Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG? - Page 70 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2016, 06:00 PM   #1381
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Marylandistan
Posts: 759
Total Cats: 39
Default

LA Police Gear Operator Tactical Pants with Elastic Waistband

For any of you gays that operate or like me, operate in the backyard on the weekends. They are on sale for $15.
stratosteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2016, 05:15 PM   #1382
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,520
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 10:59 AM   #1383
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,520
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

unfriended many liberals on my FB feed, so here's a pro-gun video to even up the score.

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:06 AM   #1384
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

C'mon, Brain. I know IB broke some of the code, but is it really that hard for you to properly embed FB video?

click to play

Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:07 AM   #1385
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,520
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

kinda.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:16 AM   #1386
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

Lazy SOB...


Anyway, a few months ago, I posited that the distribution of guns in the US appeared to be becoming much more inequitable. Specifically, that while more guns were being manufactured and purchased year-over-year, the number of households choosing to possess one or more guns has been in a period of very gradual but continuous decline since the 1980s, and therefore, gun ownership was becoming increasingly concentrated among a smaller number of households which were keeping larger and larger numbers of guns.

I compared this to the phenomenon whereby most households choose not to purchase race tires, but that those households which own at least one set of race tires are likely to own multiple sets.

A lot of folks disagreed, and basically said that the statistics were all lying.

So here are some more falsified statistics:



The average gun owner now owns 8 guns double what it used to be

By Christopher Ingraham October 21, 2015

There are nearly twice as many guns in the average gun-owning household today as there were 20 years ago, according to new Wonkblog estimates based data from surveys and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In 2013, there were an estimated 8.1 firearms in the typical gun-owning household, according to these data. In 1994, the average gun-owning household owned 4.2 guns.



These numbers comport with what survey research has shown for several years now: the share of gun-owning households has been declining over the past 20 years and possibly more, according to numbers from Gallup and the General Social Survey. On the other hand, domestic firearm production and imports of firearms have risen sharply, particularly in recent years. If those numbers are correct, it follows that increasing gun purchases are being driven primarily by existing owners stocking up rather than first-time buyers.

Plenty has been written about the decline in overall gun ownership rates. Many of these stories are based on the General Social Survey's data, which shows household ownership rates falling from over 50 percent in the 1970s to around 32 percent today. Some gun rights advocates dispute these numbers, preferring to use Gallup's household ownership rates instead, which have remained essentially flat over the same period.

But even Gallup's numbers show a decline in gun ownership since the early 1990s, from 54 percent of households in late 1993 to 43 percent as of this fall. And regardless of whether overall ownership rates are flat or falling, one thing that's largely been overlooked is how more guns and fewer gun owners means that firearms are being concentrated in fewer hands than ever before.

I calculated the per-household estimates as follows: I multiplied the total number of households in the U.S. (from the Census) by the share of households owning guns. Given the differences between the Gallup and GSS numbers on household ownership (something of a survey mystery), rather than pick one I used them both, to create high and low bounds for the number of gun-owning households.

I divided the total number of guns in the U.S. by the number of gun-owning households to arrive at an average number of guns per household. For the final number each year, I took the average of the estimate created by the GSS and Gallup household ownership rates.

Important caveat, as always: these are estimates built upon estimates, so there's a fair amount of wiggle room in the actual numbers. However, the overall trend of increasing guns per household is generally not in dispute. And the numbers comport with other estimates of the number of guns per gun-owning household, like a 2006 study finding that the average individual gun-owner owned 6.6 guns in 2004.

Also important: these are averages, which are a very blunt instrument for understanding the distribution of guns in the population. In all likelihood, there's a situation where a small percentage of gun owners own a huge number of guns, which brings the average up for everyone. For instance, that same 2006 study found that the top 20 percent of gun owners owned 65 percent of America's firearms. The top 3 percent of gun owners averaged over 25 firearms each.

For many owners guns are like tools, and you need different tools for different jobs: a rifle for hunting deer. A shotgun for hunting duck. A pistol for self-defense. An AR-15 for fun. Etc.

But in recent years, it seems many gun owners have seen fit to expand their toolboxes. There are probably a number of factors driving this: fear-stoking by some gun rights groups in the wake of mass shootings can lead to surges in gun-buying from existing owners concerned the government could take their guns away. The rising popularity of "prepper" groups, who stock up on food and firearms in preparation for a variety of coming apocalypses, may also be playing a role.

Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...it-used-to-be/
Attached Thumbnails
Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?-80-blob_8b31ee9efa9e0aa4f795d187b6366a79389d86b2.png  
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:29 AM   #1387
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,520
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

people mainly buy those guns for creative ways to kill themselves.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:34 AM   #1388
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
people mainly buy those guns for creative ways to kill themselves.
You remember the turntable scene in "Long, Dark Teatime of the Soul?"

If I ever commit suicide, that's how I'm doing it.



Anyway, that particular study is interesting because, in order to refute it, you have to believe that the people being surveyed are simultaneously lying about gun-ownership in both directions. Specifically, that most people lie in the direction of claiming to own fewer guns than they actually do (towards zero), but that of the select group of people who tell the truth about owning at least one gun, a majority of them lie in the direction of claiming to own more guns than they actually do.

