Article worth reading perhaps...
- Thread starter HughScot
- Start date
Bluestarlizzard
New member
I qualify as a super owner.
I demand a fancy outfit and a cape for being Super.
*shrug* Kuntzman got slammed in his last tangle with the RKBA. I have no doubt he'll get slammed again with this one.
He's an idiot with a soap box and his only value to those providing the soap box is garnering attention. I doubt they care what kind of attention they are getting as long as they get the clicks.
I demand a fancy outfit and a cape for being Super.
*shrug* Kuntzman got slammed in his last tangle with the RKBA. I have no doubt he'll get slammed again with this one.
He's an idiot with a soap box and his only value to those providing the soap box is garnering attention. I doubt they care what kind of attention they are getting as long as they get the clicks.
Well, they have taken off with it. MSN web has a USA Today article that is nearly a word for word version of the NYPost minus any personal references about, and attacks on gun owners by the NYP author.
"Super owner" is mentioned along with some other things, including the facts that the study that the figures were leaked from is still under peer review, and, what I found most interesting is that the study the figures come from was based on another company's ONLINE SURVEY.
SO, we have figures about gun ownership, from both a questionable source, AND admittedly based on what is very likely a non-representative sample population, expanded to cover the entire nation's population, and presented in the "news" as if it were established, proven fact.
Most of the rest of the article quoting various researchers, and their usual gripe about lack of govt funds to study gun ownership, for the past 20 some years. AND notably omitting the actual REASON there is no govt money, which is that the govt's prohibition is not against studying gun ownership, it is against using such studies to advocate gun control.
In other words, we won't pay for them to push gun control, and because of that they don't do studies if they can't have the outcomes used to further their agenda. Which does not stop them from publically complaining about the lack of funding for studies, without telling the truth why there is no money, dishonesty in their own profession was the reason, and loss of govt money was the result.
I have personal experience with "studies" and the fact that while the STUDY may be valid the conclusions may NOT BE.
I was part of a risk assessment study for a govt contractor, at a nuclear facility. Pretty good industrial safety stuff, and some about personal behavior. (drive the speed limit, wear seatbelt, etc.)
NO question in the survey mentioned firearms in any way at all. One question asked if you or a family member had been in a fight in the past year. That question was the only one that mentioned any kind of violence, at all.
When the results came back, and were given out, in the category of reducing risk in our personal lives was the advice to "avoid handguns".
I'm not kidding.
I was more than a bit irked. Not entirely because of the anti gun bias, but also because this was supposed to be something to improve worker safety and the way we did our jobs, working with very hazardous materials.
I took the issue to my boss, pointing out that since NO QUESTIONS were asked about firearms, at all, their inclusion of the recommendation to avoid handguns called ALL their credibility into question.
Boss agreed. His boss agreed. I think the bosses bosses agreed, as the next year, that study company didn't get the contract renewed.
They've been pulling this kind of thing for a long time now, I don't see it changing any time soon.
"Super owner" is mentioned along with some other things, including the facts that the study that the figures were leaked from is still under peer review, and, what I found most interesting is that the study the figures come from was based on another company's ONLINE SURVEY.
SO, we have figures about gun ownership, from both a questionable source, AND admittedly based on what is very likely a non-representative sample population, expanded to cover the entire nation's population, and presented in the "news" as if it were established, proven fact.
Most of the rest of the article quoting various researchers, and their usual gripe about lack of govt funds to study gun ownership, for the past 20 some years. AND notably omitting the actual REASON there is no govt money, which is that the govt's prohibition is not against studying gun ownership, it is against using such studies to advocate gun control.
In other words, we won't pay for them to push gun control, and because of that they don't do studies if they can't have the outcomes used to further their agenda. Which does not stop them from publically complaining about the lack of funding for studies, without telling the truth why there is no money, dishonesty in their own profession was the reason, and loss of govt money was the result.
I have personal experience with "studies" and the fact that while the STUDY may be valid the conclusions may NOT BE.
I was part of a risk assessment study for a govt contractor, at a nuclear facility. Pretty good industrial safety stuff, and some about personal behavior. (drive the speed limit, wear seatbelt, etc.)
NO question in the survey mentioned firearms in any way at all. One question asked if you or a family member had been in a fight in the past year. That question was the only one that mentioned any kind of violence, at all.
When the results came back, and were given out, in the category of reducing risk in our personal lives was the advice to "avoid handguns".
I'm not kidding.
I was more than a bit irked. Not entirely because of the anti gun bias, but also because this was supposed to be something to improve worker safety and the way we did our jobs, working with very hazardous materials.
I took the issue to my boss, pointing out that since NO QUESTIONS were asked about firearms, at all, their inclusion of the recommendation to avoid handguns called ALL their credibility into question.
Boss agreed. His boss agreed. I think the bosses bosses agreed, as the next year, that study company didn't get the contract renewed.
They've been pulling this kind of thing for a long time now, I don't see it changing any time soon.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
If that isn't an unimpeachable source I don't know what is.
