3% of American adults own half of guns in the US

[Burls]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey

Interesting. ...

[Dahoss2002]

Lots of collectors out here. Many of those guns stay in the safe and are rarely if ever fired

[JustRalph]

Up to 400k stolen guns now.

17 guns per "super owners"

I guess I'm a super owner. But just barely. I know guys with 200 guns. It sets the average thing askew I would think.

[Clocker]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey

Interesting. ...

Is there a point to this? How many stamp collectors own most of the collectable stamps in the world? How many rich vintage car collectors own most of the classic old cars?

[acorn54]

Is there a point to this? How many stamp collectors own most of the collectable stamps in the world? How many rich vintage car collectors own most of the classic old cars?


actually i think if you look at the investment appreciation of stamps versus guns, guns are a much better investment.
i am a stamp collector. :faint:

[sammy the sage]

and 1% own 80% of EVERYTHING else...

[jk3521]

and 1% own 80% of EVERYTHING else...


Good one.

[classhandicapper]

and 1% own 80% of EVERYTHING else...

That was a beauty, :lol:

[chadk66]

this study makes me laugh. the accuracy of this is extremely poor. I guess I'm a super owner lol. First off I know at least fifty people that would fit into that category. And I can tell you zero of them would answer a single question in this survey. Gun owners as a general rule will tell you nothing about the guns they own. At the very least what they tell you is complete BS. It would be next to impossible to have an accurate survey with gun owners. The last thing any of them want anybody to know is how many guns they own. I know a young man that owns so much ammo that he had to move it to the basement because it was starting to sag his floor joists. I know another ammo reloader that has over 250 lbs of powder. And if you know anything about ammunition you'd have an idea of how many rounds that powder would create. I can tell you this with 100% accuracy, this study is an absolute joke and is so far out there it's laughable.

[Clocker]

And I can tell you zero of them would answer a single question in this survey. Gun owners as a general rule will tell you nothing about the guns they own. At the very least what they tell you is complete BS.

I agree. My response would be that I lost all my guns in a mysterious boating accident many years ago, and I can't remember where. :p

[Tom]

I agree. My response would be that I lost all my guns in a mysterious boating accident many years ago, and I can't remember where. :p

Some guy with a knife held me up and stole all my guns.
He put them into a knapsack and ran off with them.

[Clocker]

Some guy with a knife held me up and stole all my guns.
He put them into a knapsack and ran off with them.

Never bring a gun to a knife fight. :p

[chadk66]

I wonder how many tax dollars were wasted on this study.

[Clocker]

I wonder how many tax dollars were wasted on this study.

And why was it conducted by "public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities"? Gun ownership is not a public health issue. Nuts who kill people with guns or knives or pressure cookers are a mental health issue, but one unlikely to be solved by surveys.

[chadk66]

And why was it conducted by "public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities"? Gun ownership is not a public health issue. Nuts who kill people with guns or knives or pressure cookers are a mental health issue, but one unlikely to be solved by surveys.:ThmbUp:

[FantasticDan]

And why was it conducted by "public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities"? Gun ownership is not a public health issue.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/harvard-gun-ownership-study-self-defense/

Gun violence researchers say the rise in handgun ownership has public health consequences.

Studies have found that people who live in homes with handguns are twice as likely to take their life compared to those who live in homes with other types of firearms, such as shotguns and rifles. (Seniors are the population at the highest risk of using a handgun in a fatal suicide attempt.)

Domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun, research shows.

[OTM Al]

And why was it conducted by "public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities"? Gun ownership is not a public health issue. Nuts who kill people with guns or knives or pressure cookers are a mental health issue, but one unlikely to be solved by surveys.
Gun assisted suicide is a major mental health issue. It is of a great concern because it is a quick and easy method in which the person attempting suicide won't have as much time for second thoughts because of the ease of the act as well as not being able to have second thoughts after taking the act.

[chadk66]

I spent three years very suicidal. By gun was only one way. There are numerous ways to do it and they all entered my mind. Trying to make a case for outlawing guns due to suicide is comical at best. At the least it just makes you look desperate for gun control

[OTM Al]

I spent three years very suicidal. By gun was only one way. There are numerous ways to do it and they all entered my mind. Trying to make a case for outlawing guns due to suicide is comical at best. At the least it just makes you look desperate for gun control
Of course there are other ways to do it, but very few are as quick or as final. And where again was a statement that guns should be outlawed? This is your assumption. Russell Sage is an organization I am a little familiar with as my doctoral advisor was given a grant to be there for a year and it is a top notch research organization. As is made clear in the article, the government is prevented from doing health related studies involving guns.

