PDA

View Full Version : Are gun owners a vanishing breed?


advocatusdiaboli
07-31-2012, 4:05 PM
An article quoting statistics on CNN seems to try and make that point. I have my own ideas about the long term implications of a decline in gun ownership per capita if the statistics are accurate. let me also say a right's validity does not depend on the number who exercise it. Nonetheless here are the putative facts:

"A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.

A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.

The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

The concentration comes, in part, because guns are "marketed by and large to people who already own guns," Lizotte said.

He also said that guns are specialty items, like tools in a tool box, so those who own guns are more likely to buy additional guns for different hunting purposes, for instance."

Coded-Dude
07-31-2012, 4:09 PM
I would say anti-gun activists have done well to try an push firearms and the rights associated with them into a vanishing practice, but I think statistics, court rulings, and sales would tell a completely different story.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif

orangeusa
07-31-2012, 4:14 PM
Apart from the obvious lies and mis-truths. I realized that they leave out that for each gun owner, there are several people who do not own guns and yet are gun enthusiasts... For example, I know several folks I go to the range with and they get range time with my guns or rentals.. And yes this is not scientific. But stats on gun rentals are available.

Statistics can be used properly or improperly to support either side's point.

.

jdouglas
07-31-2012, 4:21 PM
I've heard that the ever increasing number of single-parent households are part of the reason the percentage of "households" with firearms is down.

This is an extreme example, but if 100% of the households have one firearm and both parents, the rate is 100%. If all of those parents split, then the rate goes down to 50%, despite the same number of people owning the same number of guns.

Dantedamean
07-31-2012, 4:38 PM
You can't believe the media, there the only thing with an approval ratting lower then congress. CNN and other anti-gun media want to project gun owners as a minority and a bunch of crazy people. If gun owners are on the decline then why are manufactures hardly able to keep up with the demand?

someR1
07-31-2012, 4:57 PM
I would say anti-gun activists have done well to try an push firearms and the rights associated with them into a vanishing practice, but I think statistics, court rulings, and sales would tell a completely different story.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif

very good point. that chart looks pretty even over the years. the only problem is the government/states controlling what type of guns we have and the amount of rounds we can shoot with each mag.

Capybara
07-31-2012, 5:04 PM
99.46% of statistics are fabricated.

Skidmark
07-31-2012, 5:13 PM
99.46% of statistics are fabricated.

99.47%

jonzer77
07-31-2012, 5:19 PM
I would also add as the years go by and people feel that the government is even more untrustworthy, they are less likely to report that they own firearms in a survey.

Farrier-1
07-31-2012, 5:21 PM
I would also add as the years go by and people feel that the government is even more untrustworthy, they are less likely to report that they own firearms in a survey.

I agree. Don't ever give the guberment any more info than required.

Ripon83
07-31-2012, 5:23 PM
Didn't "our" industry just enjoy a record thanksgiving shopping season this very past year?

mosinnagantm9130
07-31-2012, 5:25 PM
That report is wrong, plain and simple.

trew10
07-31-2012, 5:33 PM
It can't be true I have to always look for. 223 and 9mm always selling out

ADH
07-31-2012, 5:33 PM
The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center

That is not a concrete metric for determining the number of households owning guns. It concretely measures only the percentage of respondents willing to answer "yes" to a stranger on the phone asking them if they own guns.

ADH
07-31-2012, 5:33 PM
**Remove double post**

trew10
07-31-2012, 5:44 PM
Last I had read an article stating that 95million Americans owned guns but most people I know own more then just one. So if you counted a person for every gun it could be at 50%

sargenv
07-31-2012, 5:56 PM
According to the 1950 Census, the US had a population of about 150,697,361

According to the 2010 Census, the US had a population of about 308,745,538

50% of 150,697,361 is 75,348,680 or so

33 % of 308,745,538 is 102,915,179 or so... or about 27,566,499 MORE people...

So, more people in the US own guns now than at any time in the past.. the percentage may be correct, but there are more people than ever in the US who own guns.. so that's how statistics can be misleading..

The Geologist
07-31-2012, 5:58 PM
I'd say no. http://www.ruger.com/news/2012-04-11.html

2009_gunner
07-31-2012, 6:01 PM
Well, I think gun ownership will increase dramatically after the next SCOTUS decision.

AAShooter
07-31-2012, 6:02 PM
99.46% of statistics are fabricated.

The other 50% are made up.

anthonyca
07-31-2012, 6:10 PM
The most important thing we need is more new shooters, especially female shooters less females currently shoot and more of them vote. Most gun shops and many gun owners are not receptive to new shooters. The vast majority of gun owners shun potential gun owners for being " liberals ", union members, gay, or myriad or views not relating to gun ownership that differ from their own.

A guy I know has a LTC and he loves to flaunt how hardly anyone else in his county can get one. That kind of attitude is what is killing us. Gun ownership is not a club for only connected or a certain class, gun ownership is a civil right. Sometimes we are our own worse enemy.

I am not saying that you should like everyone or agree with their views. I am saying that we should never shun a potential gun owner who is not a criminal.

RMP91
07-31-2012, 6:16 PM
The most important thing we need is more new shooters, especially female shooters less females currently shoot and more of them vote. Most gun shops and many gun owners are not receptive to new shooters. The vast majority of gun owners shun potential gun owners for being " liberals ", union members, gay, or myriad or views not relating to gun ownership that differ from their own.

A guy I know has a LTC and he loves to flaunt how hardly anyone else in his county can get one. That kind of attitude is what is killing us. Gun ownership is not a club for only connected or a certain class, gun ownership is a civil right. Sometimes we are our own worse enemy.

I am not saying that you should like everyone or agree with their views. I am saying that we should never shun a potential gun owner who is not a criminal.

Couple that with the fact that the public education system is 100% anti-gun, children are going to be against gun rights from day one!

They were right when they said my school was an indoctrination camp!

Get your kids out of the public system. Private school or home school ONLY!

The antis know they can't win the old fashioned way, they'll just go after the next generation and make them hate guns.

Or worse yet, make gun ownership illegal for NEW people after a certain date (kind of like what they did with FOPA and the Hughes Amendment).

It's up to us to properly educate our young and to completely weed out the liberal mindset in our schools!

mosinnagantm9130
07-31-2012, 6:50 PM
Do you think that the current or next generation(s) will have the passion to keep up the fight ?

Or will they be content to sit on their asses and play a video game instead ?

I don't hide the fact that I'm one of the younger members here. I'm 19 myself...I think you might misunderstand the impact that video games have on the gun community.

For example, Call of Duty is huge in the gaming community, but especially with gamers around my age. It's ridiculously easy to convert someone to our side when I own rifles that are either very close to what's in CoD or the exact same thing.

You should see the look on people's faces, the enthusiasm they have holding and shooting a rifle they've come to enjoy in the virtual world, only now it's a real world experience.

HowardW56
07-31-2012, 7:05 PM
If the wait to get into the range on the weekend is an indicator, nope, there are more shooters than ever...

5 + years ago, there was never a wait, now it seems like there always is on the weekend, and some evenings...

acolytes
07-31-2012, 7:08 PM
Hmmm... I know more new gun owners now than I have ever in my life. Go figure....:TFH:

stix213
07-31-2012, 7:36 PM
California gun buyers are set to make this year an all time record in gun sales, and it can't all be me :p So I'd assume gun ownership is back on the rise for now, here in CA at least.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-gun-purchases-nearing-record-3739037.php


California gun purchases nearing record

Californians just can't get enough guns and are on a pace to set a new annual record for the number purchased legally.

Experts with the state Department of Justice predict residents will buy 725,000 rifles, pistols and shotguns in 2012, nearly twice the number they purchased five years ago, when 370,628 were acquired.

nicoroshi
07-31-2012, 7:37 PM
If the wait to get into the range on the weekend is an indicator, nope, there are more shooters than ever...

5 + years ago, there was never a wait, now it seems like there always is on the weekend, and some evenings...

This^^^
I used to love to go shooting on the Fridays I had off work 3-4 years ago.
Just me and maybe one other person on the whole range.
Now it doesn't matter what day I go or what time. The range is packed, and if I don't get there early I don't get a bench without a wait.
Talking with the R.O.s at my local range they keep breaking the 'one day income record' from the public rifle, and pistol range.
Regardless of what the polls or figures someone posts may say what I see is a dramatic increase in gun ownership. Younger crowd, and more guys with wifes/ girlfriends too. That makes me smile. :)

Cylarz
07-31-2012, 8:08 PM
Yeah, even without digging around on a search engine, I question the statistics posted by the OP (I'm *not* saying he himself believes them or thinks they represent a "good" trend, just doubting the numbers themselves).

Five percent of the population, fifty percent of the firearms? Uhm, no. First of all the US is the 3rd most populous country on Earth (right after China and India).

Number two, I read awhile back that Switzerland is nearly tied with us for per-capita firearms ownership, and Israel, Finland, and Denmark are right behind them. So even if we do own a big chunk of the guns, it's only because we also have most of the people who happen to live in a country where they're legal. I'd wager that the US has more people in its borders than those other pro-gun countries put together.

A small portion of the gun owners have most of the American-owned guns? (The Brady campaign and other gun groups are fond of tossing this one around, as a roundabout way of suggesting that "serious" gun owners are in the minority, and therefore unstable or violence-prone.) Questionable at best, and even if true, so what? In the wake of the shooting in Colorado, someone over there said that the shooter's "rifle, shotgun, and two pistols is the average male in Colorado." I suspect something like that is true for most red/pink states. Not everyone has the interest level (or financial resources) to own 25 or 50 or 100 individual firearms, and unless you just really like guns, you don't need to. The statistic I've heard is that about half of all US households do own at least one firearm of some kind, and that (presumably) includes a significant portion of the ones who live in large cities.

A relative pointed out to me that even an avid hunter really only needs one deer rifle...I happen to disagree but I understand his point. (Incidentally this guy owns dozens of handguns.) A lot of other people own one handgun or one shotgun, often for defensive purposes. It just depends on what you're into.

An anti-gun facebook friend posted some graphic last week provided by the Brady Bunch, claiming that there were over 10,000 handgun deaths in the US last year compared to mere double or triple digits in the rest of the top ten. I immediately asked, "Does that account for the US's larger population...much less how many of those deaths were justifiable homicide?"

As the others have pointed out, statistics are misleading.

GungaDin
07-31-2012, 8:20 PM
I think that varies by location. A state like Asshatachusetts where they tighten up gun laws every 10 or 15 years it's natural that interest in shooting will diminish. Same for NYC where even AIRSOFT is covered under their permit laws. Reduced gun ownership is the purpose of these laws. This is why anyone who wants to "compromise" with gun control A-holes needs to pull their head out of their rectum. The aim of ALL those people is first laws like Mass and NYC, THEN like Australia.

curtisfong
07-31-2012, 11:01 PM
I don't hide the fact that I'm one of the younger members here. I'm 19 myself...I think you might misunderstand the impact that video games have on the gun community.

For example, Call of Duty is huge in the gaming community, but especially with gamers around my age. It's ridiculously easy to convert someone to our side when I own rifles that are either very close to what's in CoD or the exact same thing.

You should see the look on people's faces, the enthusiasm they have holding and shooting a rifle they've come to enjoy in the virtual world, only now it's a real world experience.

His is a typical clueless old person attitude. Completely out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, it is very common.

southernsnowshoe
07-31-2012, 11:13 PM
People with common sense are a vanishing breed.

FalconLair
08-01-2012, 1:17 AM
99.46% of statistics are fabricated.that statistic may be fabricated

The other 50% are made up.this may be made up

:D

FastFinger
08-01-2012, 8:12 AM
I don't hide the fact that I'm one of the younger members here. I'm 19 myself...I think you might misunderstand the impact that video games have on the gun community.

For example, Call of Duty is huge in the gaming community, but especially with gamers around my age. It's ridiculously easy to convert someone to our side when I own rifles that are either very close to what's in CoD or the exact same thing.

You should see the look on people's faces, the enthusiasm they have holding and shooting a rifle they've come to enjoy in the virtual world, only now it's a real world experience.


With that in mind - what's the best way to get in front of that group? Say we had a message, commercial, banner ad, text ad - whatever format - where could it be placed so that a maximum number of CoD players saw the ad?

mdimeo
08-01-2012, 8:25 AM
If the wait to get into the range on the weekend is an indicator, nope, there are more shooters than ever...

5 + years ago, there was never a wait, now it seems like there always is on the weekend, and some evenings...

absolutely matches my experience. More women and families, too, than I remember ever seeing.

nick
08-01-2012, 10:21 AM
An article quoting statistics on CNN seems to try and make that point. I have my own ideas about the long term implications of a decline in gun ownership per capita if the statistics are accurate. let me also say a right's validity does not depend on the number who exercise it. Nonetheless here are the putative facts:

"A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.

Injury Prevention Journal - a suspect source on the subject, at best. With that said, it's possible. However, with about 400 million guns in the US, that leaves plenty for the rest, thus makings this statistics immaterial to the premise of the article, if one actually thinks over what the stat means (as opposed to what CNN wants you to feel - gun owners are a dying breed).

A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.

UN? Hmm, another reliable source. Still, much of the rest of the world has draconian gun laws. Now, do they only count the legal guns in civilian hands? For in much of the rest of the world, most guns in civilian hands are owned illegally. Mind you, it's just academic interest, as this info is largely irrelevant to us here in the US.

What I do see though is that, as the population in a country becomes more prosperous, it begins expressing interest in gun ownership, as it now considers itself worthy of protection, and wants a stake in the state. It takes a lot of brainwashing (see Europe) to keep the population from wanting that

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.

Ah, University of Chicago, another great source on guns. CNN et. al. started off using a Gallup poll for this, until it kinda blew in their faces, as Gallup actually indicated the highest rate of gun ownership in a couple of decades, at 47% of the households (and that's only counting those, who admit to owning a gun to a pollster. Would you?). So they switched to a more "reliable" anti-gun source from Chicago :rolleyes:

This also conveniently ignores the number of new gun owners in the past couple of years.

The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

The concentration comes, in part, because guns are "marketed by and large to people who already own guns," Lizotte said.

He also said that guns are specialty items, like tools in a tool box, so those who own guns are more likely to buy additional guns for different hunting purposes, for instance."

Wait, did he actually just call guns 'a tool'? What's next, we can't blame guns for murders? :confused::p

There you go.

nick
08-01-2012, 10:23 AM
If the wait to get into the range on the weekend is an indicator, nope, there are more shooters than ever...

