Are you a "Super Gun Owner"?

[Raidingtime]

I had to share this gem of a story brought to us by The Guardian. It's always nice to be in the "Super" realm.

Gun inequality: US study charts rise of hardcore super owners

Read More

 

[albin25]

It never ceases too amaze how these idiots doing their "authorative studies" actually believe their clueless little surveys are remotely accurate...
...and in addition fail to grasp the simple causality of crime rates falling because of the increase in armed homes and citizens...you know....the ones NOT answering those idotic, intrusive, surveys honestly or accurately.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

What a, virtual, rag! Sheesh!!!

 

[nammac]

I'm surprised that the number of guns that it takes to be a super owner is so high... I would have thought the media would put that number at two or three firearms to be a super owner...

They must be getting soft!

 

[Hedrin]

Shoot, I'm almost a "super user" on .22's alone!

 

[HuckleberryFun]

According to The Guardian I'm not a "Super" gun owner, but I am definitely in the Lake Woebegone "Above Average" neighborhood. To hell with them, I still think I'm a Super guy.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Do you get a cape if you fall into the super category?
Andy

 

[Mark W.]

The article contradicts itself. how can there be 10 million new gun owners if the total number of gun owners is going down?

Morons with a typewriter.

 

[Timbertodd]

Would the money I have set aside for another gun be considered a superfund project?

 

[partsed]

The article contradicts itself. how can there be 10 million new gun owners if the total number of gun owners is going down?

Morons with a typewriter.

Evidently the British have already adopted the math curriculum of Common Core.

 

[etrain16]

Some points that jumped out at me from the story:

1. "Unpublished Study" - that likely means no peer review, at least yet, which may call into question the veracity of the study, if they are unable to get it published. That said, it may be that it just hasn't been through the process yet. If it hasn't, then why is it being reported as if accepted fact by academia?

2. 7.7 Million are "super" gun owners. What is interesting to me about that is that the NRA has only 5 million members. I would think, with all the talk of the NRA being a bully group in Washington D.C., that they would have at least 7.7 million members (don't bother flaming me on this, I know some of you hate the NRA - let's stay on topic).

3. Several times the article refers to preventing 'gun suicide', however, to date, no evidence exists that gun control or gun laws do anything to reduce suicide by firearms. In fact, if anything, I would suspect that the 'super' gun owners are actually the best at having their guns secured, locked away from someone that may choose to use one to end their lives. We should be grateful to the super owners.

4. I get the distinct impression from the tone of the article that the 'super owners' are perhaps a concern, perhaps the crazy ones that will eventually all go on shooting rampages - it's not said, but you can tell from the overall piece, that they are concerned. Yet here is what they said about that in their study: "Azrael, the lead author of the study, said there was no research on "whether owning a large number of guns is a greater risk factor than owning a few guns". "We know almost nothing about that," she said."

5. This comment concerns me: "I don't know anybody who thinks or talks seriously about confiscating guns," she said. "From a public health perspective – you don't seize cigarettes." But, she said, "you do try to make good science available. You do try to help people think about the risks and benefits of the behavior they choose to undertake." Every time I hear someone say they're not coming for your guns, we see another law passed to do just that - one piece at a time. It's a lie, and they damn well know it. They also know the obvious truth - cigarettes aren't banned because they generate huge tax revenue and employee millions - AND, cigarettes can't be used against an overstepping government coming for your stuff

Anyway, I don't quite understand the purpose of the study. Honestly, what useful information can we gain from it? I can't help but think that studies like this only serve to empower and inform government officials that want to strip us of our rights. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and money.

 

[Medic!]

Old school here.

I'm gona stick with ''Gun Nut''.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

You can never go wrong with squirrels armed to the teeth pics. lol

 

[notazombie]

Gun inequality? Easy fix. Guns for everyone! Lots of em.

 

[Medic!]

Gun inequality? Easy fix. Guns for everyone! Lots of em.

As long as it's not ''Gun redistribution''.

Or I'll give you ''Ammo distribution''.

 

[NWGlockgal]

At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

I don't believe this for a minute. I know too many gun owners who have recently purchased their first one.

If owning 17 guns makes you a "super gun owner", then I am the Grand Exalted Ruler of the Gun Universe. 17 is nothing.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[Stomper]

Just another attempt to "rationalize" away the massive increase of firearms ownership under Barak the DipDunk, and make all gun owners appear to be in the extreme minority.

 

[The Heretic]

Superman gun owner

 

[cigars]

As soon as I saw "Harvard" I knew the tone for the article was set.