Why the fear of study of gun related issues? Why don't gun ownership proponents concern themselves with making sure guns are getting and staying in the correct hands? Do simple facts scare you that much? Do they somehow threaten your opinions? I hear a lot about responsible gun ownership but see very little backing it up in the end.

[Clocker]

Once again the libs want to protect people from themselves. A mentally competent person who makes a rational decision to end his life should be allowed to, preferably with medical assistance.

On the other side of the coin, I think both sides of the gun control issue agree that the federal government has been totally inept at keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems. Gun control laws aren't getting the job done. Maybe it's time for something else? Like getting it out of the hands of the feds and moving the authority and the money down the ladder to the state or local level? And dealing with mental health itself, rather than with guns?

[chadk66]

Of course there are other ways to do it, but very few are as quick or as final. And where again was a statement that guns should be outlawed? This is your assumption. Russell Sage is an organization I am a little familiar with as my doctoral advisor was given a grant to be there for a year and it is a top notch research organization. As is made clear in the article, the government is prevented from doing health related studies involving guns.

Why the fear of study of gun related issues? Why don't gun ownership proponents concern themselves with making sure guns are getting and staying in the correct hands? Do simple facts scare you that much? Do they somehow threaten your opinions? I hear a lot about responsible gun ownership but see very little backing it up in the end.Do you discuss eliminating other constitutional rights? Why aren't convicted felons loosing their right to free speech? What other constitutional rights do felons loose besides their gun rights? I don't have any fear of gun related issues. The problem I have is they are always ended as guns=bad. So they really have no credibility in my book. I don't have a problem with simple facts if in fact they are facts. And there are many facts that indicate gun control does absolutely nothing to prevent gun deaths. In fact the opposite is true. Guns will get in the hands of the wrong people even if you outlawed every gun in this country. Our government doesn't even enforce the current gun laws so I see no reason for more until they can prove to us they can enforce existing ones. I particularly love it when they claim they want to end the internet purchase loophole.:lol: I'll give you $1000 if you can purchase a gun over the internet and have it shipped to your house without going thru and FFL dealer. Seems to me a reporter tried that a year or so ago and found that to be not possible. The anti-gunners have so many BS theories it's laughable. Can you give me a law that would have prevented the San Bernadino killers from killing all those people? He obtained those guns legally.

[OTM Al]

Once again the libs want to protect people from themselves. A mentally competent person who makes a rational decision to end his life should be allowed to, preferably with medical assistance.

On the other side of the coin, I think both sides of the gun control issue agree that the federal government has been totally inept at keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems. Gun control laws aren't getting the job done. Maybe it's time for something else? Like getting it out of the hands of the feds and moving the authority and the money down the ladder to the state or local level? And dealing with mental health itself, rather than with guns?
That's the problem though as the government, who is the source for quite a bit of scientific studies in this country is not allowed to study the mental health issue as it relates to guns, so how do you figure we can have anyone make a well informed law if we have no facts and evidence to base it on? Under such circumstance it is absolutely unsurprising that the laws don't work. So yes, lets look at mental health but lets also take the shackles off the major researchers like the CDC and NIH so they can work on the problem.

[OTM Al]

Do you discuss eliminating other constitutional rights? Why aren't convicted felons loosing their right to free speech? What other constitutional rights do felons loose besides their gun rights? I don't have any fear of gun related issues. The problem I have is they are always ended as guns=bad. So they really have no credibility in my book. I don't have a problem with simple facts if in fact they are facts. And there are many facts that indicate gun control does absolutely nothing to prevent gun deaths. In fact the opposite is true. Guns will get in the hands of the wrong people even if you outlawed every gun in this country. Our government doesn't even enforce the current gun laws so I see no reason for more until they can prove to us they can enforce existing ones. I particularly love it when they claim they want to end the internet purchase loophole.:lol: I'll give you $1000 if you can purchase a gun over the internet and have it shipped to your house without going thru and FFL dealer. Seems to me a reporter tried that a year or so ago and found that to be not possible. The anti-gunners have so many BS theories it's laughable. Can you give me a law that would have prevented the San Bernadino killers from killing all those people? He obtained those guns legally.
Not worth discussing with you. You can't get past your delusion that anyone that wants to examine a subject is trying to take away your rights.

[Clocker]

I'll give you $1000 if you can purchase a gun over the internet and have it shipped to your house without going thru and FFL dealer.

You can if the seller is willing to break the law. And trusts that you are not a law officer setting a trap.

