Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gun Inequality – Liberals now complaining about “hardcore super owners”

Gun Inequality – Liberals now complaining about “hardcore super owners”

Is that like Hillary’s Super Predators from the 1990s?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUpCqBonOFw

Inequality is bad, right?

A new survey documents that some people own lots of guns, while others own only a few.

That’s not fair!

Funny, I don’t hear liberals suggesting the government give out free guns to help balance gun ownership inequality.

The left-wing Guardian newspaper examines the issue in Gun inequality: US study charts rise of hardcore super owners:

Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

The surge in the number of guns owned is fueled by the ladies:

The new survey, conducted in 2015 by public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities, also found that the proportion of female gun owners is increasing as fewer men own guns. These women were more likely to own a gun for self-defense than men, and more likely to own a handgun only.

Women’s focus on self-defense is part of a broader trend. Even as the US has grown dramatically safer and gun violence rates have plummeted, handguns have become a greater proportion of the country’s civilian gun stock, suggesting that self-defense is an increasingly important factor in gun ownership.

Heres an overall demographic chart of gun owners:

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

But the focus of the article are the super owners:

While there are an estimated 55 million American gun owners, most own an average of just three firearms, and nearly half own just one or two, according to the survey results.

Then there are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns.

This kind of concentrated ownership isn’t unique to guns, firearms researchers noted. Marketing experts suggest that the most devoted 20% consumers will typically account for 80% of a product’s sales.

There’s no evidence presented that super owners are more dangerous, so what’s the worry?

I think it’s cultural.

The Guardian article is accompanied by a “documentary” about gun ownership which is an “othering” of gun owners:

The problem identified in the video and The Guardian is not that some people own a lot of guns, it’s that those people are not like the writers and readers of The Guardian. They’re so, in the eyes of most liberals, uncouth and country-like, and they talk funny with southern and midwestern accents.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I think that some liberals have too many dogs.
Liberals tend to be dog owners and conservatives are cat people…..why is that? A dog has to have a human providing food, shelter and care and the liberal loves having that power. A cat doesn’t give a shit, it will eat when it damn well pleases and needs no one!

    Conservatives are cat people? My God, when did this happen? I can’t stand cats. They have personalities like a girl I used to date: sneaky and secretive. Hilary like, in fact. Give me a dog any time.

      hvlee in reply to hvlee. | September 20, 2016 at 8:26 am

      I feel like I must explain my avatar. That’s a picture of a neighborhood cat looking over the side of my sainted S-10 pickup. I just couldn’t resist the picture. The cat looks so evil.

      scooterjay in reply to hvlee. | September 20, 2016 at 5:44 pm

      I would comment accurately but my cat is stalking me

    I think I see what you’re trying to do there. But I assure you, a quick way to see my gun is to mess with my dog.

I wish I could expand my collection to seventeen or more.

I just don’t have that much free cash floating around.

Some people own guns as a very sound investment. Some years back, I noticed that guns were bucking inflation, that they were not increasing in price when other things were.

If I’d had the money…or even had I borrowed the money…I could have bought a lot of guns and come out quite well. Ah, well…

Jay Leno owns too many cars. Lots of people own too many boots or shoes, or pantsuits.

What’s too many? What’s “hardcore”?

Oh, and Hellary was right about the super-predators back in the 1990s, along with a lot of other things she’s running 180 degrees away from now. The lurch to the left over such a short span of time is gobsmacking.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | September 20, 2016 at 7:43 am

    Oh, and Hellary was right about the super-predators back in the 1990s, along with a lot of other things she’s running 180 degrees away from now.

    Hellary is pulling away from her previous positions so fast that she is pulling multiple Gs.

    Explains the fainting spells.

Hardcore Super Whiners

“Even as the US has grown dramatically safer and gun violence rates have plummeted, handguns have become a greater proportion of the country’s civilian gun stock.” Fox Butterfield, anyone?

Humphrey's Executor | September 20, 2016 at 8:06 am

One would think anti-gun folks would be happy about this data. Surely they are not worried about gun collectors and sportsmen, right?

… a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

Dang, guess I need to add a few more to my collection. I wanna be a ‘super-owner’, too!

Do you get a ‘super-owner’ discount card?

thalesofmiletus | September 20, 2016 at 8:50 am

News media reduced to click-baiting headlines for non-stories like “gun enthusiasts enthusiastic about gun.” /yawn

Always the dilemma: buy more guns or more ammo.

