ABLE TO SHOOT. It’s a good thing that people have to be certified, because if they didn’t they might be instructing people wrong and that could be dangerous. I

      2. Rhonlynn3 years ago

        I am doing it to make sure people handle their gun correctly. I can’t stand the politics, therefore, I won’t be involved in that end. I’m getting my C and C, then starting a series of courses throughout next year. The courses aren’t easy, nor are the tests involved.

  44. dylan3 years ago

    put a gun on the table and tell it to kill someone it wont it needs someone to pull the triger people kill people the gun is just a object i am a hunter/fisherman and trust me i have never had my gun fire by it self just giving you all a pice of my mind

    1. Scott3 years ago

      People are the ignorant ones that place the gun on the table and “tell it to kill people”. The gun can’t fire without the willful consent of irresponsible gun owners.

    2. MickiB3 years ago

      People kill people more effectively, at a safe distance (with a knife/your hands, you can be fought against more easily). PEOPLE kill people better when they use guns – people kill themselves better with guns. In states that have higher gun ownership, there are more gun accidents (cleaning, kids picking them up and harming/killing themselves or others), domestic violence shootings, suicide by guns.

      1. Daniel3 years ago

        More people are killed in accidents with pools or vending machines than with guns.

      2. marineimaging2 years ago

        Upon what figures and specific studies do you base your hypothesis? Actually, it is not even a hypothesis. You are simply relying on propaganda. Please insure you have fact sources before trying to use them as an excuse for your liberal agenda to destroy the Constitution of the United States. Thank you.

  45. RDNK3 years ago

    These gungrabbers and their lies.It keeps blowing up in their faces but they keep trying ! Thats all they have now,…desperation ! There are b/g checks already ! The liberal want UBC’s and that will never happen,..just a road to confiscation ! Nothing the liberals have proposed would have done a damn thing to stop the recent shootings ! Gun ownership is at historic highs and gun related crime is at 30 year lows ! ’nuff said !

    1. eskalale3 years ago


    2. Scott3 years ago

      Yes, more guns, legal or not is obviously…the answer, since the NRA argues against regulation of any sort!

  46. ks3 years ago

    Ive got an idea, don’t sell weapons to anyone

    1. Scott3 years ago

      But then…we wouldn’t be…Patriotic!

    2. MickiB3 years ago

      Sounds good. There are as many weapons as people floating around — many more in individual hands than in those of the military or police.

  47. Peter3 years ago

    Four thoughts on this article and on the comment thread.

    1) DEMOGRAPHICS – The demographics of gun ownership clearly are evolving, and they don’t favor gun owners, who are predominantly older white males in rural parts of the South and Midwest. Probably the most important divergences are urban/rural, white/black-hispanic, male/female, and older/younger. Irreversible trend lines in the next 50 years do not favor gun owners, with the nation becoming more urban and less white, and with more young people growing up in an environment where there is no functional need to own a gun and where the idea of owning a gun seems weirder. Of course, guns are prevalent with certain groups of young people in inner cities, but gun ownership here is largely associated with gangs and drugs. Revamping our drug and incarceration policies to keep kids in school and out of jail and to remove the market incentives for illegal drug trafficking would likely make a big dent in this population of gun users/possessors. The general point, of course, is that the gun-owning population is likely to continue to shrink for demographic reasons.

    2) PROTECTION – Interesting that the percentage who say they own a gun for protection has risen dramatically at the same time that crime has generally fallen dramatically. Suggests the protection argument is based less on reality and on actual probabilities than it is on a new sense of what constitutes a threat and how best to handle that threat, whether that threat is real or imagined. Guns give people the fantasy of control, not the reality of control, so to understand ownership obsession we need to understand what fantasies are at work. For example, there is a significant fear among whites of black youths. But most violence is geographically and specific, committed by black youths against other black youths, who more than likely know each other personally. This really removes any reasonable argument for stand-your-ground laws.

    3) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT – Most citizens of other nations feel no enormous need to own guns and their rate of gun violence is far lower than it is in the United States. American need to understand how far out of the global mainstream we are when it comes to our gun ownership obsession, and how weird and creepy it seems to people in other countries. Falling back on an abstract “Constitutional” or “God-given” right really is not useful. Most legal scholars would agree our Constitution, which is one of the oldest in existence, and and which has never had a fixed meaning but has always been in instrument of political conflict, is long-past due for an overhaul. Our 225-year old Constitution was drafted for a nation entirely different from the country in which we now live. As for our right to own guns being God-given, I think most people would agree that is simply a bizarre, virtually meaningless idea.

    4) POLITICS – Probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable gun-control laws, akin at a minimum to the laws governing licensing cars and drivers, is the political tilt toward rural parts of the country within state legislatures, and to some degree in the U.S. Congress, which gives interests favoring extreme gun ownership rights disproportionate power to both legislate laws opening the floodgates to gun ownership and block laws that would enact even the mildest background check or gun safety provisions. Of course the other major source of influence in this debate, when one looks under the skirts of the NRA, is the firearms industry.

    1. eskalale3 years ago

      Beautifully put and 100% correct. Thank you!

    2. Matthew Cioffi3 years ago

      There is a very good reason that the Constitution has the right to bear arms as the second amendment. It is GUARANTEED and therefore cannot be removed.
      Do you even know what that reason is? Telling you would be redundant. It is more constructive if you search for the reason yourself and reply what it is.
      There is an old quote which goes, “Those who do not know their opponents’ argument, do not completely understand their own.”
      Misconceptions, misinterpretations, and outright lies are THE reason why politics can be so frustrating.

    3. Anne3 years ago

      May I quote you?

    4. charles3 years ago

      But tell us this how does one stop a CRIMINAL which definition is a person who breaks laws from getting one and killing people with this tool it has nothing to do with owning guns it has everything thing to do with gangs and Drug traffickers.

  48. Jill Blackwood3 years ago

    I would like to have more data about whether guns in the home do more harm than good. It certainly appears as though more people THINK they need guns for protection. But anecdotally I read more about gun accidents in the home causing harm than I do about folks successfully protecting themselves from harm with guns. Is this true? Is the perception that guns are essential for protection created by those who sell guns?

    1. Ric3 years ago

      Generally speaking, it is not newsworthy when someone successfully defends themselves from harm.

      If you like stats, see justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp – for example compare the numbers who successfully defend, vs. the numbers of handgun accidents which would include those in the home accidentally harming someone. Just food for thought.

      Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

      In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.
      In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.

    2. James Darby3 years ago

      Sure there’s an increased risk. Just like buying two different lottery tickets doubles your chances of winning. 80 million people in the US have a firearm. 606 died from an accident. 11K from homicide. 22K from suicide. If it was all that dangerous, wouldn’t those numbers be a whole lot higher and our 330 million person population a whole lot lower?

    3. Larry3 years ago

      Suicide is generally a very spontanious action, most do not plan it. In studies done a good majority of those people would be alive today if they did not have a gun in the house.

      So you don’t feel that almost 34,000 people dead from guns yearly is not that big of a deal, not a dangerous trend ? What does 34,000 dead people yearly have to do wih having 330 million people. So we have pleanty of people to spare???

      1. Keith2 years ago

        Well Larry I understand that logic, but you have to take your thought process out further. Many people are under the impression that once guns are banned all existing guns in the country will simply evaporate. Although I cannot provide any scientific evidence to prove this theory wrong, I find it highly unlikely. So by banning guns the law breaking murderous type of gun owner will still be at large with their lead slingers. So the 34,000 gun deaths that you mention may have an insignificant drop, but just remember that slight drop may also include the deaths of criminals that were shot by armed good Samaritans that care enough about people like you to protect them.

