If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Smith & Wesson 4Q profit goes ballistic   (marketwatch.com) divider line 3
    More: Spiffy, Smith & Wesson, net sales  
•       •       •

1102 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 Jun 2013 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-26 11:21:32 AM  
1 votes:
Oh, and take "gun ownership" statistics with a grain of salt.

If you go here:   http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

You'll see that as of 2011, just 32% of households own a gun according to Gallup.  I think that's bogus, and here is why:  Look at the number for 2000.  It's down to a low of 32%.  Then a mere 3 years later, it's up to 43%, an increase of 34% in just 3 short years, then it drops back down to 38% the next year.

So what's going on?  Did that many households get new guns between 2000 and 2003?  According to the US census, there were 105.5 million households in 2000, which means that there were (105.5*.32) = 33.76 million households with at least one gun in 2000, and (105.5*.43) = 45.37 million in 2003.  Assuming that the people who already had guns mostly kept them, that's an additional 11.61 million guns added to homes that didn't have them before.

The problem is that between 2000 and 2003, NICS checks remained fairly flat:

 www.thefiscaltimes.com

Any significant bump in new gun ownership should have shown up in the background check stats, but it didn't.

Plus, gun production during that time frame was also flat:

accurateshooter.net

Take a look at that graph:  Between 2000 and 2003, the total gun production was a bit over 3 million per year, which would be something like 13 million new guns during that time frame, which means if those gun ownership survey numbers were correct, new gun owners bought up something around 90% of the new gun production in the US.

That's just not plausible.

So why the big difference in percentages from year to year?

I suspect that the difference has a lot to do whether gun control is in the media or not.  When it is, consistently, gun owners become wary of telling a stranger on the phone that they have guns.  That explains the drop during the 1990s.  It also explains the 1987-1988-1989 pattern of 46-40-46:  That's when the first talk about banning so-called "assault weapons" started.

Many gun owners will either lie about owning guns, or simply refuse to take it, because "it's none of your goddamned business."
2013-06-26 10:45:35 AM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Backwoods yokels on the dole always seem to have plenty of cash for guns and ammo.

Bigot much?

Gun owners tend to skew middle class.


The WindowLicker: HotWingConspiracy: Backwoods yokels on the dole always seem to have plenty of cash for guns and ammo.

Well my family does live in the woods, but the last time I went shooing with my father and his friends, I was the only one without a PHD or MD in attendance.

Granted we don't have a vast arsenal, but I think you might be surprised by the variety of folks who enjoy shooting.


You guys are totally right. I'm sure it's just that shooting and hunting have simply exploded in popularity. This obviously has nothing to do with all the crazy anti-Obama assholes buying up ammo because they think he's coming to take them away, ha-ha.

Anywho, any of you guys know where I can find a bridge for sale?
2013-06-26 10:28:05 AM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Backwoods yokels on the dole always seem to have plenty of cash for guns and ammo.


Bigot much?

Gun owners tend to skew middle class.
 
Displayed 3 of 3 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report