5 + years ago, there was never a wait, now it seems like there always is on the weekend, and some evenings...

No kidding, I had to switch to almost exclusively going to BLM land for shooting rifles - the wait gets ridiculous. I still go to an indoor range for handguns (can't go to BLM land all the time, it's a 2-hr drive from me), and I try hard to schedule it in off hours (that is, working hours for most people).

nick
08-01-2012, 10:36 AM
According to the 1950 Census, the US had a population of about 150,697,361

According to the 2010 Census, the US had a population of about 308,745,538

50% of 150,697,361 is 75,348,680 or so

33 % of 308,745,538 is 102,915,179 or so... or about 27,566,499 MORE people...

So, more people in the US own guns now than at any time in the past.. the percentage may be correct, but there are more people than ever in the US who own guns.. so that's how statistics can be misleading..

Except for the percentage is likely not correct. Not according to Gallup, anyway, and even that one is likely understated (many gun owners, myself included, arne't likely to admit to owning guns to some pollster guy on the phone (much less talk to him in the first place)).

Gray Peterson
08-01-2012, 10:56 AM
Do you think that the current or next generation(s) will have the passion to keep up the fight ?

Or will they be content to sit on their asses and play a video game instead ?

How about the fact that video gaming among teens & young adults tends to have them interested in the real thing.

sergtjim
08-01-2012, 11:20 AM
For example, Call of Duty is huge in the gaming community, but especially with gamers around my age. It's ridiculously easy to convert someone to our side when I own rifles that are either very close to what's in CoD or the exact same thing.

You should see the look on people's faces, the enthusiasm they have holding and shooting a rifle they've come to enjoy in the virtual world, only now it's a real world experience.
Totally true. My son is a gamer, and over the last two years or so we've taken three of his male friends and one girlfriend to the range. None owned a gun at that time. I let them shoot my ARs, S&W 5943, and a Security-Six .357 revolver.

One of the guys now owns an ar15, one an AK, and the now ex-girlfriend has her CCW and a pretty cool LCP to go with it.

First person shooters are like a gateway drug. Wish there was some way to get in touch with the players and offer a free or low cost shooting experience. I'd bet good money that a fair percentage would jump on that with both feet.

curtisfong
08-01-2012, 11:23 AM
Also, in my experience, they respond well to safety training if you make it "look cool" or "tactical". i.e. finger off trigger, chamber check, clearing, point in safe direction, etc.

Krak
08-01-2012, 11:38 AM
An article quoting statistics on CNN seems to try and make that point. I have my own ideas about the long term implications of a decline in gun ownership per capita if the statistics are accurate. let me also say a right's validity does not depend on the number who exercise it. Nonetheless here are the putative facts:

"A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.

A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.

The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

The concentration comes, in part, because guns are "marketed by and large to people who already own guns," Lizotte said.

He also said that guns are specialty items, like tools in a tool box, so those who own guns are more likely to buy additional guns for different hunting purposes, for instance."

I don't trust those sources.

HBrebel
08-01-2012, 12:14 PM
I would also add as the years go by and people feel that the government is even more untrustworthy, they are less likely to report that they own firearms in a survey.

yep!

SexualChocolate
08-01-2012, 12:37 PM
Considering how many people were either purchasing or picking up weapons at riflegear yesterday at lunch, I would venture a guess that the article in the OP is total crap.

Wherryj
08-01-2012, 12:50 PM
99.46% of statistics are fabricated.

IUK6zjtUj00

TempleKnight
08-01-2012, 1:03 PM
His is a typical clueless old person attitude. Completely out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, it is very common.

What? Old people are out of touch with reality? Seriously?

IVC
08-01-2012, 1:45 PM
In other related news, 95% of women responded to a stranger on the phone they were younger than 40 and weighed less than 120 pounds. From this we can conclude that Americans are getting younger and fitter.

The scientific studies showing quite the opposite don't matter because they didn't actually ask any questions and they are also too complicated for regular people to understand.

/sarcasm

curtisfong
08-01-2012, 3:36 PM
What? Old people are out of touch with reality? Seriously?

Generally, old people have no clue what motivates the younger generation.

mosinnagantm9130
08-01-2012, 3:37 PM
With that in mind - what's the best way to get in front of that group? Say we had a message, commercial, banner ad, text ad - whatever format - where could it be placed so that a maximum number of CoD players saw the ad?

Stick an NRA or calguns booth outside of video game stores when they do midnight releases of new CoD games.

I have no idea if the stores would actually let you do that, but I bet it would be effective. Especially if there were some CA legal tacticool rifles there.

desertjosh
08-01-2012, 3:51 PM
I think that varies by location. A state like Asshatachusetts where they tighten up gun laws every 10 or 15 years it's natural that interest in shooting will diminish. Same for NYC where even AIRSOFT is covered under their permit laws. Reduced gun ownership is the purpose of these laws. This is why anyone who wants to "compromise" with gun control A-holes needs to pull their head out of their rectum. The aim of ALL those people is first laws like Mass and NYC, THEN like Australia.

THIS ^^ And until people wake up and realize that laws for guns don't protect they CONTROL, it will get worse and worse. Especially if we vote 0bama back in. (Just had to throw that in).:D

desertjosh
08-01-2012, 3:53 PM
Stick an NRA or calguns booth outside of video game stores when they do midnight releases of new CoD games.

I have no idea if the stores would actually let you do that, but I bet it would be effective. Especially if there were some CA legal tacticool rifles there.

Or if anyone is pro gun there, talk to people while waiting in line about it.

mosinnagantm9130
08-01-2012, 4:00 PM
Or if anyone is pro gun there, talk to people while waiting in line about it.

That too^^

You could have a few C3 people there handing out CGN & CGF flyers, but again, I don't know if the stores would be ok with that.

TempleKnight
08-01-2012, 7:01 PM
Generally, old people have no clue what motivates the younger generation.

That's an entirely different thing. I just don't give a crap what motivates slackers. I have plenty of time and patience for junior USPSA shooters but I'll admit that I have very little insight into the minds of fat kids playing WoW or CoD.

To the OP's question; I'm at the range at least 8 days a month and I see LOTS of noobs with there first gun.

acolytes
08-01-2012, 7:09 PM
Totally true. My son is a gamer, and over the last two years or so we've taken three of his male friends and one girlfriend to the range. None owned a gun at that time. I let them shoot my ARs, S&W 5943, and a Security-Six .357 revolver.

One of the guys now owns an ar15, one an AK, and the now ex-girlfriend has her CCW and a pretty cool LCP to go with it.

First person shooters are like a gateway drug. Wish there was some way to get in touch with the players and offer a free or low cost shooting experience. I'd bet good money that a fair percentage would jump on that with both feet.

I've found that taking someone shooting and giving them the mere experience alone will change their view on guns and turn them into gun owners. So far 100% of the people I have taken shooting have become first time gun owners themselves. Some of them now own more guns than me. :)

otteray
08-01-2012, 9:46 PM
Are there any statistics showing that while firearm ownership is declining, boating accidents involving guns being lost at sea are increasing?

curtisfong
08-01-2012, 10:53 PM
I have very little insight

Agreed. Stick to topics you comprehend. Gaming is obviously not one of them.

chead
08-01-2012, 11:21 PM
I'm a gun owner in the social justice activism community and it's always surprising to me how many folks will ask me about gun ownership and if I'll take them to the range. Shortly after they're usually asking for recommendations for what to buy :)

Shrubmaster
08-02-2012, 1:46 AM
Decline?

There's more gun shows on tv than there has ever been and they show no signs of being cancelled, which points to the increasing popularity in the sport.

80% of people polled are against further gun control, which points to a large amount of libs that are secretly on our side but are too ***** to admit it.

And the record for number of DROS's for a single day has been broken twice in less than a year.

This is total propaganda in my eyes.
I did three years of statistics, and let me tell you, statistics CAN lie. Its all about how your information is obtained, and like others have pointed out, we're dealing with the most unreliable sources that can be found on the subject.

carlosdarwin
08-02-2012, 8:54 AM
I think the initial stats that started this post are fairly accurate. They were about trends within the last few decades, but things have bottomed out since the 90s (as can be seen in the graph). As it turns out, things may be on the rebound. The most recent increase in ownership seems to be only within the last year or so, and is caused mainly by more (gasp!) Liberals becoming gun owners. You can see some graphs here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

SanPedroShooter
08-02-2012, 9:06 AM
So I understand there has been a decrease in the number of people that will tell a stranger over the phone they have guns in the house....

My dad is a case in point. Just got a .357 SP101. Why after 50+ years does he decide he needs a handgun and a CPL... The usual reasons people give these days,the more leftists push for control the more it will slip through their grasp.

Imagine a world where gun control is never mentioned? Or guess how many stripped lowers I've bought since the SB249 scare? What do they have in common? Read about the rush to manufacture and import standard cap mags before the 94 AWB... That sums up the prohibitionists dilemma in a nut shell.

Left Coast Conservative
08-02-2012, 9:28 AM
I've heard that the ever increasing number of single-parent households are part of the reason the percentage of "households" with firearms is down.

This is an extreme example, but if 100% of the households have one firearm and both parents, the rate is 100%. If all of those parents split, then the rate goes down to 50%, despite the same number of people owning the same number of guns.

This is important. The General Social Survey shows that the percentage of households with guns has fallen over time, but U.S. census data shows a very large increase in the number of households. Percentages may decline, but the absolute numbers of households with guns has been increasing since rough 2000. Don't take my word for it, go and check yourself.

ETA: This trend tracks nicely with the Gallup data. You will find the pro-gun control people emphasize the percentages, which do look pretty convincing.

advocatusdiaboli
08-02-2012, 11:30 AM
This is important. The General Social Survey shows that the percentage of households with guns has fallen over time, but U.S. census data shows a very large increase in the number of households. Percentages may decline, but the absolute numbers of households with guns has been increasing since rough 2000. Don't take my word for it, go and check yourself.

ETA: This trend tracks nicely with the Gallup data. You will find the pro-gun control people emphasize the percentages, which do look pretty convincing.

Yes it is important and I think the NRA should be interested in producing a counter spin on these misleading statistics. People tend to believe statistics more than anecdotal evidence so it is important we not let the opposition get the upper hand using spun stats on gun ownership. In the battle for America's hearts and minds to preserve our 2A rights, we cannot let this go unchallenged or this will hurt our cause.

Wallabing
08-02-2012, 11:34 AM
This generation is indeed the last era of gun owners. This generation of teens are too worried about global warming, thier facebook friends lists, and how to get money to raise their kids they had in middle school.

IVC
08-02-2012, 11:51 AM
This generation is indeed the last era of gun owners. This generation of teens are too worried about global warming, thier facebook friends lists, and how to get money to raise their kids they had in middle school.

There is CA outside San Jose...

Wiz-of-Awd
08-02-2012, 11:52 AM
Seems there are quite a few gun related shows on TV the last few years...

Perhaps a sign of growing popularity and acceptance?

A.W.D.

jokat989
08-03-2012, 4:15 AM
come up here to Alaska. you could say there are a few gun owners here

FalconLair
08-03-2012, 4:37 AM
i say no to the OP's question :)

The War Wagon
08-03-2012, 4:43 AM
Is this the SAME Communist News Network, that THINKS unemployment is ONLY 8.2%? :rolleyes:




http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1341579312

http://www.shadowstats.com/


Seeing as how they're off by a factor of THREE on THAT fact, I put NO stock in ANYTHING they report on gun owners, either... :rolleyes:

10mm
08-03-2012, 4:45 AM
I don't consider myself as bieng part of any "breed".

CDFingers
08-03-2012, 6:40 AM
We each need to do his or her part. 100% of my children own and enjoy guns. In California, no less.

CDFingers

Digital_Hate
08-03-2012, 12:21 PM
With almost everything being a felony these day. Most households can't own a firearm

QQQ
08-03-2012, 12:23 PM
Seems there are quite a few gun related shows on TV the last few years...

Perhaps a sign of growing popularity and acceptance?

A.W.D.

Let's not get carried away.

Jersey Shore is a TV show, too.

skyscraper
08-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Let's not get carried away.

Jersey Shore is a TV show, too.

Yes and unfortunately the jersey shore crowd is rapidly growing too.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-03-2012, 12:44 PM
Let's not get carried away.

Jersey Shore is a TV show, too.

Carried away, how did I do that?

Firearms are more and more prevalent on TV, as the actual topic or focus of various shows.

Advertisers and media promoters aren't going to spend time and money on something they don't feel there is an audience for.

I simply think that with more "pro gun" television, there must be more pro gun thinking by the viewing public to support it.

A.W.D.

vincewarde
08-04-2012, 12:42 AM
ETA: This trend tracks nicely with the Gallup data. You will find the pro-gun control people emphasize the percentages, which do look pretty convincing.

The percentages in these surveys are undoubtedly low - because many people will lie when asked if they own a gun. Factor this in and the number of gun owning households is probably over 50%.

Hunter as a percentage of the population have decreased significantly in the last 50 years (the number of hunters has declined only slightly, and is even up a bit this year). One would expect that this would result in a decrease in the percentage of gun owning households - but this has not happened. I find this interesting - and anti-gun folks should find it discouraging.

Someone mentioned the Swiss. Gun ownership there is almost as high as it is here - and if you could the hundreds of thousands of "take home" military guns, there rate is probably higher.

corrosively_armed
08-04-2012, 10:06 AM
Something that hurts us is opening a gun magazine to find a full page ad about shooting squirrels or prairie dogs. How does sick behavior help get more people interested in the hobby?

chead
08-04-2012, 10:07 AM
I've found that taking someone shooting and giving them the mere experience alone will change their view on guns and turn them into gun owners. So far 100% of the people I have taken shooting have become first time gun owners themselves. Some of them now own more guns than me. :)

I never considered owning a gun until a friend took me shooting. I bought one that night as soon as we came off the lane!

advocatusdiaboli
08-04-2012, 10:59 AM
The purpose of my original post was to get a discussion going on misuse of statistic by the anti-firearm coalition and develop suggestions for countermoves. I believe PR is battle we are not winning right now and we need to work harder on that.

What I'd like to see is the NRA developing more accurate statistics and using them more widely in the media to counter this misleading propaganda. Statistics are powerful and much of the public trust them far more than they should. Two examples of government use of misleading statistics are the unemployment numbers (reporting was changed under Bill Clinton reducing the number by 10% or so) and inflation measurement (they removed housing so the bubble didn't affect it and they've removed food, energy' and healthcare because their "volatility" showed inflation when the government didn't want to show any). Yet every media outlet parrots these misleading statistics as if they were accurate.

