The GSS has shown a steady decline in household gun ownership on a more or less constant level since 1950, but that's wrong because gun owners lie to pollsters. Never mind that the number of gun stores have also declined in an almost identical manner.

But if gun owners lie why did they open up to Kleck and Lott and admit that they not only own guns but use them in self defense? Which is the lie; that they don't really own guns or that they so often use them in self defense?

The CDC says gun violence should be treated as a disease but the CDC is an anti gun agency with an agenda right up 'til they say guns are used in self defense and then they are a bastion of truth.

Like the GSS, Pew Polling has asked the same question in the same words for decades and when the PP said there is 51% support for gin rights it's a bastion of truth while the GSS is a lying anti gun govmint agency.

The ability to cite two sources as both pro and anti gun is unique to this topic and to those who luvx them some gunz.

always in such a moral panic to reduce gun ownership rates?

Since so many have posted this week that banning all gun ownership is a long term goal; the assumed steady decline only makes that goal easier.

If the gun ownership half life remains at 20 years, in 100 years there will be less than one million gun owners. Rounding them up, or taking them out with drones would be a breeze.
Credit to GCRA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=9507

would cheer a government unleashing drones on its own citizens.

Hasn't been repeatedly advocated- oh wait, it has.
Gun violence is bad, unless it is focused on gun owners, then fire away.

*links available upon request

nuc uni: What an absolutely heinous cartoon and yet how many Controllers, were the lines to ever be drawn, would cheer a government unleashing drones on its own citizens.


I didn't see 'US GOVT' on the drone anywhere, tho it is sequitur to assume I suppose; but could be his neighbor dropping a water balloon, since it's just a cartoon. Don't be a drama queen.

You consider that man a decent law abiding citizen?:

cartoon gun nut: It'll be 1776 all over again. Me and my gun are the last bastion of freedom. We will fight to the death anything that our evil government overlords can throw at us.... we will not be stripped naked and left at the mercy of a tyrranical govt.

Shouldn't you be joining us to encourage this man to seek psychiatric help, & perhaps being put on a list of possible mentally challenged individuals whose gun ownership should be questioned?

"I didn't see 'US GOVT' on the drone anywhere"
seriously? Predator drones are becoming as iconic a representation of the US as Uncle Sam. They are not known for dropping water balloons.

"You consider that man a decent law abiding citizen?"
What is he doing that is illegal?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution

sarisataka: Predator drones are becoming as iconic a representation of the US as Uncle Sam. They are not known for dropping water balloons

I didn't say they did; reread what I actually wrote, maybe a 'looks real' copy: I didn't see 'US GOVT' on the drone anywhere, tho it is sequitur to assume I suppose; but could be his neighbor dropping a water balloon

sari: Who is this us? Gun control proponents often state it is not mental illness, or else the gun is the cause of the mental illness. I haven't seen any encouragement to seek psychiatric help. You may recall these suggestions

You talking in absolutes or something? of course some/most democrats have urged extreme GN's to seek psychiatric or psychological help;
.. you create a specious argument where 'some' gun control proponents might disavow mental illness (or whatever), to create an utterly false premise.
Your anecdotal testimony proves little, to argue it represents mainstream democrat approach to gun control efforts, is absurd. Just a silly argument you present, overall.

Yet, here you are again.

Just can't get enough.

DOVE SEASON IN TEXAS!!

The protected group was never about gun control activism. It was about poking in the eye, people whom they hate, and can not stand up to in debate.

'It' being the protected group. Since 'it' failed in producing the desired 'poke in the eye' effect after about 3 days, it became a safe area from which to lob figurative Molotov coctails at their perceived enemies. But that too failed.

Nothing has really changed, except that we have to xpost here to counter any lies that we may find over there, and they have to leave the safety of the bunker and come over here unprotected, to defend them. 'Interesting', though ineffective tactics. If they wish to poke us in the eye, they have to do it here or in GD in person, unprotected. Same as it always was. Every time they do, it is a confirmation to me, of what their intent has been all along.

The constant repetition of the same "research", proving that there are fewer gun owners every week, on spite of record FOID cards being issued and NICS checks.

(They have 3 threads on the same statement by the murdered reporter's father, but somehow missed the part of his announcement that he's seriously thinking of buying a gun for protection, because it's not safe out there.

"On August 28, Andy Parker, father of slain WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker, said he does not own a gun, but he thinks he needs to buy one “now that he has decided to be an outspoken advocate for tougher gun laws.”)

Yeah, that makes sense. Good idea, follow Bloomberg;s and other elite's example. Decry guns for others, but make sure you're heeled.

Repetition of Hemenway's un-reviewed, bought and paid for "research".

Espousal of the phony 40% of guns sold with no background checks.

Use of the imaginary "90% want more gun control" figure.