The Army tried that crap too back in the late 90s. Some hilarity ensued that day, let me tell you. Avoiding guns was only part of it. Apparently soldiers drink way too much alcohol and have too many sexual partners as well. Shocking results, just shocking.
44 AMP said:
It would be fairly easy to craft a survey/report/study to support a particular result. How a survey/report/study is conducted (what is included, definitions, etc.) isn't of much importance as it is unlikely the vast majority of the public will ever see it. A lot of surveys/reports/studies are basically just personal opinion wrapped up in the guise of academic research.
That is the most stunningly, breathtakingly stupid, irresponsible, aggressive attack on gun owners that I have ever seen.
If you can't think of an intelligent way to make a point, mock the enemy, lie about him, take his thoughts and make them look ridiculous, and get the public to think that they are deficient.
This is Bill Maher's method as well. Make the enemy look stupid, unimportant, someone not even worthy of notice.
I made the mistake of watching a segment of one of his shows. He referred to how "the people in the flyover states do the dance of the sloping forehead" when the polls open.
God almighty, the abuse this bunch of loudmouthed buffoons thrown around is appalling.
Ptsd. I'm going to go to hell for saying this, but I hope that some day he gets to experience something that causes him to have ptsd for real. Like running into a flaming inferno to rescue some of his fellow new yorkers at a building that was hit by a plane. Let me hear him laugh then!
If you can't think of an intelligent way to make a point, mock the enemy, lie about him, take his thoughts and make them look ridiculous, and get the public to think that they are deficient.
This is Bill Maher's method as well. Make the enemy look stupid, unimportant, someone not even worthy of notice.
I made the mistake of watching a segment of one of his shows. He referred to how "the people in the flyover states do the dance of the sloping forehead" when the polls open.
God almighty, the abuse this bunch of loudmouthed buffoons thrown around is appalling.
Ptsd. I'm going to go to hell for saying this, but I hope that some day he gets to experience something that causes him to have ptsd for real. Like running into a flaming inferno to rescue some of his fellow new yorkers at a building that was hit by a plane. Let me hear him laugh then!
Personally, I feel that the author isn't the kind of person to do that. He strikes me more as the kind of person who would cower in the corner, wetting his pants, waiting for someone to "help" him.
The "building hit by a plane" refers to the Trade Center towers, of course, which is still in recent memory, and where I would remind everyone that the hijackers USED NO GUNS!!!
here is something to compare against the horrific results of the plane strikes of 9/11/01...
In the summer of 1945 (july, I think, you can look it up, I'm too lazy to bother
) the Empire State Building was struck by a plane. A US ARMY B-25 on a routine training flight, who got lost in the fog. The medium bomber hit somewhere around the 70th floor, as I recall.Again, you'll have to look up the details, but if I remember right, the death toll was less than 100, and surprise, surprise, the building did not collapse. Not even close to collapse. a couple of floors suffered fire and heavy damage, one of the plane's engines came out the far side of the building, doing some more damage when it hit lower levels, but the Empire State Building survived, intact and functional, except for the actual damaged areas.
They built them differently back then. Some have pointed out how the Empire State Building's steel framework has an asbestos sheathing, something that today is prohibited by law, because of the "dangers" of asbestos.
Considering that the 9/11 attacks were done using NO FIREARMS of any kind, I do wonder why any New Yorker pushes gun control. I suppose because it is the socially popular thing to do in certain circles.
I don't travel in those circles....
A little thread drift>
Not even a fair comparison between the Empire State building and the Twin Towers. A B-25 is a lot smaller, lighter, and slower than a 767-200. MTOW B-25 34,000 lbs vs MTOW 767-200 280,000 lbs. The B-25 carried Up to 670 Gallons of fuel vs. over 7,000 for a standard 767. That is kind of like comparing a 22 LR to a 375 H&H. As far as building construction, I could go into much more detail on the major difference that lead to strucural failure but if you want to know more, read up at the provided link. They do a fairly good job of comparing and contrasting this very subject.
A read on the two building hits [/thread drift]
That said, there are lots of incidents / mass casualty situations that involve weapons other than guns that have been recorded over the years. Think about how much worse Columbine would have been had the IED's worked. Yeah..most people forgot about the bombs that were planted. Explosives are highly regulated, but they seem to be used from time to time.
Not even a fair comparison between the Empire State building and the Twin Towers. A B-25 is a lot smaller, lighter, and slower than a 767-200. MTOW B-25 34,000 lbs vs MTOW 767-200 280,000 lbs. The B-25 carried Up to 670 Gallons of fuel vs. over 7,000 for a standard 767. That is kind of like comparing a 22 LR to a 375 H&H. As far as building construction, I could go into much more detail on the major difference that lead to strucural failure but if you want to know more, read up at the provided link. They do a fairly good job of comparing and contrasting this very subject.
A read on the two building hits [/thread drift]
That said, there are lots of incidents / mass casualty situations that involve weapons other than guns that have been recorded over the years. Think about how much worse Columbine would have been had the IED's worked. Yeah..most people forgot about the bombs that were planted. Explosives are highly regulated, but they seem to be used from time to time.
The argument over the number of guns always pisses me off to no end. Two big game rifles at least, a 30-06 and a smaller rifle, maybe a bolt and another action, it's not unreasonable for a hunter to own three to even five. A hunter may go after duck, quail, dove, or even pheasant, and if the guy has the money, don't they all require slightly different guns, if you want to do it right? Then, one dedicated to clay shooting? Doesn't everyone own a semi auto .22 handgun? Maybe four or five .22 handguns total? and then, how many .22 rifles does the average shooter own? Most will have at least two, a dedicated hunting rifle, then a range gun. Then, maybe a revolver? maybe three or four in various calibers, they are very different... Then, won't a person own two, maybe three desk or carry guns? A few shooters in centerfire handguns that are just for farting around on the range, or even handgun hunting?
You hit the fifteen gun "legal limit" just owning a very ordinary "arsenal" of specific firearms. I haven't exceeded the legal limit. funny thing, all I can think of every time I look in the case is about all of the other guns that I don't have. Things I'd like to have just to round out my collection and have more pleasure in shooting.
I really hate that guy beyond all reason.
You hit the fifteen gun "legal limit" just owning a very ordinary "arsenal" of specific firearms. I haven't exceeded the legal limit. funny thing, all I can think of every time I look in the case is about all of the other guns that I don't have. Things I'd like to have just to round out my collection and have more pleasure in shooting.
I really hate that guy beyond all reason.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
I know guys who shoot nothing but Skeet and Trap who have 15 guns. Honestly I have no clue why they need 15 shotguns for something only requires one but it certainly is their right to do so.
Why do these people trouble themselves with what other people think they need? And what gives them any moral authority to decide for others, about ANYTHING????
15 guns is, of course a random number, but the underlying principle, that someone ELSE has the authority and the right to decide for you or I what that number is, that idea is the OPPOSITE of freedom.
It's the same principle, and only a relatively small step from the authority to decide what (and how much) you can own, to deciding where you can work, where you can live, (like in a camp!), even down to what God(s) you are allowed to worship.
There are lots and lots of laws (probably most), that tell us what we can, and cannot legally DO. I understand and agree with that idea, as it is ACTIONS that cause harm.
Laws about what you simply may own, or not own, are nothing more than a not so subtle exercise of POWER, an arbitrary demonstration of the will of those in power, serving no moral purpose I can find.
15 guns is, of course a random number, but the underlying principle, that someone ELSE has the authority and the right to decide for you or I what that number is, that idea is the OPPOSITE of freedom.
It's the same principle, and only a relatively small step from the authority to decide what (and how much) you can own, to deciding where you can work, where you can live, (like in a camp!), even down to what God(s) you are allowed to worship.
There are lots and lots of laws (probably most), that tell us what we can, and cannot legally DO. I understand and agree with that idea, as it is ACTIONS that cause harm.
Laws about what you simply may own, or not own, are nothing more than a not so subtle exercise of POWER, an arbitrary demonstration of the will of those in power, serving no moral purpose I can find.
Old bill, It doesn't really surprise me that someone owns that many shotguns just for clay games. You know, they don't always fit perfectly, there are so darned many games that can be played, trap, skeet, sporting clays, outgoing and incoming, passing, etc. I can see someone picking out exactly the right one and then getting two or three of them just because it sounded like a good idea.
Ever see a guy carrying well over twenty golf clubs, even three or four putters? When you have guys who buy their clubs one at a time, they sometimes carry a separate driver just for shooting uphill, and another for straight on shots.
One of the guys who lived her built a VAULT in his business. Stored maybe a hundred guns in it. Somebody sawed through the steel ceiling and cleaned it out. Probably an employee.
Ever see a guy carrying well over twenty golf clubs, even three or four putters? When you have guys who buy their clubs one at a time, they sometimes carry a separate driver just for shooting uphill, and another for straight on shots.
One of the guys who lived her built a VAULT in his business. Stored maybe a hundred guns in it. Somebody sawed through the steel ceiling and cleaned it out. Probably an employee.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
I was teasing a bit. If you get one per match caliber and the different ones to fit different games it can get up there fast. I haven't shot clays in years but I understand the concept.
Most of the people I know that have that many clay shotguns also have that many golf clubs....
Pond James Pond
New member
Either crime dropped as a result of more people owning guns or because there have been social/economic changes that have reduced the causes of crime. Or both. Or another factor altogether.
In fact it is all irrelevant, IMO.
A point I try to hammer home when defending a pro-gun position from some of my peers is that statistics are no defence when you're caught in a sticky situation: air travel is statistically the safest, but that is no consolation when your plane loses a wing at 30K ft.
Small or big, there is a chance of being a target of crime and unless you think (which some people clearly do) that owning a gun will cause a change in a person's behaviour so that they're more prone to violence (debunked, I believe) then statistics are no reason for people not to own a gun.