Are there fewer now than there were 50 years ago? If so, why?

I think it odd that people don't want to "think" about that when it cmes to proposing workable policies to reduce crime. And Corpses.

I shoot targets and reload ammunition. I don't carry a firearm, and don't use one for home defense. I'm not a militia person, etc. so it's a hobby for me. The right to keep and bear arms is not a hobby, and my right to own firearms is not a hobby, but the way I use my firearms is a hobby.

Referring to it as just a "Hobby" is just another weak attempt at repositioning the issue and demeaning people they disagree with.

Think of it as a Dog Whistle for stupidity.

A few years back, there seemed to be an effort to do the same thing -- characterize 2nd Amendment rights as nothing more than a hobby -- it didn't make much impact. I don't expect it to this time, either.

It's not the first time I've seen one tactic fade away, only to be brought up again after a time. I guess the anti-rights folks just don't have that many things to fall back on, since they don't have logic or reason to support their stance...

must be upset that their cause isn't gaining any traction despite the influx of money from the authoritarian Bloomberg.

How else do you counter a trend that is (peacefully) sweeping the nation?

(Expansion of self-defense carry rights)

they keep coming back to the same old same old as if they were established truths. I still see : "More guns = More Crimes," propped up in the face of hard truth. And I think a lot of folks, even here on DU, are beginning to see the isolated extremism of these prohibitionists.

Many of those who are active control advocates and many of those tacitly accept that increasing control is a great idea largely refuse educate themselves on vocabulary nor will they inform themselves about basic functionality. They ignore court decisions which conflict with their goals, deny what the majority of scholars agree as the meaning behind the 2A and fix blame for gun violence to anyone that fails to conform to their way of thinking.

If those aspects of behavior don't show the signs of a dogmatic religion rather than basic logic, I don't know what does.

...but I think that there are a very few who refuse to educate themselves about the matter because they honestly believe that just having information on the subject will somehow "infect" them.

Others, of course, are simply too lazy to inform themselves on the subject -- they accept what they have been told by those they choose to believe.

Yet others don't want their belief system damaged, so they avoid any outside information that may not conform with their already-held beliefs.

And, even yet others who have educated themselves on the subject. Some of these know that their stance is unsupportable, but will not admit it because it would infringe on their true agenda -- control. Not of guns, of people.

And, of course, there are those who have educated themselves on the subject and, because of that, are no longer anti-rights people. They learn the reality of the situation and become gun-rights supporters (the same applies to many other rights, in my opinion).