    4. MickiB3 years ago

      Yes, it is. There are lots of statistics that show that people who own guns are more likely to have some form of harm come to them via gun (accident, family member accident, gun turned on them by criminal/other, suicide by self of other who ha access to the gun, etc.). I allowed my father in law to sell my .22 (for target shooting) and my husband’s newest shotgun (for hunting) and gave his older (one a classic) shot guns to his sons when my husband died. The stuff I have heard from people who “pack” has turned me into a total gun hater – if only we COULD get rid of them all and overturn the 2nd amendment….

      1. MrPotatoHead2 years ago

        At least you are honest about wanting to overturn the 2nd Amendment. I read and comment on gun articles all the time and all the anti-gunners all pretend to just want “reasonable regulations”. Of course, most would never accept anything similar to limit the first amendment. I completely disagree with you of course, but, nevertheless, it is so refreshing to see a little honesty.

  49. MrApple3 years ago

    “…37% of adults reported having a gun in their household…”
    And you honestly expect people to be open and forthcoming about their firearm ownership with the ever growing abuses being committed by the very Government that is supposedly there to “protect and serve” them?

  50. OLDBRO3 years ago

    Folks fighting for their rights are always more tenacious than the those trying to take them away.
    Bloomberg is a guilt ridden robber baron attempting to buy his way into heaven, for 50 million, by taking our guns. Me, just a retired union member spending what I can to make sure he fails on both accounts. Who’s more powerful? I have one vote, Bloomberg one, seems fair to me. Who’s winning
    the argument? Millions more citizen buying guns every year. Concealed carry is sweeping the nation
    under court order. The harder the left tries to crush us, the more united and powerful we become.
    I consider myself a reasonable citizen. I worked hard all my life, put my wife and kids through graduate school and they are all now envoled reasonable citizens. I’m not here to convince anyone of anything, I’m just letting you know that you have got your hands full if you think you are going to
    roll over me/us on this issue.

  51. Elizabeth Davidson3 years ago

    Unfortunately, while that is true it isn’t the reason the the voting public doesn’t have a voice: policymic.com/articles/87719/pri…

  52. Elizabeth Davidson3 years ago

    The vast majority of Americans want background checks on guns. Why are our elected officials refusing to pass laws requiring them?

    1. Jim Floyd3 years ago

      Elizabeth I think it as this article stated that pro gun activists are more likely to be politically motivated while reasonable citizens that favor new regulations for gun control are not as politically active.

      1. JAson3 years ago

        So….are you saying that pro gun activists are not reasonable Citizens? I think your statement is very lop sided and offensive. Is it not reasonable to favor the US COnstitution and the Bill of Rights? Is it not reasonable to expect the legistature to abide by the restriction in the 2nd Amendment that the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed? Is it unreasonable that our right to self defense and self protection comes naturally from GOD and not granted by any government? Is it not reasonable to expect law enforcement and the judiciary to enforce ALL of the current laws that exist regarding firearms?

        The 10th Amendment also supports the 2nd, ( All Powers not granted to the United States by this Constitution nor Prohibited by are reserved to the States or to the People) since the 2nd RESTRICTS Congress from infringing upon a right. A right not granted by the Constitution…that right come from GOD and pre-dates the colonies, the United Colonies and the United States.

        Tryanny did not go away with the end of the American Revolution. I have ancestors to bore arms in the defense of America. I will bear arms in her defense too, from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. The media speak of “anti-goverment” people…….I am not anti-government. I have pledged my affirmation and support to the Constitution of the United States and for the Republic she represents. Those….Representatives, Senators and others elected to office, take a similar oath, but yet disregard that document for their own purposes or to promote some personal agenda..yes, even presidents……ARE domestic enemies of the COnstitution and the Unites States. I am not ‘anti-government” I am PRO CONSTITUTION and am PRO restoration of our Constitutional government.

    2. Gary3 years ago

      The question should be why are Republican politicians BLOCKING any laws regulating guns.

    3. Roger Tranfaglia3 years ago

      Because background checks are allready in effect…(?)…

    4. TexTopCat3 years ago

      The question of “do I support background checks for all gun purchases” is quite different than any of the proposals actually presented by law makers. Now, if you asked the question, “do I support background checks when I loan/give my gun to a friend/relative?” you would get vastly different results. Also, adding an extra $50 to $100 for every BC is not fair or appealing either.
      Also, everyone that has studied history knows that gun registration is a prelude to gun confiscation in some manner. The gun control groups all have as their ultimate goal, total gun confiscation, even none of them are honest in most of their public policy statements. Not a single one of the background check plans do not include some form of gun and owner registration.
      Now, another issue is that even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent every year on NICS, the data is not accurate or complete. Over 50% of the denials are incorrect. Only 11 people were found guilty of NICS violations last year. So, if background checks are important, fix the existing system first.
      We also have a problem with the current administration wanting to permanently deny gun access to thousands of military vets that have even talked to a doctor about any mental problems, such as dealing with the loss of their legs. People like D Feindstein claims that every vet has PTSD and should be denied.

      1. AJ3 years ago

        Excellent reply. Saved me a lot of typing. A lot of people ask why anyone would be opposed to universal background checks (including some people posting in this thread). The short version of the answer is that if you research the issue a bit more, and see the statistics regarding where criminals actually get their guns, you’ll end up asking why anyone in the government would even think UBCs would address any significant problem in the first place.

        That leads you to one unavoidable conclusion – that the UBC is a tool to implement a national registry, which is the first step to gun confiscation – and this is targeted at law abiding. Whether they will ultimately achieve that goal or not is a separate discussion, but this is the first step towards it.

    5. MrApple3 years ago

      There are already plenty of background checks that must be completed in order to purchase a firearm. How have any background checks stopped the people that passed the background check and then committed crimes or the people that purchased their firearms illegally?

  53. J F Hanson3 years ago

    This press release demonstrates why the Pew Research operation cannot be trusted to produce relevant, journalistic materials.

    1. Note that the date of the poll from which these talking points are taken is some four-plus months after the Newtown incident, and it originally done during the week that the rhetoric was white-hot about the Senate vote for either the Schumer bill or the following Manchin-Toomey bill for firearms registration.

    2. Note that it is produced today, some twelve-months plus later–and newer polls have been done that show a notable lessening for at least some of the gun-control positions cited in these so-called ‘facts.’

    3. And, interestingly enough it is produced and distributed some ten days after Nanny Bloomberg pitches his $50,000,000 into the ring to sway public opinion against the NRA and on the same day his new front operation releases its first ad attacking the NRA.

    Finally, the latest Quinnipiac poll about the controversial gun control laws in CO show that opposition against them continues to increase–but Pew Research has nothing to say about this.

    This press release is a disservice to anyone, pro or con, interested in honest and timely discussion of the issues in this topic.

    1. Marilyn Berko3 years ago

      Just because a fact changes over time ( the rate of an answer to a question in this case) does not mean it is a “fact”, which implies it was not accurate or truthful to begin with. If you have more recent accurate data, please feel free to offer it.

      What I do understand from this poll ( unless things have changed dramatically) that the majority of Americans do not have guys in the house because “they would feel uncomfortable having them in the house”. Now we are increasingly at risk not only from our paranoid neighbors in their own homes but from those same paranoid people carrying their weapons into movie theaters, in their cars, at political events, etc, so that if they feel threatened they can shoot us, even if their fears are unfounded. A bunch of bullies with guns disrespecting the rights of the majority.

      1. JAson3 years ago

        We live in a Republic, Ma’am…NOT a democracy. Soverginty does NOT rest with the majority in a Republic. The right that we defend is protected by the US Constitution Bill of Rights number 2. It is a RESTRICTION upon the federal governemnt upon infringing upon a GOD given right that pre-existed the formation of Jamestown and the United States. It is a right that cannot be granted by a government and thus cannot be taken away. Only tyrants try to take away rights that are natural and God given. That same right that we defend so rigorously is YOUR right, as well. You are free to choose to excercise it or not. If you want to live a slave under an opressive government who tells you how, when, where, with whom and under what conditions you live your life, that is fine. I will not.

        ” We Solomely declare that we Shall preserve our Liberties being with one mind Resolved to die FREE men rather than live our lives slaves” ………Thomas Jefferson on the necessity of taking up arms 1775

      2. GT3 years ago

        Sorry, but your comment isn’t correct. The article doesn’t give you enough information to make that assertion. The article only says that 37% report having a gun in the house. This implies that 63% don’t have a gun in the house. There is nothing in this article to confirm that implication. However, of those 63% (?), only 58% reported feeling uncomfortable having a gun in the house as a reason for not having one. That equates to 37% of the sample size saying that they are “uncomfortable”. Thus, your comment about the “majority” is wrong.

        I would also say that your implication that gun owners are paranoid is wrong as well. I could say that non-gun owners are the paranoids. Why do you fear gun owners?

      3. marineimaging2 years ago

        I am a 59 year old professional businessman with my 64 year old wife, and my 76 year old mom and 79 year old dad, my retired police chief brother in law, my kid brother, and his wife, and 6 of my friends from church. We are all in a restaurant eating and having polite conversation. My wife looks like the quintessential grandmother showing pictures of our grandchildren all around the table and a bad guy walks in with a gun and shoots into the ceiling preparing to rob or shoot us. Which one of is licensed to carry and is certainly carrying a handgun and most trained and capable of stopping the criminal? How about all of us. Those in front go down low and those in the standing position go wide and high. That is why you will never get the numbers of households with guns correct. Look behind you in Target. The guy across the aisle is carrying concealed and has for over twenty years. The mom with the two kids bouncing on the cart, has a 9mm CC under her blouse in what is called a bra-holster. Soldier walking with his wife [pushing a cart in the grocery section and both in military fatigues, both in the army. Those are the only two unarmed people in the group because they are too young according to the law.

      4. Keith2 years ago

        I acknowledge the passion with which you hate guns and gun owners Marilyn. If only you would direct this passion into something more useful. Perhaps you could try to ban cancer. If you were successful in banning cancer then no one would get cancer anymore. Think of all the lives you could save.

  54. Matt McCarter3 years ago

    Seems that a more recent poll is in order, than a Feb 2013 data set, if you want to draw any real meaning and understanding of the public’s attitude towards guns , their rights and proposed controls.

    I don’t have a political science degree but I fully understand that a poll taken less than three months after Newton wouldn’t reflect a true picture of American attitudes.

    After all, look at the recent polling of CO citizens who enacted laws shortly after this polls time frame, they have fell out of their frenzied state and have soured on their new laws realizing they do nothing to advance protection.

    1. eskalale3 years ago

      Yeah because this debate is brand new.

  55. Jordan3 years ago

    I was surprised to see that ONLY 37% of adults reported to have a gun in their household. I wonder in what states this study was done and also if some people didnt want to answer the question to keep their privacy.

    1. Milano3 years ago

      No one that I know or have known in the past 2 decades owns a gun. Go the percentage, on the contrary seems too high to me.

      1. JAson3 years ago

        No one I know or have known in the past two decades has NOT owned a gun.

      2. TexTopCat3 years ago

        How do you know that? Did you search each of their residences? Did you use water boarding to obtain that information. My daughter considered me gun free and a anti-gun person for 25+ years. Not until I got my CHL and started going the the gun range weekly did she become aware of my position. The subject of guns and self-defense just never became a topic of conversation.
        I will not admit to gun ownership, NRA/TSA membership or support for 2A to anyone taking a poll.

  56. Milo Schield3 years ago

    Knowing the political makeup/implications of gun owners is important. But it is also important to know who they are and what are their motives and circumstances. It would have been nice if all the political questions were split between gun owner households and their opposite. Other questions include:
    1) What percentage of gun owners: are women? are minorities? have used/shown their gun in defense of self or others? have needed a gun for protection of self or others?
    2) What percentage of those owning a gun for protection: are women? are minorities? have used/shown them in defense of self or others? have suffered harm or loss that a gun might have mitigated/prevented?
    3) What percentage of each group (men, women, whites, minorities) owning a gun for protection: have used/shown them in defense of self or others? have suffered harm or loss that a gun might have mitigated/prevented?
    Finally, knowing the number of respondents in the various subgroups would help apply the survey margin of error to that subgroup.

    1. TexTopCat3 years ago

      I can not answer your questions, however, based on observations locally at the gun ranges of the new gun owners, the women out number the men. A few years ago when going to a gun range you would see “old white guys” and “military want a be’s”, Now you see family units with young children, groups of working age females, and college students. You also see waiting lists for gun classes, especially the ones where the instructor is female.
      The article was correct that people are not buying guns for hunting, but for sport shooting and self/home defense. Small semi-automatic pistols suitable for CC are in most demand.

  57. Tom Malinowski3 years ago

    Background checks of potential gun purchasers is a BOGUS idea in the attempt to ensure that no guns get into the hands of “crazies”.
    Lets call a spade a spade – criminals and criminal organizations WILL ALWAYS GET GUNS as long as there are unscrupulous people selling stolen armament “under the radar” of law enforcement agencies.
    When it comes to combatting the above what chance does law enforcement agencies have when indifferent, lazy and criminally inclined judges, lawyers, lawmakers and/or civil-rights organizations to include media outlets which do not nor ever will criticize these criminal actions.
    America needs to pull together acting as united citizens to DO WHAT’S RIGHT!!!!

    1. Milano3 years ago

      Since some people will drink and drive no matter what laws are created and put in effect, does that imply that looking at driver history records is a “BOGUS” idea? Some people still will certainly choose to drive drunk, but with the laws in effect, there is likely to be less drunk driving because it’s HARDER for drivers to get away with minimal repercussions by driving drunk. The point is to make it HARDER for people with questionable backgrounds to get guns. No one is naive enough to think that it will erase all crime.

      1. JAson3 years ago

        But if criminals will always acquire guns by not obtaining them the way that law abiding people do, how is it going to get harder for them to acquire them? How many attempted purchasers who have completed a form 4473 and lied on it have been arrested and prosecuted for illegal attempt for purchase a gun? Those that have tried, have been denied and not arrested just go elsewhere to obtain their guns. And in nearly ALL those cases, it is a handgun that they obtain…not a rifle nor a so called “assault weapon” (A political misnomer if there ever was one). Rifles are not very concealable and of no use to the average criminal.

      2. TexTopCat3 years ago

        Look at all of the mass shooters, would UBC have stopped any of them from having access to a gun? If you are planning to kill lots of people, why would you not kill to get a gun. After all, every police car is a mobile gun store for such people.

        1. Sarah Brown3 years ago

          Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. If someone wants to do something to hurt someone, then they will. No gun laws are going to fix that. Besides, we have RIGHTS as Americans. Take those rights away, and America’s just like any other country. Maybe if we taught about God in our schools, then people wouldn’t want to kill other people. Some people just hunt for food!

          1. Jake3 years ago

            guns don’t kill people.people WITH GUNS kill people. If your’e going to use that old mantra,say it right.

          2. charles3 years ago

            jake your actually incorrect as well because knives kill people as well as drunk driving. did you know that there are more deaths caused by drunk drivers and people drowning in a pool than killed with guns as the saying goes guns don’t kill people people kill people.

          3. Cassandra2 years ago

            Oh,dear Sarah. God did not grant Americans or anyone else the Right to bear arms. This was incorporated into a document created by humans a couple of hundred years ago. Such a document is not writ in stone and can be repealed just like any other man made law.
            Remember that the document was created two hundred or so years ago the world and the country have changed beyond measure. Give people guns and people by their very nature will abuse right right. And the biggest abusers of the all are the Corporations who put vast amount of money to protect their profits. They have no interest in so called Right to bear arms. They are simply protecting their profits at your expense.