[chadk66]

You can if the seller is willing to break the law. And trusts that you are not a law officer setting a trap.In theory that is possible. But doesn't happen. Guns are advertised on the internet all the time. But unless they are shipped via mail using an FFL they aren't being done. However, people do gun buying via adds on internet but do it in person. Which is 100% legal. Don't let the anti-gunners get you to believe things that really don't happen.

[chadk66]

Not worth discussing with you. You can't get past your delusion that anyone that wants to examine a subject is trying to take away your rights.In reality it's because you don't have an answer. You didn't answer any of my questions and I'm quite sure I know why. Anti gunners can't have this discussion because they have absolutely nothing to stand on.

[PaceAdvantage]

They stand on nothing but emotion and tales of woe.

[Clocker]

They stand on nothing but emotion and tales of woe.

Never let a serious crisis go to waste. :rolleyes:

[betovernetcapper]

I think this 3% # is a little misleading. 36% of Americans either own a gun or live in a household with one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

A lot of people do own a lot of guns. Phil Graham said "I have more shotguns then I need, but not as many as I want". There is always a new/better/different model that you can't live without. The same is true with watches, pocket knives, I phones & horse racing software.

Another reason many people have a lot of guns is that it's (at least in Il) very difficult to make a legal sale. There is so much paper work that it's easier to just keep a gun that you no longer really want. I'm not suggesting that they eliminate the paper work, just explaining why many people may accumulate more guns then they actually want.

[TJDave]

I know another ammo reloader that has over 250 lbs of powder.

Interesting. Is it in bulk?
Does the fire marshal know? ;)

[OTM Al]

In reality it's because you don't have an answer. You didn't answer any of my questions and I'm quite sure I know why. Anti gunners can't have this discussion because they have absolutely nothing to stand on.
I do have an answer so here it is. They lose the right to vote as well as the right to serve on juries. These are also important rights. These of course are just the legal rights they lose. They also lose the opportunity to get many jobs because they have to state they have been convicted as a felon. But who really cares. Anyone that asks questions is wrong.

[OTM Al]

They stand on nothing but emotion and tales of woe.
So you don't think we should bother doing research on gun related suicide? You don't want to try to find ways that have nothing to do with taking away guns to help people to prevent them from taking their lives?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why focus solely on gun related suicides? Let's try and prevent suicide in general. That would be more helpful to more people.

Guns are just a means to an end. Jumping off a tall enough building or bridge is equally as effective as pulling a trigger. So is hanging yourself from a basement rafter...

[betovernetcapper]

So you don't think we should bother doing research on gun related suicide? You don't want to try to find ways that have nothing to do with taking away guns to help people to prevent them from taking their lives?

After much research the Apple Company found a solution for workers suicides. They put up nets to break the falls of workers jumping off the building. Some still died or were crippled for life, but the sidewalks were clean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html

IMO if every Chinese had access to a firearm they might have more liberty & better working conditions & less suicides. The Dali Lama has expressed a similar view on Tibetans having firearms. A little late for the Tibetans however.

[OTM Al]

Why focus solely on gun related suicides? Let's try and prevent suicide in general. That would be more helpful to more people.

Guns are just a means to an end. Jumping off a tall enough building or bridge is equally as effective as pulling a trigger. So is hanging yourself from a basement rafter...
I agree that we should be looking into all instances of violence against self as well as against others but if researchers are all but prevented from looking at those involving guns, you will never get a complete picture. It may well be that certain types of people are more likely to do certain acts with guns than by other means but we will never find that out if the major source of research funding prevents such studies.

[betovernetcapper]

Given that we're 47th in suicide among all nations, this really isn't a major problem here. Japan's rate is 50% higher than ours & it's almost impossible to get a gun there.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

[JustRalph]

Given that we're 47th in suicide among all nations, this really isn't a major problem here. Japan's rate is 50% higher than ours & it's almost impossible to get a gun there.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

That is one nice website! Very good stuff!

👍

[chadk66]

Interesting. Is it in bulk?
Does the fire marshal know? ;)In five pound cans for the most part. don't have a fire marshall where he lives:ThmbUp: Not that it would matter. The fire marshall probably has a couple hundred pounds of his own:D

[chadk66]

I do have an answer so here it is. They lose the right to vote as well as the right to serve on juries. These are also important rights. These of course are just the legal rights they lose. They also lose the opportunity to get many jobs because they have to state they have been convicted as a felon. But who really cares. Anyone that asks questions is wrong.so why should they lose the right to vote after they are released from prison. In most states now, after a certain number of DUI's your convicted of Felony DUI. Why should you lose your right to vote for that? Makes no sense.