Use of Everytown/Bloomberg's charts and graphs.

And of course their deepest thinking, cartoons.

From a certain host???

Using almost identical language, demanding that Skinner purge all these right wing extremist gun owners.

I kinda think Skinner will note the organized approach. It's not the first time it's happened either.

Sometimes I think he tries to be too polite to these guys, trying to push him around and bully him about what he should think and do on his own website.

Don't like his choices, start your own damn "gun free zone" website.

I see he has a new one

... and how he was gonna complain to Skinner using pretty much the same language the other host did in his multi-staged whine.

There seems to be a regular parade of Castle Bansalot Hosts whining to Skinner.

In the past Skinner pretty much lets them vent, then ignores them.

You're Skinner's guest here, complaining repeatedly about what you want or how right wing some posters are seems to be rude to me.

There are lots of other boards out there and with the trash feature and ignore there's no reason they have to read what goes on in the Gungeon.

But it's that whole control thing rearing its ugly head again and again. They just can't stand the idea of people that don't agree with them being allowed to post anything they disagree with.

That whole 1st amendment thing pisses them off too I guess?

Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Its in the 'Bloomberg 764,232.33 dollar question' thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172174824

When they first opened the "Other Group" a bunch of them swarmed into ATA demanding they shut down the Gungeon. (You'd almost think someone that was really insecure organized it?)

Same story as now; "blah, blah right wing", "blah, blah, not real Dems".

IIRC, Skinner was very patient for a while, explained there were other valid Dem opinions than just theirs.

Then after they kept whining about it and tried to turn their post into a Meta Rant, like the post referenced, he just stopped giving them any air time and started not even letting the posts show in ATA.

So it was a Gun "ConTroll" supporter that is now gone ... for a while anyway.

I wonder which Zombie it was? Maybe a Calculuz Teacher?

Before they write fiction. But hey, facts and stuff

According to Gallup, gun ownership is on the rise, and is at early 1970s levels. NICS checks are also at the highest level they have ever been. When you look at FOID and CCW rates, you can only conclude one thing....and that is both firearm ownership, political support, and lawful carry is becoming more popular.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

I still have 20 or 30 firearms I need for my collection. But for the most part I have most bases covered in my firearm collection.


I can still name 10-15 "must have" pistols but there's only one on my list that I need before 2016 rolls around. That's a good 10mm for carry when hunting.

But I need a good bass boat before I continue on my firearm collection.

The core reason for the drop in gun ownership is because of the ongoing attempt to demonize firearm owners and the threat of theft.
How many firearm owners will admit to a perfect stranger that they have a firearm in the home?
And how about the millions of new firearms sold in the last 5 years?
Or the millions of NICS background checks conducted?

Nope, this article and author is just making things up and hope they are believed, which they will be by the devoted controllers.

Year 2013 manufacturing figures, per the ATF:
Semiautomatic handguns: 4,441,726
Revolvers: 725,282
Shotguns: 1,203,072
Rifles: 3,979,570
Other: 495,142
Total: 10,844,792
Imported: 3,625,268
Exported: 393,121
Net total: 14,862,657


Year 2007 manufacturing figures, per the ATF:
Semiautomatic handguns: 1,219,664
Revolvers: 391,334
Shotguns: 645,231
Rifles: 1,610,923
Other: 55,461
Total: 3,922,613
Imported: 2,743,993
Exported: 204,782
Net total: 6,461,824

Try the BATFE's "2015 Report on Firearms Commerce in the U.S."

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics

Don't you ever question ANYTHING put out by the people in your echo chamber?

Spend some time with the 2015 report. It has pretty graphs and stuff to help you understand that your source you're quoting is, apparently, living in an abstract world where they must be right so the data is wrong.

Maybe you'll even feel compelled to self-delete this OP.

Shooting ranges seem to be doing just fine. Less that two years ago, a very large indoor range opened in my town --- it's now the largest range in the county.

Seems to be doing very well. How do I know? I work directly across the street from it. And of course, krispos42 utterly destroyed your "argument" in the post above. Manufacturers don't produce firearms for a nonexistent demand.

Over the past five years, the Shooting Ranges industry has rapidly recovered from the recession due to heightened enthusiasm for firearms fueled by fears of stricter gun control in the wake of several high-profile shootings. For example, gun and ammunition sales surged following tragedies in Aurora, CA, and Newton, CT, driving demand for shooting ranges from consumers who purchased firearms ahead of anticipated gun control measures. Such legislation never materialized at the federal level, however, and demand for industry services has begun to normalize, declining from its 2012 surge but nonetheless remaining high. Consequently, industry revenue will grow at a slower pace in the next five years....

http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/shooting-ranges.htm

It appears that you never tire of having your hit-and-run posts smacked down.

So every year, Smith & Wesson just throws a couple of hundred thousand handguns in a closet someplace and keeps making new ones? So then they have a warehouse someplace with a couple of million unsold handguns worth a billion dollars just sitting around in Massachusettes? And Ruger follows suit with billion-dollar wareshoues in New Hampshire and Arizone?

What are you talking about? NICS checks are UP. Concealed-carry permits are UP. Domestic firearm production more than DOUBLED in six years. IMPORTS of guns increased by over half in the same six-year period.

"Not every NICS check is a sale" is misleading bullshit. Am I to believe that when NICS checks soar in total numbers, actual NICS-enabled sales drop? WTF?

Colt filed for bankruptcy because of gross mismanagement of their manufacturing facilities. I know a guy that applied for a manufacturing engineer type of job there. They have him the tour. When he saw that part of the standard practice for dealing with an old machine that had massive coolant leaks was to sandbag it and have the machinists wear waders, he told them "fuck no" and walked away. Colt, coddled in the easy government profits of the Pentagon, failed to stay competitive in the civilian market. Colt owns the classic names and logos, but Kimber, Springfield Armory, Dan Wesson, Les Baer, and a host of other companions make far better Colt designed guns for less money.

Regarding the other companies... I"m going to draw an analogy. In 1996 the Earth had a particularly hot year. And for fifteen years afterwards, the standard RW, global-warming-denier talking point was that "the last X years have shown a cooling trend! See? See? 1996!"

Well, it seems to me that you're doing the same thing. Gun sales have doubled, but because there was a peak a couple of years ago and the surge is flattening, you're using the slight decline from the most recent peak to crow about how the gun industry is on the ropes.

Get a clue. You're trying to use force of will to turn pretend into reality, and it's not working.

Besides, since your side is pushing Clinton and Sanders to take pro-control positions, I'm sure that gun sales will pick right up in synch with the election of President Sanders or President Clinton.

There are winners and losers. Colt has been around for well over a hundred years, and they've had good years and bad. Now they're suffering for some bad decisions by management and might go under. Colt does not have a right to exist; it's a function of market forces. Suckage should not be rewarded, but one company sucking itself into bankruptcy does not mean it's a bellwether of an industry. There are many, many small and new companies out there eating the market share that Colt once had. Some will fail, some will succeed, just like other businesses.

Not to mention Ding Dongs, Ho-Hos and the Cupcakes.

Smith & Wesson had to come back from the hole the English owners dug for them in the '90's too. New ownership, better R&D, update of the mfg facilities with better CAD CAM, bingo!

The Colt brand is too valuable to just let lie. Somebody will pick it up, reorganize it and be back in business.

Now, if they could only make an affordable SAA...

And come back when you find actual SALES FIGURES.

Until then, your claims that gun sales have doubled is just conjecture.

If we get a room, it might have rules like the one you guys got, and we may even enforce them as creatively as you guys do.

"In commerce" includes bulk sales to military, law enforcement, or wholesalers. It also includes exports to other countries.

Still no actual SALES FIGURES.

Face it, your assertion is incorrect. You've got nothing but hot air.

Firearm manufacturing in this country more than doubled in six years. Police and military sales (government sales) are mature markets; we haven't doubled the number of police or military recruits in this country. Exports of US-made guns are a small fraction of this, and doesn't come within a couple of orders of magnitude of accounting for the doubling.


They're being sold on the U.S. civilian market. And wholesalers ARE the civilian market! They're not going to buy what they can't sell to retailers, and retailers aren't going to buy what they can't sell to civilians.


Gun sales are way up, in large part to your side's efforts to criminalized secondary features. Congrats!

there are a number of reasons for this. One is that they decided to cut back on commercial sales and concentrate on their military and police contracts and manufacturing costs because they stuck to old school craftsmanship instead of embracing CNC technology. While they shared a near monopoly with Smith and Wesson for police revolvers in the US and Canada, departments started adopting pistols made by an Austrian upstate named Glock and other European companies and their US subsidiaries. At the same time, they lost the military handgun market to the Italian company Beretta. Now the rifles are made by the Belgian company FNH.

After neglecting the commercial market, they also saw more competition from Europeans and US upstarts like Kimber, Kahr, Ruger, etc.

As for the Spitzer, his pop psych nonsense is about accurate as a Sylvia Browne psychic reading.

Lot's of brands have marketing people that only want to sell those big contracts. Less work for the sales team, better expense accounts for multi million $$$ sales. Nice bonuses.

The smarter companies establish a mixed customer base with a balance of large, mid sized and smaller accounts.

That way if a large account leaves, you have a cushion to hold you until you can replace that volume.

"All your eggs in one basket" as a poor "marketing strategy" comes to mind.

Do you really think they are sitting on 8 million guns, or more than a years worth of sales, and nobody knows it but you?

the well regulated militias as the constitution requires and the problem goes away.

never did.