    Ragspierre in reply to hvlee. | September 20, 2016 at 9:46 am

    Optics. Don’t forget optics!

    My next acquisition is night vision!

      I might even delay achieving super-owner status to get into night vision. Thermal imaging is interesting as well.

      I do need to defend Texas women from the writers demeaning statement about women owning mostly handguns. More than a few of the ladies I know also possess an evil black rifle or two and can operate them at a higher level than the writer can operate his brain housing group. Maybe he should go to writing restaurant reviews or something simple.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to hvlee. | September 20, 2016 at 10:53 am

    I say ammo, unless you’re buying more firearms that take the same ammo you already use. I’d hate to run out of 5.56 and only have .40 laying around or need more 12 ga and all I have is .22.

      I make it a point not to own too many calibers. My next purchase will be a rifle that takes .45 or .357, to complement the handguns.

        buckeyeminuteman in reply to SDN. | September 21, 2016 at 7:58 am

        The Keltec Sub2000 is a nice carbine that comes in .40 or 9 mm and takes Glock mags. I’ve been looking for a couple years now to no avail.

    Sanddog in reply to hvlee. | September 20, 2016 at 11:11 am

    Both?

Wow! I’m in the top 3% of something. Too many people make too much money studying trivia like this.

See, this is the fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to inequality.

Liberals will always try to fix it by taking away from those who have the most, until everyone is poor together.

Conservatives will always try to fix it by increasing access for everyone.

Has anyone established a charity to help poor people navigate the minefield of applications and permits to get access to guns? Or to subsidize the cost of a first weapon for personal defense?

2nd Ammendment Mother | September 20, 2016 at 10:17 am

As usual – no column for women over 40 who own handguns, shotguns, rifles, bows and cannons….. discrimination I tell you

17 or more weapons classifies you as a super owner? Pretty scary that we have many federal agencies that are now classified as above super user status.
Some of the best businesses to be in now is anything around personal defense, weapons, ammo, training, body armor. The government is finally making jobs, good paying jobs unlike the shovel ready BS they promised. There are plenty of openings for veterans if they can get the proper licensing and now with the pot industry needing protection that the feds won’t provide it’s really a good time to be a combat vet. No having to leave the country to be a merc, teach soccer moms how to shoot tight groups with pink female friendly firearms. All the jobs that this is producing and the taxes collected on all of the guns and ammo it’s a gold mine.
Maybe that’s why the liberals are crying, people are no longer going to yoga, conflict resolution classes, buying man makeup and man bun spray and skinny jeans to get the faux lumberjack look. They’re going to the range and perfecting their 3 gun technique, buying tactical clothing and 3 day survival bags. Going back to the 50’s almost when the YMCA taught marksmanship and the boy scouts actually taught survival skills instead of making macaroni pictures.

I’m rambling but I think the Obama administration might have done the exact opposite to a large percentages of ‘Mericans than what they were planning. They want the cower in place with all communications severed civilians like they did in Boston after the marathon bombings. That’s why you can tell Obama or his whisperers weren’t raised in the US, they don’t understand one of the fundamental traits of Americans. We will fight. We will fight, we will protect our own and we aren’t going to cower under the bed and hope that the police will get there before we are killed in our houses. We’ll wait for the police to show up so they can take our statements and remove the bodies.

Ooohhh… an unpublished study delivered to an anti-gun organization and a left wing rag. No agenda there, right?

Trickle-up poverty (e.g. redistributive change) keeps people on the estate,

“The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace”

This is the important part. An unpublished study, shared exclusively with Bloomberg’s two favorite anti-gun rights scions.

By the time the details of the survey come out, months after the election, nobody will care about its systemic flaws.

“Americans own an estimated 265m guns, ”

the real number is almost certainly over 400m at this point, another fact this survey doesn’t seem to want to admit.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to Sian. | September 20, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    If I were asked that question on a phone survey I would have to think about it for a minute and count them out. Then, there’s no way I’d tell them the real answer. But did I exaggerate or hide the real number. There’s no way anybody will ever know and that’s the way it should be 😉

Of course they will never blame themselves; fear of future supply issues has NOTHING to do with it.

Like voting, self-defense is too important to limit gun ownership only to those with an ID card and a background check. Such onerous burdens are overwhelmingly imposed only upon minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled.

Give a voice to all Americans!

PS: A super-owner is one who can hit a dime five out of five shots at 100 yards.

The thing with surveys and studies like this, is that they are NEVER going to be accurate. You know what my response would be if I got a random survey phone call about gun ownership? “Guns?!?! Goodness, no. I’d never own one of those things.” But in truth, I am one of those super owners. And most gun owners whose collections start reaching double digits would answer the same way.

It sounds like the left is assessing firepower for a coming civil war.

17???

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…

Honey…we need to talk about your she collection…

2nd Ammendment Mother | September 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm

So if 140 is a super owner….. then what I am I? I passed 140 years ago…. and by I, I mean me – not my husband’s or kids, MINE!

17? You have got to be kidding me. That’s not even a good start. If you know how many guns you own, you don’t own enough.

Harvard public health, isn’t that funded by the Joyce Foundation? You know them, rabidly anti gun. obongo was a board member as I recall.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/campaign/honor-roll-of-donors/institutional-partnerships-matching-gift-companies/

Institutional Partnerships and Matching Gift Companies

$250,000–$499,999
The Joyce Foundation

You have .22? Now that is a great investment. I bow to your superior buying habits.

the answer was “one more”…

🙂

It takes a couple seconds to a few minutes to grab the gun and defend yourself and your family. It takes much longer depending on where you live and much longer if you live in the country for cops to arrive. By the time the cops arrive, it’ll be too late. Let a Liberal think about that if he/she is held at gunpoint and calling 911 or waiting for the cops will not work. So, of course gun owners are “super owners,” because we have the power to do something about it!

3%er here.

Gun safe already stuffed to the gills.

Shoulda gone for the 48 instead of the 24.

What do you have between your ears? No RED blooded American Gun owner,is going to tell you how many firearms they have!!!
Except me!!! I have way more then YOU think I need! And NO where near as many as I want!!!
You can times that by 1000 for the ammo I may have for each firearm!!!!

    RMS1911 in reply to PITA45. | September 24, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Nobody is going to tell a complete stranger such info,
    They would sooner talk of bodily functions.
    The aren’t honest to pollsters half the time.

The Guardian says: “Even as the US has grown dramatically safer and gun violence rates have plummeted, handguns have become a greater proportion of the country’s civilian gun stock, suggesting that self-defense is an increasingly important factor in gun ownership.”

Why do they draw that conclusion, instead of suggesting hand guns help the US grow dramatically safer and cause gun violence rates to plummet?

    EndOfPatience in reply to Huck Mucus. | September 21, 2016 at 9:34 am

    Because Leftists don’t believe in Causality.

    p1cunnin in reply to Huck Mucus. | September 21, 2016 at 10:59 am

    “Safer”? It would be nice if some real journalist took a good look at crime statistics and reporting, particularly in big cities. In Chicago, the police won’t even come out for a petty crime — the victim has to go to a police station and report the crime. Crimes of violence are reported down. There’s a recent story where a teenage boy was found burned in a garbage can. Clearly a homicide, but recorded as a “death investigation” — and likely will stay that way if no one is charged with the crime. If crime is not reported (or acted upon), then it apparently didn’t happen, if you want to believe the statistics.

guns? I dont have any guns…they all fell overboard on a fishing trip…yes all of them…I think it was the weight of all the guns that nearly sank the boat, so we through them overboard. lol

I added to my stock today…

Nothing you quoted shows them complaining about some gun owners having a lot more guns than others or saying that it’s a problem. They just cite statistics that say it is so, not that it’s a problem. Why does it outrage you so?

    Perhaps you didn’t read to the end of the article.

    “The problem identified in the video and The Guardian not that some people own a lot of guns, it’s that those people are not like the writers and readers of The Guardian. They’re so, in the eyes of most liberals, uncouth and country-like, and they talk funny with southern and midwestern accents.”

      FactsRFun in reply to tmlc. | September 21, 2016 at 9:32 am

      RichSPK is correct. Nothing quoted – in fact nothing in the Guardian article cited by this piece- is offensive. It is simply a retrospective of certain people who were interviewed about trends in gun ownership. While it is certainly possible that some of the Guardian’s readership see’s these people in a negative way, the quote you reference is an opinion on how liberals view those with a lot of guns. There is no way the author- if a reasonable person- got that opinion from the article. This type of approach is exactly why there is so much division in this country. Reasonable people who don’t fear the truth read articles that might contain information they will not like. Information from ANYONE with an agenda must be considered carefully- no matter which side of the argument they make. As a no-party affiliated, hard-working American (yes, I own firearms)I wonder how long we will allow ourselves to be sheep to EITHER side of the political spectrum. We need to pay attention, to READ- not just the stuff that furthers our current beliefs but things that push back. We need to allow our beliefs to be challenged. It is the only way we are going to see where the truth is- somewhere in the middle of “us and them.”

        jdkchem in reply to FactsRFun. | September 21, 2016 at 6:45 pm

        Super owners? Firearm inequality? It’s the guardian. The Brit publication with a commie bias. Reasonable people consider the source not just the words coming out of their mouths.

It is not above the governments power to require every male go through a gun safety course and be a gun owner. We need to maintain a militia in time of need.

I don’t trust gun ownership numbers gathered by survey. They might be a lower limit but I’m sure many people like myself don’t tell anyone they own guns or how many they own. Doctors now ask that question and I don’t know many people that answer truthfully. Perhaps women are more likely to do so?

Super Owners? Are we pussy-footing around now because gun nuts are, as we all know, terrorist vigilantes with no regards for legality nor for patriotism? They are by definition, TOTALLY OF THE RAILS, WHACKED OUT, GUN NUT HOARDERS, who should have their guns taken away from them and convicted of terrorism, treason to the US, and unlawful vigilantism. These are the nut jobs that should be put in a very deep hole because they threaten everyday life, normal people.

All you have to do is listen to these nut job to see how very mentally unstable they really are. They talk about conspiracies, they talk about keeping militias even though if they had any REAL balls, they’d join the REAL military like I did when I bled for this country when I went to the Middle East.

The fact that these gun nuts are getting angry at the report, as if it was accusing them of something which, again, shows their mental instability because they seem quick to anger. They also seem so paranoid that they hide the number of guns they have.Again, another sign of craziness.

They also have no self control and will go off on anyone who dares threaten their precious little sexual compensation pieces. As known by the law enforcement community, these gun hoarders are also mostly white men who feel powerless and resort to bigotry and domestic violence more often. In Texas alone, the rate of gun related domestic violence has risen extremely fast in the last 10 years as gun laws get more and more relaxed.

The gun nuts say it’s for protection, but it’s protection we need from the gun nut hoarders. They are just to crazy to figure that out. They are like those women with mental disorders who feel the need to carry a dog in their purse, ALL the time, for “emotional support”.

And it’s racist to claim that need for protection from home invasion like as if they think that a black person is going to break in at any moment even though many of these racists live in all white communities. This arming to the teeth also endangers any children that these nuts may have.

So basically, anyone with a gun is crazy and a danger to everyone around them so they need to be disarmed and put in a padded cell so that they can’t hurt anyone.

Where’s my proof? Look at any and all negative responses to my post. THAT will show how unstable these gun nuts are. They will probably resort to name calling and circular logic that goes nowhere and add some finger-pointing and try to blame me for their mental disorder. Just watch.

    “Where’s my proof?”

    You are just a nut without a gun.

    Writing multiple paragraphs of bullshit makes you nothing less.

    aGrimm in reply to Dursagon. | September 22, 2016 at 3:22 am

    Dursagon: I find it curious that you do not recognize the same sort of anger in yourself that you attribute to gun owners – at least you appear to be seriously angry from your posting.

    You state,”So basically, anyone with a gun is crazy and a danger to everyone around them so they need to be disarmed and put in a padded cell so that they can’t hurt anyone.” Wow! That is a broad generalization and clearly biased and racist (considering all the different ethnicities that own guns).