[chadk66]

why aren't we seriously looking at banning consumption of alcohol. alcohol has killed far more people than guns

[sandpit]

FWIW...from 2014 stats at the CDC. My best friend committed suicide (with a .22 rifle) many years ago. I'm of the opinion he would have done it some other way at some point, but I'll never know for sure.

Most of the things on this list are somewhat preventable depending on lifestyle habits.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

[chadk66]

FWIW...from 2014 stats at the CDC. My best friend committed suicide (with a .22 rifle) many years ago. I'm of the opinion he would have done it some other way at some point, but I'll never know for sure.

Most of the things on this list are somewhat preventable depending on lifestyle habits.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773Yea if you really want to prevent deaths stop worrying about guns and find a cure for cancer.

[Tom]

why aren't we seriously looking at banning consumption of alcohol. alcohol has killed far more people than guns

Hey!

[Tom]

That is one nice website! Very good stuff!

👍

Facts?
Play fair.

[Tom]

I agree that we should be looking into all instances of violence against self as well as against others but if researchers are all but prevented from looking at those involving guns, you will never get a complete picture. It may well be that certain types of people are more likely to do certain acts with guns than by other means but we will never find that out if the major source of research funding prevents such studies.

Well there is a simple solution.
George Soros had money.
NFL assholes have money
Colleges take in huge amounts of money.

I guess the left cares, but not enough to spend?

[Burls]

Given that we're 47th in suicide among all nations, this really isn't a major problem here. Japan's rate is 50% higher than ours & it's almost impossible to get a gun there.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/The first one I checked was prostate cancer.
What does that say about me? :lol:

[FantasticDan]

So you don't think we should bother doing research on gun related suicide? You don't want to try to find ways that have nothing to do with taking away guns to help people to prevent them from taking their lives?
Gun store owner develops plan to try and help (http://www.upworthy.com/this-gun-store-owner-has-a-radical-plan-for-preventing-suicides-by-gun)

[chadk66]

In general gun owners aren't opposed to common sense gun laws that will
Actually do something to prevent unwarranted deaths. Along with that we demand the current gun laws to be enforced. So far neither has happened or been presented.

[betovernetcapper]

Under current law anyone using a gun in a crime may be prosecuted under Federal law & get a minimum of 5 years. A convicted felon in possession of a firearm can be prosecuted under Federal law & receive a minimum of five years. Domestic violence with a gun same thing. These laws under Obama have been largely ignored. If a criminal knew with certainty that if he was picked up with a gun, they would face Federal time, only the most stupid would have guns.
Re suicide, in most cases a person that's deemed suicidal is almost by definition mentally unsound & can have their guns seized. A judge has to make the assessment. Colin Ferguson was a walking basket case who should have been in an institution, but his condition was ignored until he shot 25 people.
In short we have the laws to greatly reduce gun violence but the government lacks the will to enforce the laws they've made.

[chadk66]

Under current law anyone using a gun in a crime may be prosecuted under Federal law & get a minimum of 5 years. A convicted felon in possession of a firearm can be prosecuted under Federal law & receive a minimum of five years. Domestic violence with a gun same thing. These laws under Obama have been largely ignored. If a criminal knew with certainty that if he was picked up with a gun, they would face Federal time, only the most stupid would have guns.
Re suicide, in most cases a person that's deemed suicidal is almost by definition mentally unsound & can have their guns seized. A judge has to make the assessment. Colin Ferguson was a walking basket case who should have been in an institution, but his condition was ignored until he shot 25 people.
In short we have the laws to greatly reduce gun violence but the government lacks the will to enforce the laws they've made.and yet they want to pass more laws they won't enforce that wouldn't solve the issue anyway. Just so a bunch of liberals will feel all warm and fuzzy and get the feeling they're doing something to eliminate guns, even if it's from people that legally can own/buy them.

[betovernetcapper]

They have stopped calling thugs "super predictors" & Clinton is friends with Big Mike's (Fergason thug) mother. The only way the Liberal position on this makes any kind of sense is that the end game is to seize all guns from law abiding citizens.

This is morally repugnant. :mad:

[Clocker]

An article at The Federalist talks about the problems with this study, including the issue of those surveyed telling the truth. In an online poll there, 93% of those responding said that they would not give an accurate answer to such a survey.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/21/journalists-need-skeptical-new-gun-study-ownership/

[betovernetcapper]

What this thread needs is some graphics

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOS5sM7z14aGuQArsXd_AFlQOjm2aEPREtRDRSe


I think this almost the right amount to have. Just need a Glock 43 :)

[FantasticDan]

An article at The Federalist talks about the problems with this study, including the issue of those surveyed telling the truth. In an online poll there, 93% of those responding said that they would not give an accurate answer to such a survey.

