.....just sayin', it ain't as simple as folks here want to make it out to be.
Um, sorry but the survey you linked to is completely bogus. Who performed said "survey"? Why none other than the
Center For American Progress. They claim, of course, to be non-partisan but take a look
here at their board of directors. They are all hard left wingers.
(And I won't mention that one of their most important sources of funds is George Soros, that "champion" of non-partisan points of view. I'll let you verify that on your own. If you care to.)
And the survey that was linked to was conducted over five years ago.
So, what does a more recent article from a few months ago -
Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights - from the CAP say about gun rights? I would encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are a few highlights:
This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm. This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.
...
This messaging runs in stark contrast to the bulk of the evidence-based research that has been conducted on the topic, which finds that firearms are not an effective means of self-defense. In fact, academic studies show that having firearms in the home correlate with an increase in unintentional shootings, often involving children, as well as higher rates of firearm suicides.19 Research also indicates that firearms used to perpetrate school shootings most often come from the shooter’s home, where they are stored under the pretense of self-defense.20 The idea that civilians need to be armed to ward off bad actors—the “good guy with a gun” concept painted by the gun lobby—does not represent reality. FBI data show that armed civilians rarely stop armed assailants and instead only make it harder for law enforcement to secure the scene of a shooting.21
...
To complement the fear-based narrative pushed by the gun lobby, the industry marketed certain weapons specifically as self-defense products. Glock, for example, has a search filter for their website specifically for firearms designed for home defense,22 and Remington sells a series of guns marked as “Home Defense Models.”23 The principle marketing tool to sell hollow-tip ammunition—which is designed to expand on impact, increasing damage to the person shot and reducing the risk of overpenetration—is to brand them as self-defense ammo or personal-defense ammo.24
...
The common thread running through gun advocates’ claims of rights violations is the belief that people have a fundamental right to use lethal force to ensure their own self-preservation. Put bluntly by Marion Hammer, NRA lobbyist and former NRA president, “We don’t shoot to kill, we shoot to live.”28 This problematic justification for using firearms is the impetus for a self-defense policy called “stand your ground.”
...
Researchers at American University found that approximately 30 people die each month in a “stand your ground”-related incident in states with these laws enacted.43 Data show that states with a version of “stand your ground” laws see increased rates of homicides and injuries related to gun violence. A study focused on the impacts of “stand your ground” in Florida found that the law was associated with increased homicides overall as well as an increase in gun homicides; the researchers found that the state’s monthly gun homicide rate increased 31 percent, with the overall homicide rate in the state increasing 24 percent in the 10 years following the law’s enactment.44 The evidence is clear: “Stand your ground” laws do not protect people from violence; instead, this policy results in more injuries and more fatalities.
...
Fear is a powerful emotion. It evokes a need to survive and protect and drives instinctive, visceral actions. The gun lobby has, for decades, seized on the power of this basic human emotion and manipulated it to sell firearms. By exacerbating feelings of insecurity, they have linked firearms with self-defense. By manipulating the concept of human rights, they have embedded in the minds of far too many people the idea that they have a fundamental right to self-defense, even if it comes at the cost of others’ right to life.
Let's just look at that last line in bold. Essentially, the author is stating that YOU do NOT have a right to defend YOUR life if it means taking the life of the person trying to take yours.
So while the
Center for American Progress isn't advocating any new anti-GUN stances in this article, instead of attacking your right to OWN a firearm, it is attacking your right to self defense.
So it is fine to own that handgun, but if you shoot someone in the course of defending yourself, you will be headed to prison regardless of the circumstances.
That is what they are after.
Now, did I cherry pick those excerpts from the article? Yes, of course I did. That's why I encourage anyone who is interested to read the entire thing. Decide for yourself. THINK for yourself. Make up your own mind, don't let someone else's slanted view - including mine - make up your mind for you.