It's not an impossible scenario, but it'd be hard to set it up without lots of chemtrails.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:54 AM   #1389
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,520
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

who cares really?

its legal.
it's constitutionally protected.
gun violence is not on an increase.
you are not any more unsafe/safe if your random neighbor likes to collect guns like Lars like to collect miatas and cats.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 11:57 AM   #1390
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 13,062
Total Cats: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
who cares really?

its legal.
it's constitutionally protected.
gun violence is not on an increase.
you are not any more unsafe/safe if your random neighbor likes to collect guns like Lars like to collect miatas and cats.
But, I also collect guns. I just can't afford to shoot any due to spending all my money on miata's and cats.
shuiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 12:18 PM   #1391
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
who cares really?
You must be loads of fun at parties.

Person: "Hey, have you heard about [statistic]?"

Brain: "I don't care about anything."


There are lots of things which are safe and legal which are still interesting to research, analyze and quantify. Just because something isn't a catastrophe doesn't mean that you can't look at it and say "Huh, that's an interesting statistical trend."
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 12:20 PM   #1392
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 13,062
Total Cats: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
You must be loads of fun at parties.
Do you honestly think Scott goes to parties?
shuiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 12:21 PM   #1393
Hug Life
iTrader: (3)
 
Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,634
Total Cats: 440
Default

I'm not sure why the rate is relevant in this case.
The rate may be on the decline, but the raw number of owners is at an all time high.
The raw number of gun homicides is not increasing with the number of owners, but going down, which you obviously know.
Monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 12:22 PM   #1394
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk View Post
I'm not sure why the rate is relevant in this case.
In what case?



Quote:
Originally Posted by shuiend View Post
Do you honestly think Scott goes to parties?
I assume that there was a time, early in the marriage, when Mrs. Brain tried to drag him to social functions.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 12:52 PM   #1395
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,917
Total Cats: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Anyway, that particular study is interesting because, in order to refute it, you have to believe that the people being surveyed are simultaneously lying about gun-ownership in both directions. Specifically, that most people lie in the direction of claiming to own fewer guns than they actually do (towards zero), but that of the select group of people who tell the truth about owning at least one gun, a majority of them lie in the direction of claiming to own more guns than they actually do. It's not an impossible scenario, but it'd be hard to set it up without lots of chemtrails.
Chris Ingraham is a well-known Liberal pundit. I read his stuff and it mostly says "If we could all just be more liberal..." This piece is typical of his stuff. I'm not opposed to considering the data here is generally tracking, that current gun owners are buying more guns, but I also know that I personally have helped about a dozen people in the past few years buy their first gun. I'm headed out later this week with a Marine LtCol about to retire and he's going to buy his first personal firearm. This is a man with 6 deployments to the sand under his belt... the kind of deployments where you sleep with your Kevlar on.

Because of the blanket mistrust everybody has for the gov't when it comes to gun ownership and the pending bans/confiscation that will eventually be tried, I can't believe any numbers generated on the subject could withstand even the most basic scientific scrutiny.

Chris also shows his colors at the end when he stays true to his roots and tries to paint gun owners as paranoid tinfoil hat types. He could have pointed out that the massive rise in concealed carry has led to huge increases in the handgun market, or the explosion in suppressor sales as more states every year allow their use in hunting, or maybe the biggest reason, that guns are becoming more popular by the day for protection. People like the idea of having "a few" guns around where previously they might have thought only one was enough. Now they want one for the wife or daughter, and maybe a couple rifles or a shotgun to supplement the handgun. Or maybe people want to own a few of them simply because they like shooting different types of guns because it's fun. But no, it has to be because we're all secretly hoping the zombies show up.
But in recent years, it seems many gun owners have seen fit to expand their toolboxes. There are probably a number of factors driving this: fear-stoking by some gun rights groups in the wake of mass shootings can lead to surges in gun-buying from existing owners concerned the government could take their guns away. The rising popularity of "prepper" groups, who stock up on food and firearms in preparation for a variety of coming apocalypses, may also be playing a role.

He is correct when he says we're worried about he gov't taking our guns. Hillary is making guns a focal point of her campaign, and is now vocally calling for bans and confiscation efforts. She is going to try, there's no doubt. It's currently pretty easy to dismiss the anti-gun argument that we're paranoid the gov't is trying to take our guns away when the Democratic nominee essentially says she's going to.

You can also expect in the next few weeks, at least 4-5 states (CA, NJ, NY, CT, MD) to have a flood of anti-gun bills or "emergency measures" pop up in the legislature. CA has bills right now making their way through that will ban bullet-buttons, essentially making all semi-auto rifles of any kind illegal. I'm assuming at this point, it'll pass. They'll also get their "ammo permit" system, registration and serializing of home-built guns, mandatory videotaping of all firearms sales, 30day waiting periods, etc...
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 01:13 PM   #1396
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samnavy View Post
Chris Ingraham is a well-known Liberal pundit.
(...)
Because of the blanket mistrust everybody has for the gov't when it comes to gun ownership and the pending bans/confiscation that will eventually be tried, I can't believe any numbers generated on the subject could withstand even the most basic scientific scrutiny.
True, and possible.