So the author's "problem" with the study is that gun owners typically don't like giving their gun information to "random idiots on the phone".

Okayyy..

This survey wasn't done on the phone, it was done anonymously via a nationally representative opt-in online panel. The researchers said they received no push back from respondents regarding the questions..

Gun advocates have acknowledged that such a method was likely to obtain more reliable results than phone polling.

[xtb]

A lot of people do own a lot of guns. Phil Graham said "I have more shotguns then I need, but not as many as I want". There is always a new/better/different model that you can't live without. The same is true with watches, pocket knives, I phones & horse racing software.


So true with golf clubs.

[Clocker]

This survey wasn't done on the phone, it was done anonymously via a nationally representative opt-in online panel. The researchers said they received no push back from respondents regarding the questions..




Same problem. People like to screw with pollsters, especially on controversial issues.

This is a matter of belief, since the survey people won't release the data. You can believe it or not. I don't, and I also believe that I know a lot more about gun owners than a lot of people here.

And I will ask again, what is the point of the survey? What does it show or prove? What useful information does it provide, for what purpose? What difference does it make?

Gun ownership is driven by many different motives: self-defense, collecting, shooting sports, hunting, etc. Some gun owners have a lot more than others. So what?

[FantasticDan]

Gun ownership is driven by many different motives: self-defense, collecting, shooting sports, hunting, etc. Some gun owners have a lot more than others. So what?
Because guns are used in robberies. And assaults. And murders. And suicides. And massacres.

They're not stamps, or cars. Their express purpose is to be a deadly weapon. It is interesting and valuable, statistically, psychologically, and sociologically, to determine how many of such weapons are actually out there. Not especially to me, personally, but evidently to researchers and those across a spectrum of fields..

I get that, you, as a super owner, are defensive when anyone wants to shine a light on your "hobby". But your personal feelings don't invalidate the potential importance or validity of the study..

[Tom]

[QUOTE=FantasticDan]Because guns are used in robberies. And assaults. And murders. And suicides. And massacres.

They're not stamps, or cars. Cars are used in all of those activities, too. Their express purpose is to be a deadly weapon. Perhaps in your opinion, but obviously not in everyone's. You do not get to tell others WHY they own guns. It is interesting and valuable, statistically, psychologically, and sociologically, to determine how many of such weapons are actually out there. Not especially to me, personally, but evidently to researchers and those across a spectrum of fields..

I get that, you, as a super owner, are defensive when anyone wants to shine a light on your "hobby". But your personal feelings don't invalidate the potential importance or validity of the study..No, but the Constitution does. Study all you want, but the guns are here to stay no matter what.[QUOTE]

[Clocker]

Because guns are used in robberies. And assaults. And murders. And suicides. And massacres.



Guns aren't the problem there. And "super owners" aren't the problem. Criminals and people with mental health issues are the problem. But guns are an easy target, and a lot of people have an irrational fear and hatred of guns and gun owners, especially "super owners".

It is a lot easier to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens will obey than to address the tough problems of crime and mental health.


I get that, you, as a super owner, are defensive when anyone wants to shine a light on your "hobby". But your personal feelings don't invalidate the potential importance or validity of the study.

I repeat, what information did that study provide that is relevant to the problem of misuse of guns by criminals and people with mental health problems? It showed that a few people have a lot of guns. I could have told them that for free. It apparently did not address another fact, which is that those "super owners" are way above average in obeying laws, safe-guarding their weapons, and promoting gun safety.

You don't know me or my hobbies or my personal feelings. You only know the persona I chose to present in this forum. I am a gun owner (or was, until that tragic boating accident), but I am not defensive about it. I am just annoyed by the tone of moral superiority of people who are blindly opposed to something that they don't understand. And who conduct pointless studies to stir up emotions and pass pointless laws.

[JustRalph]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/charlotte-violence-sparks-self-defense-gun-buying-spree/article/2602559

Some new super owners created

[chadk66]

An article at The Federalist talks about the problems with this study, including the issue of those surveyed telling the truth. In an online poll there, 93% of those responding said that they would not give an accurate answer to such a survey.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/21/journalists-need-skeptical-new-gun-study-ownership/where have we heard this before in this discussion;)

[chadk66]

So true with golf clubs.god how I know that:bang:

[chadk66]

besides going down in history as the food stamp president, he will also be known as gun salesman of the century.

[Tom]

I have lied about every single question on a telephone poll.
I don't work for free. Pay me.

Or come here and take your pick of my FREE opinions. :eek:

But do a little work, you scummy telemarketers. :lol: