Strib story on gun ownership

[xd9]

Three percent of American adults own half the nation's guns

http://www.startribune.com/three-percent-of-american-adults-own-half-the-nation-s-guns/394043441/

Yep, it's a presidential election year again. Time to marginalize gun ownership.

[Ghost]

Hard to believe but with a little math I could see it. What i'd like to know is how they know the total amount of guns? You'd need that number to figure it out from a survey of 4000.

[MJY65]

They don't know the numbers. These studies are always fanciful extrapolations based on guesses. Kind of like global warming data.

[jdege]

Gun rights advocates are often skeptical of gun-ownership surveys, saying that many owners may not disclose the presence of guns to a stranger over the phone or in person. Survey researchers have generally found little evidence to support this claim.

This statement is clear evidence that they are lying. Pollsters are well aware of the problem, and guns aren't the only area where it shows up.

A growing proportion of the population simply refuses to answer pollsters, and those that do are increasingly a non-representative sample.

[yukonjasper]

I avoid polls. If I don't recognize the call coming in, it gets ignored. Anyone I know that would want to talk to me would leave a message. I'm always suspicious of opinions gathered from people who are all to eager to spend that much of their day to relay it.

[xd ED]

I avoid polls. If I don't recognize the call coming in, it gets ignored. Anyone I know that would want to talk to me would leave a message. I'm always suspicious of opinions gathered from people who are all to eager to spend that much of their day to relay it.

In the past, I've started to participate in various phone surveys.
I don.t think I ever made it through one.
Now, given the level of nuciense calls, I too rarely answer unknown numbers.

I doubt there are many such polls developed without a desired outcome, this one likely designed to take advantage of most gun owners' reluctance to divulge personal information to strangers.

The information presented likely qualifies to be called asstitistics, in reference to the corporal nether region from which it was pulled.

[Nemo]

Total BS. Starting with the claim that gun ownership has declined. What?! I personally know tens of people who recently became first-time gun owners. Do you know ANYONE who got rid of their guns completely? I don't. And then look at this:
"Gun rights advocates are often skeptical of gun-ownership surveys, saying that many owners may not disclose the presence of guns to a stranger over the phone or in person. Survey researchers have generally found little evidence to support this claim. "
They found little evidence .... Really? How? You surely find little evidence of anything if you DON'T LOOK FOR EVIDENCE.
Complete liberal BS. Disgusting as usual.

[Randygmn]

Recent Pew polling has ownership in 44% of ALL households. And this doesn't consider how firearms are under reported in polls.

Also, just since NICS was instituted, there's been 230 million checks. Previously to NICS, there was an estimated 200 million firearms in circulation. There are easily 350 million firearms in current circulation.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/ ... ustguns_6/

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

[Ghost]

Assuming 243M adults

3% is about 7.3M

Assume 300M guns in US

That means 243-7.3=235.7M need to own 150M guns, seems reasonable.

The remaining 150M need to come from the 7.3M people, that's 20.5 per person average. I know people with hundreds of guns and many of us here likely are above average.

Many houses may only have a gun or at most two and many houses have more than one adult in them so the numbers seem possible.

I agree numbers aren't declining and I don't see why these numbers are important at all.

[shooter115]

Random caller: Do you own any firearms?
Me: Click.

End of story.

[Nemo]

Assuming 243M adults
I agree numbers aren't declining and I don't see why these numbers are important at all.

The ultimate purpose of the left is to ban and confiscate guns completely. From law abiding citizens of course, not from criminals, which is impossibility as they know very well. And by the way they don't fear criminals, they fear us. Criminals actually help them by invoking a havoc on the society and thus causing "concerned citizens" to cry for more Gov-t.

The sole purpose of the article is to cause outrage. What they are really saying is that it's only 3% of crazies who is the problem. This is supposed to 1) encourage anti-gunners by making them feel like a huge majority having to deal with actually a very tiny minority, and 2) to "divide and conquer" gun owners by turning them against each other - "Look it's only a tiny minority of us that causes the problem. If we give them up, we will be left alone". You wish. You are the next. It's like "tax the rich" - first they tax the rich, next they tax you. Usual Saul Alinsky tactics by the Left. After you betray the "minority" and it is eliminated, they will come after the "betrayers" and eliminate them too.

[yukonjasper]

my most recent suspicion/paranoia is that when you see the marginalization of gun ownership to a very small percentage of the population as this attempts to do. If you convince people that not many citizens would be affected anyway, any legislation to curb the 2nd amendment or impose new restrictions will be viewed as affecting someone else, but not me, so what's the big deal? Right? When you couple that with the recent media stories about how the background checks don't seem to be working and that the system is failing, the only obvious solution in their eyes is to completely outlaw gun ownership.

I don't know that this approach will be successful on a broad basis, however we need to be vigilant because of the incremental approach that the Anti's have taken in the past and appear to be happy to take here. Slowly they undermine the common thoughts and perceptions of the masses by inserting the vocabulary they want used and reinforcing it with the media and with Liberal thought leaders. Once they think they have everyone softened to the point they believe they can be successful, they will make their move.

They are content to chip away at the rock with small modifications over time to achieve their ultimate goals. I encourage everyone to read the Liberal Playbook - Rules for Radicals, written by Saul Alinsky. It's all there and the current Liberal Leadership was raised on it.

[Nemo]

Exactly!

my most recent suspicion/paranoia is that when you see the marginalization of gun ownership to a very small percentage of the population as this attempts to do. If you convince people that not many citizens would be affected anyway, any legislation to curb the 2nd amendment or impose new restrictions will be viewed as affecting someone else, but not me, so what's the big deal? Right? When you couple that with the recent media stories about how the background checks don't seem to be working and that the system is failing, the only obvious solution in their eyes is to completely outlaw gun ownership.

I don't know that this approach will be successful on a broad basis, however we need to be vigilant because of the incremental approach that the Anti's have taken in the past and appear to be happy to take here. Slowly they undermine the common thoughts and perceptions of the masses by inserting the vocabulary they want used and reinforcing it with the media and with Liberal thought leaders. Once they think they have everyone softened to the point they believe they can be successful, they will make their move.

They are content to chip away at the rock with small modifications over time to achieve their ultimate goals. I encourage everyone to read the Liberal Playbook - Rules for Radicals, written by Saul Alinsky. It's all there and the current Liberal Leadership was raised on it.

[photogpat]

my most recent suspicion/paranoia is that when you see the marginalization of gun ownership to a very small percentage of the population as this attempts to do. If you convince people that not many citizens would be affected anyway, any legislation to curb the 2nd amendment or impose new restrictions will be viewed as affecting someone else, but not me, so what's the big deal? Right? When you couple that with the recent media stories about how the background checks don't seem to be working and that the system is failing, the only obvious solution in their eyes is to completely outlaw gun ownership.

I don't know that this approach will be successful on a broad basis, however we need to be vigilant because of the incremental approach that the Anti's have taken in the past and appear to be happy to take here. Slowly they undermine the common thoughts and perceptions of the masses by inserting the vocabulary they want used and reinforcing it with the media and with Liberal thought leaders. Once they think they have everyone softened to the point they believe they can be successful, they will make their move.

They are content to chip away at the rock with small modifications over time to achieve their ultimate goals. I encourage everyone to read the Liberal Playbook - Rules for Radicals, written by Saul Alinsky. It's all there and the current Liberal Leadership was raised on it.

Part of it feeds into the Upper Class vs. Middle Class mentality too...if you're not one of those guys with 100 guns...then $#%@ him....

[yukonjasper]

Same plan with the income disparity. Tax the rich sounds good when you aren't in that group. Problem is that the precedent has then been set when the "rich" run out of money or your spending exceeds what you can extract and now need to include more people. It gets out of hand quickly.