    You imply that you were wounded in the ME. Would you be kind enough to elaborate? Your post makes me question this claim. I’m a VN combat vet and I see that I fall into the 44% of vets who own a gun category. On my second day home from VN, I went to the PX and bought a rifle. I readily admit that I felt “naked” without a rifle. However, the first time I fired it was 10 years later while teaching my 8 year old to shoot. Yep, I was exhibiting some serious “crazy” for the previous ten years wasn’t I? Not. My whole family, children/grandchildren, own and shoot. None of them have shot in anger or (fortunately) to defend themselves. We all recognize that gun ownership carries a high responsibility and thus we act responsibly. My war stories have driven home this responsibility as they see the deep impact that combat had on me. It is not crazy to own guns, it is a recognition of reality and the evil that so many are willing to promulgate upon the innocent and helpless. That evil especially includes governments. Every single repressive, socialist or dictatorial country disarms its citizens. Our Founders recognized this and gave us the Second amendment to help prevent the evil ones from putting their boots on our necks. If you actually are a combat vet, then you should recognize that there are the sheepdogs and the sheep. You should feel comforted that 22% of our country are willing to be sheepdogs. If you were in combat, then you were once a sheepdog. What changed you to being a sheep?

    You’re in the wrong place, boy. Engage like a cogent adult, or go troll somewhere else.

    Walker Evans in reply to Dursagon. | September 22, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    I’m not going to give you a thumbs down as it would be counterproductive. As a military retiree with more than one tour in a hostile fire zone I can tell you that you’re wrong across the board, but that would also be a waste of time.

    Instead, I strongly recommend you seek counseling from the VA, which is free to you as a combat wounded veteran. Your post fairly screams that you have issues that need attention, whether it be PTSD or any of the other problems that eat at our souls after combat. Some of us handle it fairly well (sorta) and others … not so much. Please, please get the help you need; there is no disgrace in admitting you aren’t superman and can’t do it all alone. It really can help – I know.

    nraendowment in reply to Dursagon. | September 24, 2016 at 10:17 am

    You’re a vet? I need to see a DD214 before I’ll buy into that. And if you are I have to wonder if you got a General orOther Than Honorable based on your attitude and rhetoric.

    tobiathan in reply to Dursagon. | September 24, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    You’re a liar and a fraud; you neither served in the military nor “shed blood” for it.

    If i’m wrong then tell me what your MOS was and where you went to basic.

    Effing scumbag.

    Sanddog in reply to Dursagon. | September 24, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Dickless, former member of the military and current “super owner” here. Do you want to know why I own firearms, sweetpea? Because I Can. Now ask your mommy to give you a cookie and go take your nap.

    RMS1911 in reply to Dursagon. | September 25, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Caution
    another deranged hoplophobic authoritarian Marxist a$$hat.
    Take particular note of the faux bravery and military service claims.

I had no idea I was this far behind! I need to buy 18 more, and I’ll need a MUCH bigger safe.

The problem with more gun laws is that there is no data that indicates decrease in gun related deaths. It has been ingrained in Americans that we will never allow a government to have complete control sense the Revolutionary War. Tyranny comes from an all controlling government just look around the world. The law abiding gun owner means no one harm but don’t tread on me either. Your article title is incorrect. It has nothing to do with that in the subject matter.

JesusHBolderdash | September 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

Left leaning moderate here. I own 28 rifles, 12 shotguns, 18 handguns and a lot of ammo for each one (including more than 5,000 rounds of .223) Why do people think only conservatives own guns?

@Dursagon

There would be no more anti-gun rights supporters in politics if “gun nuts” lacked self-control.

You paint people with a very broad brush. Thank you Herr Goebbels for your comments.

“Law abiding gun owners are the new Jews.”

–Michael Bane

Be very, very careful when you start painting law abiding people as a threat. You may not like how they respond.

Then I suggest lowering the price of a FFL and make it more 21st century on getting the federal government the information they requested to help in this ” gun ownership inequality” !!

Boy Scout summer camps are very proud of how many Scouts earn their Swimming and First Aid Merit Badges after five days of instruction. The merit badges that have minimum age restrictions because of overwhelming popularity are Rifle Shooting and Shotgun Shooting Merit Badges. Both merit badges are taught by NRA trained / certified instructors.

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Rifle_Shooting
http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Shotgun_Shooting

So, basically their survey showed that the older a gun owner gets the more firearms they accumulate (big shocker that people that like items tend to purchase more of them through the years), and that those that live where there are less restrictions on and more opportunities to use firearms tend to own more firearms (another shocker).

a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each? Say what?

Some places, that is considered a starter set.

I got a grin out of the 17 who didn’t know if they grew up with guns or not. They must be Hillary supporters.

As for Dursagon, he obviously needs help whether he is a veteran or not.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend