• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gun sales continuing to skyrocket through 2013

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,261
7,031
126
I thought it was interesting that the police & military only dealers were cleaned out almost as fast as the regular gun stores. I had a buddy (fellow Army CPT) that drove 4 hours to an LE\MIL gun store to buy 3 LWRC rifles at over $2k a pop during the panic. I mean, the price was normal for LWRC, but the guy already owns over 100 assault rifles (pretty much every cool thing you could think of, converted G36, Tavor, AUG, MSAR, etc.)

My dad's in the same camp, constantly buying more and more guns and ammunition that he never shoots.

I just see the panics as money making opportunities, because I know there's no chance of national gun control passing anytime soon. I had some schmuck writing me checks out of his retirement account a year ago. :rolleyes:
I agree 100%. Gun control on the national level is dead and buried. And even if it ever happened, the government would be no more successful in confiscating all the guns than they have been in stopping illegal drugs.

These are mostly the same suckers who were buying up tons of gold at $1700.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,261
7,031
126
If we could rid this place of the mouth breathers like Incorruptible, and the people who take it way too seriously, like you and eskimopy, then this forum might actually fit the "Social" description and be a fun sideline to a bunch of tech forums. I so rarely feel like other posters have fun posting in P&N (which is why it has such a bad rep in the other forums,) but instead are just needlessly jacking their blood pressure up before they kick their dogs and break their keyboards.
Lol.. so true. But I've always come here because I like poking the crazy people through the bars of their cages.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Lol.. so true. But I've always come here because I like poking the crazy people through the bars of their cages.
Yup. I take the discussions in here as seriously as those I'd have at a bar. You want to talk to me about politics or religion when we both know neither of us are gonna change our mind? You better have a good sense of humor about it. Otherwise I'm going to jack with you mercilessly. :biggrin:
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,238
9,049
136
Since we know the number of people who own guns is not rising that means if somenoe owns 20 guns they are buying another 25.

I'm buying more cause Bammy is comin' for our guns. Ignoring the fact this is not true and even if it was gubmit could take 45 as easy as 20.

My conclusion, gunpowder destroys brain cells.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
I find it incredibly interesting that gun sales tend to boom right after a gun grabber event.

Isn't it ironic that the the gun grabbers trying to enact restrictions are a huge part of what fuels gun sales, which results in even more push for pro-gun rights?

Last year we had zimmerman and sandy hook as the main "we need to take the guns" campaigns, both of which directly resulted in even stronger sales.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/boom-for-guns-likely-to-trigger-rush-on-ammo/
You find it interesting that killing machine lovers are paranoid lunatics? That is par for the course for them. The bigger the fear and paranoia, the more the attachment to killing machines. That is what is so dangerous about the situation.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
You find it interesting that killing machine lovers are paranoid lunatics? That is par for the course for them. The bigger the fear and paranoia, the more the attachment to killing machines. That is what is so dangerous about the situation.
Loony "liberals" sure love their hyperbole.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,244
3,043
126
Since we know the number of people who own guns is not rising that means if somenoe owns 20 guns they are buying another 25.

I'm buying more cause Bammy is comin' for our guns. Ignoring the fact this is not true and even if it was gubmit could take 45 as easy as 20.

My conclusion, gunpowder destroys brain cells.
Probably a lot of hobbyists have more income now that we have Obamacare.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
29
91
No.

I like evidence. I disregard anecdotes.

The evidence shows that the percentage of gun owning households has declined over the past 40 years. A lot of anecdotal reasons have been given as to why the sources I posted are wrong. But nobody has yet to show any evidence that the percentage of gun owning households have increased in the past 40 years. No poll, no NRA data, nothing. We know that the number of guns owned in America has increased where there are over 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. If gun ownership were even somewhat evenly distributed, that would imply that very close to 100% of all households would own a gun. But we know that's not true.

So how does the number of guns per capita increase while the number of households owning a gun go down. As correctly pointed out there are twice as many households in the United States now as there were in the 1960s. Which logically means that there are more households with guns in total. But that wouldn't explain a per capita increase. A per capita increase can only be explained by:

1. An increasing percentage of Americans owning guns
2. Existing gun owners buying multiple firearms.

The second conclusion is backed up by an Injury Prevention Journal article from 2007 (actually done at Harvard for real) which shows that about 65% of all guns in America are owned by 20% of Americans. The study showed that gun owners who reported owning at least four guns, on average, owned twelve. Now of course you could disregard THAT study too, which would mean you're now trashing 4 independent pieces that support the same conclusion.

So I have stated my hypothesis that increasing gun sales is likely a continuation of the trend of existing gun owners buying more guns, rather than an increase of proportion of the population that are now gun owners. I've given four pieces of evidence to support my hypothesis: The GSS Survey, Pew Research, Gallup and Injury Prevention. If you want to put my tail between my legs, please find some evidence (peer reviewed studies are good, as are statistically relevant polls) that show my hypothesis is false. Do not tell me about the time you used a gun to stop a burglar. Do not tell me 'I think all those studies are wrong.' I try never to use my personal experiences to prove a point because they are just that: personal. They only relate to my small snippet of the world's reality. AND, because it's the internet, I can always just make shit up.

DocSavageFan and I got into an interesting argument about Medicaid expansion and the effect on ER consumption. He stated that expanding Medicaid would expand ER use and I said that wasn't likely. He posted a number of journal articles that showed he was correct. I learned something new that day and I hold THAT as a good experience on these forums.
"Percentage of gun owning households" is meaningless by itself. I'd guess that the percentage of women living by themselves is much greater today than it was in 1960. Since women are much less likely to own a gun than males, this would decrease the percentage of households with guns even if the percentage of the population that owns a gun remains constant.
pls respond

Or continue to ignore it.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
489
126
Ahh the gun industry. The one industry Obama and his govt cronies managed to stimulate.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
pls respond

Or continue to ignore it.
You made your guess. You prove it. You've got Google. I'm not here to be your personal librarian.

Or maybe go read the GSS survey and see whether they factor it in? I dunno. Either way, a lot of people are 'guessing' why the data doesn't confirm their world view instead of doing a bit of research.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
If we could rid this place of the mouth breathers like Incorruptible, and the people who take it way too seriously, like you and eskimopy, then this forum might actually fit the "Social" description and be a fun sideline to a bunch of tech forums. I so rarely feel like other posters have fun posting in P&N (which is why it has such a bad rep in the other forums,) but instead are just needlessly jacking their blood pressure up before they kick their dogs and break their keyboards.
Maybe if some of the libs and progressives weren't so full of shit then I wouldn't have to deal with them the way I do. There are many people on here who attack Capitalism and the Constitution so I criticize them. If you attack freedom then you will be called out.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Maybe if some of the libs and progressives weren't so full of shit then I wouldn't have to deal with them the way I do. There are many people on here who attack Capitalism and the Constitution so I criticize them. If you attack freedom then you will be called out.
You've shown repeatedly you have no idea what the First or Fourteenth Amendment are in these forums. You have absolutely no regard for the Constitution or what it represents. You cherry pick the parts you like and dismiss the rest.

You're like the Christian that uses Leviticus to call homosexuality a sin while disregarding every other verse in Leviticus.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,244
3,043
126
Maybe if some of the libs and progressives weren't so full of shit then I wouldn't have to deal with them the way I do. There are many people on here who attack Capitalism and the Constitution so I criticize them. If you attack freedom then you will be called out.
A bigot is a person who believes in something good like maybe Capitalism or the constitution but fails to realize anything about what they really are or any weaknesses they may have in addition to what is good about them. I share your ideals but the way you see these things is fucked up. You have good ideals but you thinking is defective. Your ideals aren't under attack, your opinions are.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
29
91
You made your guess. You prove it. You've got Google. I'm not here to be your personal librarian.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/living-alone/54585114/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or maybe go read the GSS survey and see whether they factor it in? I dunno. Either way, a lot of people are 'guessing' why the data doesn't confirm their world view instead of doing a bit of research.
Hilarious, since you're the one that is making the completely unsupported claim that the percentage of gun owning households equates to the percentage of gun owning citizens.
 
Last edited:

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/living-alone/54585114/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Hilarious, since you're the one that is making completely unsupported claims, that the percentage of gun owning households equates to the percentage of gun owning citizens.
Yes there are more single women now. But you haven't shown that the reason for the decline in households owning guns is attributable to that. And certainly have not show that the number of households owning guns is rising. Did it not occur to you if the number of households having single women is rising than the number of households with single men must be rising too? If these women aren't married to men, where do suppose all those unmarried men went?

Regardless, the number of guns per capita in the US has more than doubled in that period. The number of the guns in the country has grown but the number of households owning them has declined. If your assumption is true that the decline in households is due to single women (which I don't think holds water, but OK) then that would imply that men are buying even MORE guns to make up the difference.

Either way we have many more guns in the country now than in the 1970s yet proportionally fewer people carrying them around. The question is why? Personally, I believe it's the Streisand Effect. The more focus that the media puts on gun control, the more likely a current gun owner will go out and buy a new gun.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
You've shown repeatedly you have no idea what the First or Fourteenth Amendment are in these forums. You have absolutely no regard for the Constitution or what it represents. You cherry pick the parts you like and dismiss the rest.

You're like the Christian that uses Leviticus to call homosexuality a sin while disregarding every other verse in Leviticus.
I understand the Constitution just fine.

Show me a quote where I ever said that it's a sin. I have maintained that the government should be out of marriage altogether. So unless you can show the quote then STFU.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
27,622
7,384
136
Yes there are more single women now. But you haven't shown that the reason for the decline in households owning guns is attributable to that. And certainly have not show that the number of households owning guns is rising. Did it not occur to you if the number of households having single women is rising than the number of households with single men must be rising too? If these women aren't married to men, where do suppose all those unmarried men went?

Regardless, the number of guns per capita in the US has more than doubled in that period. The number of the guns in the country has grown but the number of households owning them has declined. If your assumption is true that the decline in households is due to single women (which I don't think holds water, but OK) then that would imply that men are buying even MORE guns to make up the difference.

Either way we have many more guns in the country now than in the 1970s yet proportionally fewer people carrying them around. The question is why? Personally, I believe it's the Streisand Effect. The more focus that the media puts on gun control, the more likely a current gun owner will go out and buy a new gun.

I thought I read that the biggest group of new gun purchasers were actually women, wouldn't that completely destroy his argument (besides the fact that he has yet to provide any data what so ever to back up his claims)?
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
29
91
Yes there are more single women now. But you haven't shown that the reason for the decline in households owning guns is attributable to that. And certainly have not show that the number of households owning guns is rising.
My only claim is that the percentage of households owning guns is not directly equatable to the percentage of citizens owning guns, which I believe that I have shown.

On the other hand, I have seen no proof for your claim that it is.

Did it not occur to you if the number of households having single women is rising than the number of households with single men must be rising too? If these women aren't married to men, where do suppose all those unmarried men went?
Let's say 100% of males own guns, and 0% of females own guns. Assume the population is two, one male and one female.

A. Male and female are married. Total households, 1. Percentage of households owning guns, 100%. Percentage of citizens owning guns, 50%.

B. Male and female are not married. Total households, 2. Percentage of households owning guns, 50%. Percentage of citizens owning guns, 50%.

Either way we have many more guns in the country now than in the 1970s yet proportionally fewer people carrying them around.
[citation needed]
 
Last edited:

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
29
91
I thought I read that the biggest group of new gun purchasers were actually women, wouldn't that completely destroy his argument
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx

Men are three times more likely to own guns than women, and "gender is by far the strongest predictor of personally owning a gun".

(besides the fact that he has yet to provide any data what so ever to back up his claims)?
Having problems reading today, I see.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
I have no hard claim on the family vs person gun statistic.

But, I will say that being proud of gun ownership is something that has become much more prevalent in the last 5 or so years. My office has a girl who does training classes. My range has a lane for training, and it's occupied almost any time I go. It's a common 'positive' topic.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY