This isn't true. A classic example of confirmation bias. Obviously the pro-gun people say the exact opposite: that every gun study shows the opposite.
Is that right? If so, USA is in a much worse state than I thought so.
ADDED: on the other hand, the claim all the new ones are being bought by existing gun owners is fatuous, a back of the envelope calculation I made would have us existing gun owners own an average of $100K worth each, and I doubt even my father, who was born in the early '30s, every had quite that much.
Assume, given the unwillingness of many gun owners to answer the questions of nosy, anonymous people making telephone and other surveys, that at least half the nation's households have a gun. With then nationwide sweep of shall or better issue concealed carry laws, now all but 7 states, making gun ownership significantly more useful, which is particularly important to an aging population, I'd be surprised if the fraction wasn't higher.
The number of permits issued has been astounding, 300,000 in Wisconsin since the law passed in 2011, 1 million in Texas, in these states generally 5-10% of the residents have one, and ~10 states don't require a permit or very soon won't (that number is changing very rapidly right now).
The safest way to sky-dive is not to sky-dive.
The safest way to have sex is not to have sex (I like the last one the most as it is touted by various groups).
That logic is absolutely broken.
If you mean that foregoing experiences for safety's sake isn't your cup of tea, that's one thing; but claiming it's logically broken is simply false.
p | q | p ∧ q → ¬q
--+---+-----------
T | T | F You can't be safe and own a gun.
T | F | T You can be safe and not own a gun.
F | T | T You can be unsafe and own a gun.
F | F | T You can be unsafe and not own a gun.
p | q | p ∧ q ↔ ¬q
--+---+-----------
T | T | F You can't be safe and own a gun.
T | F | F You can't be safe and not own a gun.
F | T | T You can be unsafe and own a gun.
F | F | F You can't be unsafe and not own a gun. p | safe (p) | ¬p | safe (p) ↔ ¬p
--+----------+----+--------------
T | F | F | Owning a gun is unsafely owning a gun.
F | T | T | Not owning a gun is safely owning a gun.
edit: I think we can legitimately fix the confusing sentence to read "not owning a gun is safely not owning a gun".
For their own good, right? The prisons are already full of people who violated laws enacted under that guise. Anti-2A people don't seem to be aware of the fact that pro-2A people aren't very excited at the prospect of others deciding what is in their best interest. If you are afraid of getting shot by a privately owned gun then base your argument on that, because a temperance movement mkII isn't going to fly.
Making beer or spirits at least generally requires you to leave the store.
Illiterate Third world tribesmen create high tech automatic firearms in mud houses. Prisoners create low tech firearms in between anal cavity searches. Think about that.
Gun control is possible with the extinction of the human race.
The funny thing is, many non-US countries don't have "readily available" guns everywhere you go.
In 2013, 12 people in Japan were killed by guns.
I don't think there's any removing of Japanese crime and crime control from the following 2.5 century Tokugawa military dictatorship, which had profound effects in creating modern Japanese society.
During the prior 400 years, the various Japanese governments used gun and sword confiscation to enable crimes ranging from brutal to genocidal.
Hard to have a discussion when data is spun & cherry picked, and cultural differences abound.