If our firearms rights organizations don't provide our own set of accurate numbers, the anti-firearm coalition's choices will be considered the facts. And that means we'll be losing on the battleground of public perception of firearms and firearm's owners. Why don't we see NRA and other pro-firearms organization's statistic in the media more? We ignore that deficit at our peril.

HBrebel
08-04-2012, 1:24 PM
from what I see at the gun shows, and several gun shop in my area, gun sales are outpacing demand. New shooters every day and after the olympics, more kids will want to shoot. Just like all the archery newbies after the Hunger Games books and movie came out. The way I see it, no government or media brainwashing will affect our gun loving american asses.

orangeusa
08-04-2012, 1:52 PM
Well put. Made me laugh... :)

There is CA outside San Jose...

orangeusa
08-04-2012, 1:54 PM
What? look up the word 'varmin/varmint'. And what gun mag has pics of massive kills of critters? Very confused by this post.

Something that hurts us is opening a gun magazine to find a full page ad about shooting squirrels or prairie dogs. How does sick behavior help get more people interested in the hobby?

mosinnagantm9130
08-04-2012, 3:54 PM
This generation is indeed the last era of gun owners. This generation of teens are too worried about global warming, thier facebook friends lists, and how to get money to raise their kids they had in middle school.

:troll:

Lemme guess, you didn't read this entire thread did you?

yellowfin
08-04-2012, 5:43 PM
I suppose no one has determined whether David Copperfield, Kris Angel, and David Blaine are gun owners?

Agent Orange
08-04-2012, 6:43 PM
Generally, old people have no clue what motivates the younger generation.

And generally, the younger generation have no clue period.

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 7:16 PM
Maybe in certain states gun owners are dwindling but in states where there's a big connection to hunting I highly doubt there will ever be a drout of gun owners in those states. The south is a hot bed for gun ownership and I don't see that changing.

corrosively_armed
08-04-2012, 7:16 PM
Calling something as natural in the wild as a squirrel or prairie dog a varmint is akin to calling any particular group of people subhuman so that you can commit genocide against them.

It's just sick and I see these ads over and over again in american rifleman or Handguns or whatever and it bothers me. What kind of image is that portraying?

I am not anti hunting but I am anti killing just for the sake of killing which is what so called varmint hunting is. I imagine the same people liked to pull the wings off of bugs as children.

What? look up the word 'varmin/varmint'. And what gun mag has pics of massive kills of critters? Very confused by this post.

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 7:19 PM
Calling something as natural in the wild as a squirrel or prairie dog a varmint is akin to calling any particular group of people subhuman so that you can commit genocide against them.

It's just sick and I see these ads over and over again in american rifleman or Handguns or whatever and it bothers me. What kind of image is that portraying?

I am not anti hunting but I am anti killing just for the sake of killing which is what so called varmint hunting is. I imagine the same people liked to pull the wings off of bugs as children.

Is killing wild pigs wrong? Because in some states they are a big problem.What about Florida if you stumbled on a python would you let someone shoot it or what you let it be?

Agent Orange
08-04-2012, 7:21 PM
Meh, look at his avatar...

corrosively_armed
08-04-2012, 7:22 PM
Liberals time and again say you don't need X for hunting. The idea that guns are about hunting has so hurt our hobby that it may be unrepairable. It is about proficiency with multiple types of weapons for self defense, defense of family, neighbors and country. Hunting as an excuse for firearms ownership will not be a lasting possibility in a world of modern sensibilities and food production. I personally don't like hunting but I'm ok with it as long as you eat what you kill. If we perpetuate hunting as a core necessity for firearms ownership then we are deluding ourselves with regards to any hope of retaining the second amendment. The right exists to protect family, friends and freedom.

corrosively_armed
08-04-2012, 7:26 PM
I don't have a problem with killing feral hogs or snakes because both are a threat. Squirrels, prairie dogs, woodchucks etc are not. Some recent studies on p-dogs has uncovered that they are beneficial to rangeland because of their churning of the soil and scattering seeds. Something which is leading ranchers to declare their range lands off limits to shooting.

I am also perfectly alright with blowing away mountain lions. I have no problem with shooting animals that have become a danger to people. I'm quite pleased that there are no grizzly bears left in California.

Is killing wild pigs wrong? Because in some states they are a big problem.What about Florida if you stumbled on a python would you let someone shoot it or what you let it be?

jonzer77
08-04-2012, 7:28 PM
Liberals time and again say you don't need X for hunting. The idea that guns are about hunting has so hurt our hobby that it may be unrepairable. It is about proficiency with multiple types of weapons for self defense, defense of family, neighbors and country. Hunting as an excuse for firearms ownership will not be a lasting possibility in a world of modern sensibilities and food production. I personally don't like hunting but I'm ok with it as long as you eat what you kill. If we perpetuate hunting as a core necessity for firearms ownership then we are deluding ourselves with regards to any hope of retaining the second amendment. The right exists to protect family, friends and freedom.

You will have a hard time finding anyone in here that believes the 2A is about hunting. Hunting as well as sport shooting are simply an added bonus.

You also have a lot to learn about blowing animals away. I suggest taking a hunters education course even if you dot ever plan on hunting.

TempleKnight
08-04-2012, 7:47 PM
Agreed. Stick to topics you comprehend. Gaming is obviously not one of them.

I don't know who pee'd in your Cheerios, but when did this become the gaming forum?

I was responding to your ageist insults. Just because I prefer to spend my time competing with actual firearms instead of playing Call of Duty doesn't mean I'm out of touch with reality. Gaming isn't reality.

corrosively_armed
08-04-2012, 8:18 PM
Had a hunter's safety class when I was a kid. Most important thing I took away from that was always be aware of what is beyond your target. We watched an old film,, yes film,, showing a shot at a lake skipping and hitting a school bus across the lake on a road. That stuck with me. As far as what pertained to hunting animals goes I won't vote against someone's right to do it but I personally find it pretty repugnant. So called vamint hunting though I do find completely sadistic. I've seen video of these morons lined up in the dakotas somewhere with high power small caliber rifles 'popping dogs' as they call it and taking gleeful delight in watching the poor things 'explode'. Pure sick.

You will have a hard time finding anyone in here that believes the 2A is about hunting. Hunting as well as sport shooting are simply an added bonus.

You also have a lot to learn about blowing animals away. I suggest taking a hunters education course even if you dot ever plan on hunting.

jonzer77
08-04-2012, 9:02 PM
Had a hunter's safety class when I was a kid. Most important thing I took away from that was always be aware of what is beyond your target. We watched an old film,, yes film,, showing a shot at a lake skipping and hitting a school bus across the lake on a road. That stuck with me. As far as what pertained to hunting animals goes I won't vote against someone's right to do it but I personally find it pretty repugnant. So called vamint hunting though I do find completely sadistic. I've seen video of these morons lined up in the dakotas somewhere with high power small caliber rifles 'popping dogs' as they call it and taking gleeful delight in watching the poor things 'explode'. Pure sick.

Firearm safety was a big part of the class but so was learning that each animal has a role in the ecosystem. I made that comment when you said you were glad that grizzly bears were out of California when you shouldn't be happy that any animals are hunted out of existence. Same goes for mountain lions and snakes no matter how much you don't like them.

corrosively_armed
08-05-2012, 8:14 AM
Yes i have serious issues with the idea that predators are necessary to the ecosystem. There are animals in new zealand for example, the flightless parrot which has no natural predators yet does not overproduce. There is another bird which does not breed and lay fertilized eggs unless it sees an abundance of fish which it eats. I think on this question a lot actually. If it weren't for the fact that cows are so tasty I'd quit eating them because I believe any animal that has the capacity to play is sentient and self aware to some degree. Anyone who has watched cows, knows they are quite capable of playing amongst themselves or alone. Yet we still eat them. To that, I have no solution. I feel though that by and large animals will not overproduce unless they have the food to do so. The only reason you see occasional scourges of mice by the thousands occasionally in Australia for example is I feel simply the over abundance of food produced by the farms. It's not the mouse's fault or the owl's fault for not keeping up. Humanity has an insatiable appetite for destruction and that manifests itself in our shooting hobby in the form of killing just for the sake of killing which is a sad commentary on humanity at large not necessarily just members of our 'shooting culture'. Ads in gun magazines glorifying the killing of completely defenseless creatures does not help our cause. Savage I note, has created some of these ads.

Agent Orange
08-05-2012, 9:32 AM
Good grief. You have some powerfully queer beliefs. I'm guessing you're a youngster too.

corrosively_armed
08-05-2012, 11:33 AM
Two great things came out in 1977. Me and star wars.
35.

Good grief. You have some powerfully queer beliefs. I'm guessing you're a youngster too.

IVC
08-05-2012, 11:39 AM
...but I'm ok with it as long as you eat what you kill.

There are people who are ok with sex as long as it's for procreation. Pick a topic and someone will pontificate with why and how you have to do it to get their blessing.

Animals kill other animals for all sorts of reasons other than to eat them. If it weren't so, there would be no scavengers. Give a mouse to your cat and observe behavior that you'll find most repulsive - a pleasure killing with torture enjoyment and barely a nibble after the fact. Reconcile that with your conscience.

If you are seeking moral excuse for something you find offensive and repulsive, it's your personal choice. When you start exporting your beliefs to others and try to claim the high moral ground is when you cross the line.

IVC
08-05-2012, 11:52 AM
If it weren't for the fact that cows are so tasty I'd quit eating them because I believe any animal that has the capacity to play is sentient and self aware to some degree.

Straw man argument - you are playing the "sentient" aspect to allow you to justify killing mosquitos and other pests just for being annoying and having a way out through not having guilty conscience when you kill vegetables to eat them.

Sentient or not, the natural selection and the food chain are the most fundamental concepts in the evolution of species. Try to have morality du jour guide your beliefs and you are negating the core established science by negating the concepts in italics above.

corrosively_armed
08-05-2012, 12:10 PM
It comes down to how an animal behaves in the wild. We have similar rules for people in our justice system. You kill someone, you die(or reside in prison indefinitely on the taxpayers dime). You steal, you go to jail etc.

I see no difference between say, a mountain lion and a human serial killer. I'd happily blow away both if allowed too.

Life is precious. Life that appreciates it's own existence which is demonstrated through playful behavior is most precious of all because it is consciously interacting with it's world and enjoys it. Life that hurts other life in any way is unacceptable. I can eat chickens because I know chickens are horribly stupid and I have yet to see a chicken play. They will peck each other to death if one has blood on it. They are really awful things. Playful behavior is the most obvious sign of sentience. So, if a creature is sentient and harms nothing else intentionally I do not see a reason to kill it. I am fine with killing and eating most fish. You shouldn't eat dophins(mammal<>fish nazis, yes i know) though,,, although tuna's never been the same since they took the dolphin out.. (jk)

I have considered many times to not eat beef. The way they are slaughtered etc is pretty awful. I know cows are aware. Watch how they behave in a pasture with other cows. Watch videos of cows entering a slaughterhouse that can smell the fear and death of the cows ahead of them. They are scared. This really bothers me. If I can find a good artificial hamburger I'd gladly give up eating beef.

There is an anti predator shooting club that I received an invitation to join recently. I believe their slogan was something like, shoot straight, kill cleanly, don't apologize.

IVC
08-05-2012, 12:16 PM
Life that hurts other life in any way is unacceptable.

If you really believe this, how can you live with yourself? Unless you can use photosynthesis and convert non organic matter into organic, you are the "life that hurts other life" and, thus, unacceptable to yourself.

jonzer77
08-05-2012, 12:37 PM
It comes down to how an animal behaves in the wild. We have similar rules for people in our justice system. You kill someone, you die(or reside in prison indefinitely on the taxpayers dime). You steal, you go to jail etc.

I see no difference between say, a mountain lion and a human serial killer. I'd happily blow away both if allowed too.

Life is precious. Life that appreciates it's own existence which is demonstrated through playful behavior is most precious of all because it is consciously interacting with it's world and enjoys it. Life that hurts other life in any way is unacceptable. I can eat chickens because I know chickens are horribly stupid and I have yet to see a chicken play. They will peck each other to death if one has blood on it. They are really awful things. Playful behavior is the most obvious sign of sentience. So, if a creature is sentient and harms nothing else intentionally I do not see a reason to kill it. I am fine with killing and eating most fish. You shouldn't eat dophins(mammal<>fish nazis, yes i know) though,,, although tuna's never been the same since they took the dolphin out.. (jk)

I have considered many times to not eat beef. The way they are slaughtered etc is pretty awful. I know cows are aware. Watch how they behave in a pasture with other cows. Watch videos of cows entering a slaughterhouse that can smell the fear and death of the cows ahead of them. They are scared. This really bothers me. If I can find a good artificial hamburger I'd gladly give up eating beef.

There is an anti predator shooting club that I received an invitation to join recently. I believe their slogan was something like, shoot straight, kill cleanly, don't apologize.

They seem to think predators are vital to the ecosystem.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_crucial_role_of_predators_a_new_perspective_on _ecology/2442/

SkyMag68
08-05-2012, 12:53 PM
I know a lot of videogame players, Facebook users..most of them are guns owner and strong believer Right to Bear Arms like myself..Facebook is a very handy tool for Gun Rights Movement.

Carnivore
08-05-2012, 1:54 PM
It comes down to how an animal behaves in the wild. We have similar rules for people in our justice system. You kill someone, you die(or reside in prison indefinitely on the taxpayers dime). You steal, you go to jail etc.

I see no difference between say, a mountain lion and a human serial killer. I'd happily blow away both if allowed too.

Life is precious. Life that appreciates it's own existence which is demonstrated through playful behavior is most precious of all because it is consciously interacting with it's world and enjoys it. Life that hurts other life in any way is unacceptable. I can eat chickens because I know chickens are horribly stupid and I have yet to see a chicken play. They will peck each other to death if one has blood on it. They are really awful things. Playful behavior is the most obvious sign of sentience. So, if a creature is sentient and harms nothing else intentionally I do not see a reason to kill it. I am fine with killing and eating most fish. You shouldn't eat dophins(mammal<>fish nazis, yes i know) though,,, although tuna's never been the same since they took the dolphin out.. (jk)

I have considered many times to not eat beef. The way they are slaughtered etc is pretty awful. I know cows are aware. Watch how they behave in a pasture with other cows. Watch videos of cows entering a slaughterhouse that can smell the fear and death of the cows ahead of them. They are scared. This really bothers me. If I can find a good artificial hamburger I'd gladly give up eating beef.

There is an anti predator shooting club that I received an invitation to join recently. I believe their slogan was something like, shoot straight, kill cleanly, don't apologize. Just asking but you do realize that animals don't "play" like humans do right? They do what looks like play to strengthen muscles, adequately cause bone growth and to sharpen hunting and evading skills not for the fun of it as human children do. Birds don't play because they have hallow bones and they are very fragile. The only strengthening they need is the flight muscles in their backs hence the reason they stretch constantly. I guess every one needs their reasons for hierarchy so this excuse is as good as any but thinking that play shows a form or a higher form of sentience doesn't. It is in order to be better at hurting other life or not be hurt by other life as you describe.

Funtimes
08-05-2012, 2:24 PM
Stick an NRA or calguns booth outside of video game stores when they do midnight releases of new CoD games.

I have no idea if the stores would actually let you do that, but I bet it would be effective. Especially if there were some CA legal tacticool rifles there.

I actually like this idea. Here in Hawaii, these midnight releases are full of 18-30 year olds getting their fix, most of them are military.

wash
08-05-2012, 5:38 PM
I haven't read the whole thread but responding to the OP, I think the poll shows that gun owners are less likely to tell random pollsters that they own guns...

corrosively_armed
08-05-2012, 6:19 PM
You have obviously never watched baby goats, or kittens or a myriad of other things. Heck even cows will go bounding off, swishing their tails in jubilant delight over something unknown to us. I grew up on a horse ranch. Lots of animals play. Baby horses for one.

Just asking but you do realize that animals don't "play" like humans do right? They do what looks like play to strengthen muscles, adequately cause bone growth and to sharpen hunting and evading skills not for the fun of it as human children do. Birds don't play because they have hallow bones and they are very fragile. The only strengthening they need is the flight muscles in their backs hence the reason they stretch constantly. I guess every one needs their reasons for hierarchy so this excuse is as good as any but thinking that play shows a form or a higher form of sentience doesn't. It is in order to be better at hurting other life or not be hurt by other life as you describe.

holasrmateo
08-05-2012, 6:31 PM
The number of gun owners are down and any growth in the number of guns is concentrated in a number of shrinking households. How many children have shot a .22LR? Guns have been demonized to the point where the culture of fear not the culture of guns is being passed down. By the time a person turns 18, even if they aren't against guns, there's probably no interest for them.

The only silver lining is that in the last ten years, despite the diminishing number of gun owners, the majority of people may not personally own a gun but are for the right to own one (but even that statement there is a lot of variance).

jonzer77
08-05-2012, 6:48 PM
The number of gun owners are down and any growth in the number of guns is concentrated in a number of shrinking households. How many children have shot a .22LR? Guns have been demonized to the point where the culture of fear not the culture of guns is being passed down. By the time a person turns 18, even if they aren't against guns, there's probably no interest for them.

The only silver lining is that in the last ten years, despite the diminishing number of gun owners, the majority of people may not personally own a gun but are for the right to own one (but even that statement there is a lot of variance).

FUD

SkyMag68
08-05-2012, 9:04 PM
The number of gun owners are down and any growth in the number of guns is concentrated in a number of shrinking households. How many children have shot a .22LR? Guns have been demonized to the point where the culture of fear not the culture of guns is being passed down. By the time a person turns 18, even if they aren't against guns, there's probably no interest for them.

The only silver lining is that in the last ten years, despite the diminishing number of gun owners, the majority of people may not personally own a gun but are for the right to own one (but even that statement there is a lot of variance).

You wrong on that one..in the last few years I knew 7 people that bought there first gun..All the kids I met including my wanted a gun or have shot 22lr. rifle..It's up to us gun owner to teach the youngsters guns is not dangerous, criminals with guns is dangerous.

IVC
08-06-2012, 11:04 AM
You have obviously never watched baby goats, or kittens or a myriad of other things. Heck even cows will go bounding off, swishing their tails in jubilant delight over something unknown to us. I grew up on a horse ranch. Lots of animals play. Baby horses for one.

The question is not whether they play, but who elected you Pope. You are passing judgment and deciding who is "sick" per your views and your moral definitions.

If you want to lean left, you have to learn what those who lean right already have: if you think someone is doing something immoral, that's okay; if you even hate someone because you think they are immoral, that's okay; if you want to justify and push on everybody else your morality and judgment, that's NOT OK.

P.S. If you really think that what you judge "immoral" qualifies as "pure sick," there are simple medical and psychological test to confirm or reject such a hypothesis. Turns out you are wrong. Think about all those who call other "different groups" pure sick to get a better idea where your approach lands you.

IVC
08-06-2012, 11:09 AM
The number of gun owners are down and any growth in the number of guns is concentrated in a number of shrinking households.

Says Brady website. In other news, you are 23 times more likely to get hurt by a gun in your house than to defend yourself, you are better off leaving guns to police and the unicorns graze rainbow lit pastures.

The claim you're making would at least need to be confirmed by an independent scientific study. Calling people and saying "Hello, I'm from the Gun Control Inc., do you have any guns at home" is hardly to produce any valid statistics. Know thy source.

sorensen440
08-06-2012, 12:03 PM
Keep in mind that those are the numbers reflecting the number of people who would tell someone over the phone that they owned a firearm.

otteray
08-06-2012, 8:08 PM
Keep in mind that those are the numbers reflecting the number of people who would tell someone over the phone that they owned a firearm.

Or else, when filling out the doctor's office survey ("Do you keep a gun in the house?" "Is it locked up?" "Loaded/Unloaded?")
A:Yes _
B: No _
C: Not Applicable x

corrosively_armed
08-06-2012, 10:00 PM
I suppose we shouldn't imprison or execute serial killers either. After all we shouldn't judge... This is a topic in the shooting hobby that really hits a sore point with me. Killing an animal that is no threat to anyone and that is not necessary to sustaining your own life, is indefensible no matter how you try to justify it. It's sick and it's wrong. It satisfies some sort of ancient need that has persevered amongst some members of humanity to destroy purely for the sake of destruction. It is no different than vandalism or car jacking or looting during a riot. Wanton destruction and murder shouldn't be anyone's idea of a good time.

The question is not whether they play, but who elected you Pope. You are passing judgment and deciding who is "sick" per your views and your moral definitions.

If you want to lean left, you have to learn what those who lean right already have: if you think someone is doing something immoral, that's okay; if you even hate someone because you think they are immoral, that's okay; if you want to justify and push on everybody else your morality and judgment, that's NOT OK.

P.S. If you really think that what you judge "immoral" qualifies as "pure sick," there are simple medical and psychological test to confirm or reject such a hypothesis. Turns out you are wrong. Think about all those who call other "different groups" pure sick to get a better idea where your approach lands you.

bulgron
08-06-2012, 10:36 PM
They were right when they said my school was an indoctrination camp!

Get your kids out of the public system. Private school or home school ONLY!


Naw.

You just have to work to overcome the indoctrination. I have both of my kids, girls, in public California school -- in Silicon Valley, no less. And they're both always bugging me to take them shooting. Plus, some of their friends are jealous that they get to go shooting, but they can't. (I've offered to take some of those kids shooting, but the parents are reluctant. Oh well, can't win them all.)

My oldest daughter wants a pink rifle. I guess I should get on that. :D

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 12:47 AM
I suppose we shouldn't imprison or execute serial killers either. After all we shouldn't judge... This is a topic in the shooting hobby that really hits a sore point with me. Killing an animal that is no threat to anyone and that is not necessary to sustaining your own life, is indefensible no matter how you try to justify it. It's sick and it's wrong. It satisfies some sort of ancient need that has persevered amongst some members of humanity to destroy purely for the sake of destruction. It is no different than vandalism or car jacking or looting during a riot. Wanton destruction and murder shouldn't be anyone's idea of a good time.

What exactly does this have to do with gun owners being a vanishing breed again?

corrosively_armed
08-07-2012, 8:11 AM
You're a non gun owner sitting in a dentist's office that somehow has a copy of american rifleman. You're bored and pick it up. You see ads for and articles about 'varmint' hunting advertising ar15s(I've seen em). You,, as a liberal think to yourself,, this is why they want guns??? screw em.....

It's an image thing. It makes us all look like idiot rednecks. Here hold ma beer while I pop some dogs!

The hunting shows on the outdoor channels don't help either. Most of those folks strike me as having some sort of psychological shortcoming that they make up for internally by killing things. I remember the infamous PBS special about guns in america where the hunter dad was smearing blood on his children's faces as some sort of ritual. Every group, political organization, whatever,, has it's embarrassments,, drunken morons with guns shooting in the air on new years or idiots killing things just to kill things are ours.

IVC
08-07-2012, 9:15 AM
You,, as a liberal think to yourself,, this is why they want guns??? screw em.....

You as a liberal should think education first, judgment later. The human nature has not changed in a few short decades - you in CA got to live your life free from moral judgment from the right and the first thing you do is to establish your own moral norms against which you will judge and limit others. There is nothing liberal about that.

If you are truly a liberal, remove your emotions for a moment and introduce the science, then reconcile the following:
- Most animals kill just because they can.
- Animals have no moral restraints on killing.
- Your cat and dog are proverbial "serial killers" (in your terminology) given a chance.
- Mountain lion, which liberals through a ballot vote and against all scientific evidence banned hunting of, is an obligate carnivore who cannot survive without perpetual killing.
- Being cute and cuddly is not a substitute for science.
- Evolution is impossible without arbitrary killings.
- Food chain is a scientific fact.
- Almost all city liberals would rather kill rats at their favorite restaurant than find an occasional dropping in their food.
- Killing rats and mice is "varmint hunting," even if done by proxy.
- Vegetarians kill more animals per unit of food than non-vegetarians.
- Humans are omnivores; choosing vegetarian/vegan diet doesn't make us herbivores.
- Liberals support government agencies controlling animal population, but if there is a component of "pleasure," it's considered morally reprehensible.
- The modern day liberals are very, very similar to the old school conservatives: highly intolerant of incompatible opinions, choosing emotion over science at-will, wanting to enforce their views as "better" on everybody else, using personal morality to justify restrictions on others, not even recognizing that this behavior is what we call "bigoted".
- Rednecks and hillbillies are people too. Liberals assuming them to be a lower life form is very, very close to declaring them a 3/5 of a person, which was responsible for racism, segregation, ban on interracial marriages and many other "goodies."
...

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 10:37 AM
You're a non gun owner sitting in a dentist's office that somehow has a copy of american rifleman. You're bored and pick it up. You see ads for and articles about 'varmint' hunting advertising ar15s(I've seen em). You,, as a liberal think to yourself,, this is why they want guns??? screw em.....

It's an image thing. It makes us all look like idiot rednecks. Here hold ma beer while I pop some dogs!

The hunting shows on the outdoor channels don't help either. Most of those folks strike me as having some sort of psychological shortcoming that they make up for internally by killing things. I remember the infamous PBS special about guns in america where the hunter dad was smearing blood on his children's faces as some sort of ritual. Every group, political organization, whatever,, has it's embarrassments,, drunken morons with guns shooting in the air on new years or idiots killing things just to kill things are ours.

Not everyone shares your opinion just so you know. I would think it was pretty fun actually, especially if it was hamsters :)

corrosively_armed
08-07-2012, 6:42 PM
I'm not a liberal. I'm referring to people who see our hobby from the outside.

You as a liberal should think education first, judgment later. The human nature has not changed in a few short decades - you in CA got to live your life free from moral judgment from the right and the first thing you do is to establish your own moral norms against which you will judge and limit others. There is nothing liberal about that.

If you are truly a liberal, remove your emotions for a moment and introduce the science, then reconcile the following:
- Most animals kill just because they can.
- Animals have no moral restraints on killing.
- Your cat and dog are proverbial "serial killers" (in your terminology) given a chance.
- Mountain lion, which liberals through a ballot vote and against all scientific evidence banned hunting of, is an obligate carnivore who cannot survive without perpetual killing.
- Being cute and cuddly is not a substitute for science.
- Evolution is impossible without arbitrary killings.
- Food chain is a scientific fact.
- Almost all city liberals would rather kill rats at their favorite restaurant than find an occasional dropping in their food.
- Killing rats and mice is "varmint hunting," even if done by proxy.
- Vegetarians kill more animals per unit of food than non-vegetarians.
- Humans are omnivores; choosing vegetarian/vegan diet doesn't make us herbivores.
- Liberals support government agencies controlling animal population, but if there is a component of "pleasure," it's considered morally reprehensible.
- The modern day liberals are very, very similar to the old school conservatives: highly intolerant of incompatible opinions, choosing emotion over science at-will, wanting to enforce their views as "better" on everybody else, using personal morality to justify restrictions on others, not even recognizing that this behavior is what we call "bigoted".
- Rednecks and hillbillies are people too. Liberals assuming them to be a lower life form is very, very close to declaring them a 3/5 of a person, which was responsible for racism, segregation, ban on interracial marriages and many other "goodies."
...

IVC
08-07-2012, 7:08 PM
I'm not a liberal. I'm referring to people who see our hobby from the outside.

Either way, you are trying to pass your personal belief as an objective measure. The way you see varmint hunting is the way some see any kind of gun activity. The cultural battle in CA is about morality of guns in the first place, where the left is trying to say it's immoral without saying it's immoral because it's incompatible with being a liberal.

Saying that something is "sick" and that those people are "depraved" is a very explicit moral qualification. No different than saying we need a "good moral character" to carry guns, then have S.F. sheriff decide that anyone who wants to carry a gun is immoral. We have some very real bans in CA based on the personal qualifications of "morality."

corrosively_armed
08-08-2012, 7:47 PM
I suspect the majority of varmint hunters would also have a bumper sticker on their lifted pickup trucks advocating popping illegal varmints along the border as well...It's the yahoo redneck image. Oh, and a pair of those chrome bull balls hanging from their trailer hitch. Whatever. Some people never grow up, never mature or never had the capacity to in the first place. With any luck they won't tarnish the majority of us who aren't 'here hold ma beer' yahoos.

jonzer77
08-08-2012, 7:54 PM
I suspect the majority of varmint hunters would also have a bumper sticker on their lifted pickup trucks advocating popping illegal varmints along the border as well...It's the yahoo redneck image. Oh, and a pair of those chrome bull balls hanging from their trailer hitch. Whatever. Some people never grow up, never mature or never had the capacity to in the first place. With any luck they won't tarnish the majority of us who aren't 'here hold ma beer' yahoos.

You sound pretty liberal to me.