On the other hand, there was no call for action in the article, nor accusations, nor placing of blame. It's just a statistical analysis, or at least that's how I read it. Gun ownership does appear to be becoming increasingly stratified, and if there are any reliable studies or accounts which say otherwise, I haven't found them yet.





Quote:
CA has bills right now making their way through that will ban bullet-buttons, essentially making all semi-auto rifles of any kind illegal.
Attached Thumbnails
Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?-80-yugo_sks_762x39_rifle_7457e504362fbf5e6fbeb3ff1362226ef0c61773.png  
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 01:37 PM   #1397
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 524
Total Cats: 21
Default

Quote:
Anyway, that particular study is interesting because, in order to refute it, you have to believe that the people being surveyed are simultaneously lying about gun-ownership in both directions. Specifically, that most people lie in the direction of claiming to own fewer guns than they actually do (towards zero), but that of the select group of people who tell the truth about owning at least one gun, a majority of them lie in the direction of claiming to own more guns than they actually do. It's not an impossible scenario, but it'd be hard to set it up without lots of chemtrails.
No, that's not what you have to assume. That chart is an attempt to reconcile two well known points of data on gun ownership in a way that minimizes the number of gun owners.

The two data sources are
1) the FBI/ATF data on gun manufacturing and purchasing as well as background checks. Gun sales have been high for years and they keep going up. Along similar lines, gun companies are doing great in terms of revenue/profits/etc. Guns are clearly being purchased in large numbers by someone.
2) the GSS data, which is compiled by strangers calling up your house and asking if you have any guns- according to this survey, the number of gun owners is always going down. The problem is that the methodology of the GSS produces a very high rate of false negatives, since people are naturally suspicious of strangers calling up and asking if they have guns. GSS is generally perceived as accurate, but that's because the GSS mostly asks about non-sensitive things. I'm sure people would underreport cheating on their wives and having VD if GSS asked about that.
3) There is lots of anecdotal evidence that gun ownership is spreading, concealed carry is spreading, shooting sports participation is spreading, etc. Compared to the early 90s, I can tell you that the gun culture in this country is way healthier and gun control is met with a lot more skepticism than it was 20-30 years ago. Younger people are getting into shooting in a big way.

Possible Interpretations:
1) For most people, the story the above information tells you is obvious- guns are more popular and more widely owned than ever before and the GSS is gathering bad data on gun ownership.
2) For people who hate guns and get hit right in the feels by this, they instead assume that the GSS data is correct.... but since the FBI/ATF data is so detailed and concrete (it's just a record of guns that were made and sold) the only remaining conclusion is that an enormous number of guns are concentrated in the hands of an increasingly small portion of the population. Even though this is obviously bullshit, that's what they have to go with because it's all they've got.
AlwaysBroken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 02:42 PM   #1398
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,917
Total Cats: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Did you really just post a pic of an SKS in an attempt to show a gun that would still be legal in CA if they banned bullet buttons, or did you know that these have already been banned for many years and are trying to help my point?

California declared illegal and instituted a mandatory buy-back of all SKS rifles in 1999. This is perhaps the most famous modern example where the gov't actually did come for your guns, something Liberals swear isn't happening. First, the Cali gov't instituted a mandatory registration scheme, then they made them illegal. It's a part of the Roos Act. Gun confiscation in California
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 03:01 PM   #1399
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,533
Total Cats: 1,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samnavy View Post
California declared illegal and instituted a mandatory buy-back of all SKS rifles in 1999.
CA code 12276 and 12281 only ban SKS rifles with detachable magazines. I posted a picture of one with an internal magazine, which will remain legal under a hypothetical "bullet button" ban. The ones I've shot were pretty easy to reload using a common stripper-clip.

Here's the actual law:
Article 1. General Provisions :: Penal Code :: 2010 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

Article 2. Unlawful Activities :: Penal Code :: 2010 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia


The problem arose when people started converting fixed-mag models to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine (same cartridge on both rifles.) This lead to all sorts of chaos with law enforcement, and there were some improper arrests and seizures.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 11:27 AM   #1400
Boost Czar
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 71,520
Total Cats: 1,565
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbo 1995 Miata Low mileage Clean Tekel Cars for sale/trade 29 02-05-2016 04:16 PM
IT Pros: HELP! Al Jazeera something something Brighthouse Account sixshooter Insert BS here 11 09-01-2015 10:51 AM
Who's Idea was it to give cops taser guns RicanmiataRacer Insert BS here 10 03-04-2007 02:07 PM
Is the SMT6 comparable to the Emanage Blue/Emu/MS? Mex Prefabbed Turbo Kits 1 09-28-2006 04:15 PM
FS: Turbo XS H34 BOV BrokeEnthusiast Miata parts for sale/trade 1 09-06-2006 10:16 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:30 PM.