vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) Swamp Fox - 06/23/2017
This just came out today. It's big, but skimmable. I'm taking it in small bites.
Some interesting and possibly surprising stuff.
My favorite finding so far: The 2% of gun owners who report that they believe no one should own a gun...LOL
I figured some of you might enjoy it.
[url]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/[/url]
Some interesting and possibly surprising stuff.
My favorite finding so far: The 2% of gun owners who report that they believe no one should own a gun...LOL
I figured some of you might enjoy it.
[url]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/[/url]
2.) DParker - 06/23/2017
I can't get that page to load...so I'll just leave this here:
Edit: There's an errant period immediately before the ending slash ("/") in your link. Remove that and it works.
Edit: There's an errant period immediately before the ending slash ("/") in your link. Remove that and it works.
3.) Swamp Fox - 06/23/2017
LOL...
Fixed the link. Thanks for the heads-up.
Fixed the link. Thanks for the heads-up.
4.) Wild Bob - 06/23/2017
Interesting...I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, so I'll have to catch up on it over the weekend.
I will say this though - and this is a factor in all this that I have been personally harping on for some years now: It would be very interesting to take that data and compare it to the geographic perspective of urban and rural classifications.
Now I know right away someone will comment that 'Hey, wait a second, I'm a hunter or a gun owner and I live in a very urban area or even the middle of the big city!" And I don't dispute that, and I'm not trying to over generalize on my argument here, and I know there certainly are neighborhoods with 'pockets' of Second Amendment folks in very urban areas. BUT, I argue that an honest, unbiased snap shot of gun ownership data with attention to geographic perspective (if there is such a tool) will verify that this whole divide can easily be shown on a map. No different than the political pole maps we get crammed down our throats every other year now it seems.
Here's the thing - how many farmers and ranchers own guns...sure many don't hunt, but I can guarantee you that you'd be hard pressed to find a farm or ranch house that doesn't have at least one firearm in it. Then, look at the populations in those rural areas - I can honestly and truthfully comment that I know every house on my road has guns in them (lots of guns actually). And I am sure all of us on HC can make a similar comment. But compare that to a major urban area where the population density is high...no way. This is precisely why we are in the minority; the sheer numbers of people in the urban areas sets that bias up.
I actually read an article a couple of weeks ago, and dang it, at the moment, I can't remember what source I read it in...but it was a popular news source. Anyhow, they presented that many of the divides in our country are becoming more and more attributable to the regions of rural vs. urban geographic...well DUH!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. How can people be so misinformed as to not realize that things that mean a lot to someone that lives in a rural area are different than someone that lives in a high-rise and doesn't even have the need to own a car?? Do those folks, generally speaking, get the whole right to own a gun and hunt idea - most likely not. Do they worry and care deeply about the cost or safety of public transportation? Well yea...it's not rocket science and sometimes it amazes me how the (political) analysts don't get this concept. Gun ownership just mirrors the geographic picture for the most part (except the DC area...I believe from info I've seen that ownership in the DC area is an anomaly for a high density urban area.) And unfortunately, I think the divide is only going to get wider on many other issues as well.
OK, I'll shut up now.
I will say this though - and this is a factor in all this that I have been personally harping on for some years now: It would be very interesting to take that data and compare it to the geographic perspective of urban and rural classifications.
Now I know right away someone will comment that 'Hey, wait a second, I'm a hunter or a gun owner and I live in a very urban area or even the middle of the big city!" And I don't dispute that, and I'm not trying to over generalize on my argument here, and I know there certainly are neighborhoods with 'pockets' of Second Amendment folks in very urban areas. BUT, I argue that an honest, unbiased snap shot of gun ownership data with attention to geographic perspective (if there is such a tool) will verify that this whole divide can easily be shown on a map. No different than the political pole maps we get crammed down our throats every other year now it seems.
Here's the thing - how many farmers and ranchers own guns...sure many don't hunt, but I can guarantee you that you'd be hard pressed to find a farm or ranch house that doesn't have at least one firearm in it. Then, look at the populations in those rural areas - I can honestly and truthfully comment that I know every house on my road has guns in them (lots of guns actually). And I am sure all of us on HC can make a similar comment. But compare that to a major urban area where the population density is high...no way. This is precisely why we are in the minority; the sheer numbers of people in the urban areas sets that bias up.
I actually read an article a couple of weeks ago, and dang it, at the moment, I can't remember what source I read it in...but it was a popular news source. Anyhow, they presented that many of the divides in our country are becoming more and more attributable to the regions of rural vs. urban geographic...well DUH!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. How can people be so misinformed as to not realize that things that mean a lot to someone that lives in a rural area are different than someone that lives in a high-rise and doesn't even have the need to own a car?? Do those folks, generally speaking, get the whole right to own a gun and hunt idea - most likely not. Do they worry and care deeply about the cost or safety of public transportation? Well yea...it's not rocket science and sometimes it amazes me how the (political) analysts don't get this concept. Gun ownership just mirrors the geographic picture for the most part (except the DC area...I believe from info I've seen that ownership in the DC area is an anomaly for a high density urban area.) And unfortunately, I think the divide is only going to get wider on many other issues as well.
OK, I'll shut up now.
5.) Swamp Fox - 06/23/2017
Hey, WB: There is some stuff in the poll on rural vs. suburban vs. urban. Also some regional distinctions. If I have time I'll see if I can point you directly at the items I'm thinking of. However, some of them will probably pop out at you if you skim the sub-heads and the graph descriptions to save yourself time.
Also, the methodology used to weight the survey is on the last page if you want to look at it. You can see what they did to weight the survey properly so that it was as representative as they could get, in line with what they consider representative to be. (I'm not being snarky there.) If I recall, geographical/regional and what I'll call zip code considerations were among the sampling criteria.
One note I remember: only 16% of Northeasterners own guns (male sample, IIRC) vs 30% -plus of Southerners (middle-high 30s) Midwesterners and Westerners (low-to mid-30s each). Nationally, urban gun ownership was lowest compared to rural (highest) and suburban.
Also, the methodology used to weight the survey is on the last page if you want to look at it. You can see what they did to weight the survey properly so that it was as representative as they could get, in line with what they consider representative to be. (I'm not being snarky there.) If I recall, geographical/regional and what I'll call zip code considerations were among the sampling criteria.
One note I remember: only 16% of Northeasterners own guns (male sample, IIRC) vs 30% -plus of Southerners (middle-high 30s) Midwesterners and Westerners (low-to mid-30s each). Nationally, urban gun ownership was lowest compared to rural (highest) and suburban.
6.) Swamp Fox - 06/23/2017
[QUOTE=Wild Bob;49610]
... But compare that to a major urban area where the population density is high...no way. This is precisely why we are in the minority; the sheer numbers of people in the urban areas sets that bias up.
I actually read an article a couple of weeks ago, and dang it, at the moment, I can't remember what source I read it in...but it was a popular news source. Anyhow, they presented that many of the divides in our country are becoming more and more attributable to the regions of rural vs. urban geographic...well DUH!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. How can people be so misinformed as to not realize that things that mean a lot to someone that lives in a rural area are different than someone that lives in a high-rise and doesn't even have the need to own a car?? Do those folks, generally speaking, get the whole right to own a gun and hunt idea - most likely not. Do they worry and care deeply about the cost or safety of public transportation? Well yea...it's not rocket science and sometimes it amazes me how the (political) analysts don't get this concept. Gun ownership just mirrors the geographic picture for the most part (except the DC area...I believe from info I've seen that ownership in the DC area is an anomaly for a high density urban area.) And unfortunately, I think the divide is only going to get wider on many other issues as well.
...[/QUOTE]
Also keep your eye on the complaint--which I see more frequently in the last year or so--that rural areas suck up tax dollars to a greater extent that they are paying in. This is usually posited by someone in the DC-to-Boston corridor or in the Left Coast metro areas. Not only do they not have the same general culture as the rest of the country, they resent that they can't dictate with their politics as they feel they are entitled, just because they live where all the money is, and pay the majority of the taxes, geographically.
Of course, a lot of the people complaining like this are unemployed graduates of gender studies programs and semi-employed freelancers not paying much in taxes personally, but who are reluctant to consider moving to a lower-taxed part of the country if it means having to live near Bubba and giving up delivery falafel-and-hummus.
If anyone is interested in reading the arguments from these whiny artisanal cheese-eaters, I can dig some stuff up.
Just let me know...LOL
... But compare that to a major urban area where the population density is high...no way. This is precisely why we are in the minority; the sheer numbers of people in the urban areas sets that bias up.
I actually read an article a couple of weeks ago, and dang it, at the moment, I can't remember what source I read it in...but it was a popular news source. Anyhow, they presented that many of the divides in our country are becoming more and more attributable to the regions of rural vs. urban geographic...well DUH!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. How can people be so misinformed as to not realize that things that mean a lot to someone that lives in a rural area are different than someone that lives in a high-rise and doesn't even have the need to own a car?? Do those folks, generally speaking, get the whole right to own a gun and hunt idea - most likely not. Do they worry and care deeply about the cost or safety of public transportation? Well yea...it's not rocket science and sometimes it amazes me how the (political) analysts don't get this concept. Gun ownership just mirrors the geographic picture for the most part (except the DC area...I believe from info I've seen that ownership in the DC area is an anomaly for a high density urban area.) And unfortunately, I think the divide is only going to get wider on many other issues as well.
...[/QUOTE]
Also keep your eye on the complaint--which I see more frequently in the last year or so--that rural areas suck up tax dollars to a greater extent that they are paying in. This is usually posited by someone in the DC-to-Boston corridor or in the Left Coast metro areas. Not only do they not have the same general culture as the rest of the country, they resent that they can't dictate with their politics as they feel they are entitled, just because they live where all the money is, and pay the majority of the taxes, geographically.
Of course, a lot of the people complaining like this are unemployed graduates of gender studies programs and semi-employed freelancers not paying much in taxes personally, but who are reluctant to consider moving to a lower-taxed part of the country if it means having to live near Bubba and giving up delivery falafel-and-hummus.
If anyone is interested in reading the arguments from these whiny artisanal cheese-eaters, I can dig some stuff up.
Just let me know...LOL
7.) DParker - 06/23/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;49614]...and giving up delivery falafel-and-hummus.[/QUOTE]
Wait...I can get falafel delivery?
Wait...I can get falafel delivery?
8.) Swamp Fox - 06/23/2017
I'll bet you can...In the Metroplex... :wink ...LOL
9.) DParker - 06/23/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;49623]I'll bet you can...In the Metroplex... :wink ...LOL[/QUOTE]
Now that you mention it....the young guy in the office next to mine is from Jordan, as is his wife. I've been acting as sort of his professional mentor for quite a while, and every time I help him out with something in any significant way (including non-work-related stuff) he goes home and tells his wife about it. She then makes a dessert or some other dish and then he brings some in for me as a show of gratitude. Luckily she's quite the good little cook, and makes a particularly delicious [I]Kanafah[/I] (I'll let you Google that one). I'll bet I could put a bug in his ear about my fondness for Falafel and end up getting a regular supply delivered to my desk free of charge. But that would be wrong of me....I think...maybe.
Now that you mention it....the young guy in the office next to mine is from Jordan, as is his wife. I've been acting as sort of his professional mentor for quite a while, and every time I help him out with something in any significant way (including non-work-related stuff) he goes home and tells his wife about it. She then makes a dessert or some other dish and then he brings some in for me as a show of gratitude. Luckily she's quite the good little cook, and makes a particularly delicious [I]Kanafah[/I] (I'll let you Google that one). I'll bet I could put a bug in his ear about my fondness for Falafel and end up getting a regular supply delivered to my desk free of charge. But that would be wrong of me....I think...maybe.
10.) Swamp Fox - 06/23/2017
LOL...Go for it...Your a̶d̶v̶i̶c̶e̶ time ain't free, and this is America...LOL
11.) Swamp Fox - 06/24/2017
[COLOR="#FF0000"]vs. [/COLOR]
12.) DParker - 06/24/2017
It's dismaying that so many favor unconstitutional prior restraint on an enumerated fundamental right with no due process (the support for banning firearm purchases for people on watch/no-fly lists).
13.) Swamp Fox - 06/24/2017
I agree. Part of why I put that/those particular chart(s) up there. You (I) could say the same thing or at least similar things about several other items there, such as universal background checks for private sales of personal property and creating a federal data base.
I would love to see the actual questions asked, because we all know that how you word a question means so much in these cases.
For instance, who isn't for keeping guns out of the hands of "the mentally ill"? Now define "mentally ill."
As far as the no-fly and watch lists go, I just don't think very many people understand the due process angle, the bureaucracy, the incompetence, etc. Same goes for anything under the surface, really.
If only there were a way that people could get and absorb facts and ideas...LOL
I would love to see the actual questions asked, because we all know that how you word a question means so much in these cases.
For instance, who isn't for keeping guns out of the hands of "the mentally ill"? Now define "mentally ill."
As far as the no-fly and watch lists go, I just don't think very many people understand the due process angle, the bureaucracy, the incompetence, etc. Same goes for anything under the surface, really.
If only there were a way that people could get and absorb facts and ideas...LOL
14.) Swamp Fox - 06/24/2017
[COLOR="#FF0000"]Plus[/COLOR]
15.) Swamp Fox - 06/24/2017
Support for gun control measures by location:
16.) bluecat - 06/26/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;49626]LOL...Go for it...Your a̶d̶v̶i̶c̶e̶ time ain't free, and this is America...LOL[/QUOTE]
:clap:
:clap:
17.) bluecat - 06/26/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;49606]I can't get that page to load...so I'll just leave this here:
Edit: There's an errant period immediately before the ending slash ("/") in your link. Remove that and it works.[/QUOTE]
:laugh:
Edit: There's an errant period immediately before the ending slash ("/") in your link. Remove that and it works.[/QUOTE]
:laugh:
18.) Swamp Fox - 08/01/2017
Ran across this article yesterday, which not only calls into question the very high support for universal background checks that the Pew poll cites and media and anti-gunners have latched onto (even before the Pew poll came out) but also is a good reference marker for a number of other discredited or dubious gun control talking points.
[QUOTE]Virginians have seen little in the way of results for the expenditure of these substantial public resources.
Since the law was passed, with 77 gun shows across the state, only 54 voluntary background checks in total were requested, most of which occurred within the first six months the law was in effect. Only a single person was denied (apparently due to an outstanding felony arrest warrant) and even this came to nothing: the news reports indicate there were no criminal charges resulting from the denied purchase. In contrast, federally licensed dealers at these shows performed close to 40,000 background checks.
One may suppose that cost was a prohibiting factor, but the fee for the private background check was a modest two dollars. A more plausible explanation for the shortfall between the touted support for enhanced background checks and what actually happened is that the support just isn’t there.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) explored this possibility in its own poll, which asked a more nuanced question. This first explained that most gun show sales involve licensed dealers who are already required to conduct background checks under federal law, and then asked whether the person agreed or disagreed that additional laws, including enhanced background checks, were necessary for gun show sales.
When the issue was presented in context, the support for increased background checks was less than half of what is claimed by various gun control groups, and nowhere near an overwhelming majority of those polled. The majority (53 percent) of those taking part in the NSSF survey agreed that more restrictions were not necessary. These results are further bolstered by results at the ballot box, where restrictive background check laws have seen nowhere near the 90 percent support claimed by gun control supporters. Despite spending many millions of dollars on background check campaigns in Maine and Nevada last year, Bloomberg’s Everytown not only failed to approach their claimed 90 percent support, their measure was defeated in Maine and succeeded on the narrowest of margins in Nevada only to later be found unenforceable by the FBI and Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt.
[url]https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170728/poll-shocker-overwhelming-support-for-more-background-checks-is-actually-rather-underwhelming[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Virginians have seen little in the way of results for the expenditure of these substantial public resources.
Since the law was passed, with 77 gun shows across the state, only 54 voluntary background checks in total were requested, most of which occurred within the first six months the law was in effect. Only a single person was denied (apparently due to an outstanding felony arrest warrant) and even this came to nothing: the news reports indicate there were no criminal charges resulting from the denied purchase. In contrast, federally licensed dealers at these shows performed close to 40,000 background checks.
One may suppose that cost was a prohibiting factor, but the fee for the private background check was a modest two dollars. A more plausible explanation for the shortfall between the touted support for enhanced background checks and what actually happened is that the support just isn’t there.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) explored this possibility in its own poll, which asked a more nuanced question. This first explained that most gun show sales involve licensed dealers who are already required to conduct background checks under federal law, and then asked whether the person agreed or disagreed that additional laws, including enhanced background checks, were necessary for gun show sales.
When the issue was presented in context, the support for increased background checks was less than half of what is claimed by various gun control groups, and nowhere near an overwhelming majority of those polled. The majority (53 percent) of those taking part in the NSSF survey agreed that more restrictions were not necessary. These results are further bolstered by results at the ballot box, where restrictive background check laws have seen nowhere near the 90 percent support claimed by gun control supporters. Despite spending many millions of dollars on background check campaigns in Maine and Nevada last year, Bloomberg’s Everytown not only failed to approach their claimed 90 percent support, their measure was defeated in Maine and succeeded on the narrowest of margins in Nevada only to later be found unenforceable by the FBI and Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt.
[url]https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170728/poll-shocker-overwhelming-support-for-more-background-checks-is-actually-rather-underwhelming[/url][/QUOTE]
19.) DParker - 08/01/2017
This is why those touting the results of polls like the Pew one never mention now the questions(s) are worded. Because doing so would make it immediately obvious that those polls are specifically designed to produce a desired response.
20.) Swamp Fox - 08/01/2017
Correctomundo...And even if a question is not intentionally designed nefariously, lack of context and lack of knowledge can still be significant roadblocks to getting at how people really feel or--better yet--think.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;49647]...
[B]I would love to see the actual questions asked, because we all know that how you word a question means so much in these cases.
For instance, who isn't for keeping guns out of the hands of "the mentally ill"? Now define "mentally ill."[/B]
As far as the no-fly and watch lists go, I just don't think very many people understand the due process angle, the bureaucracy, the incompetence, etc. Same goes for anything under the surface, really.
If only there were a way that people could get and absorb facts and ideas...LOL[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;49647]...
[B]I would love to see the actual questions asked, because we all know that how you word a question means so much in these cases.
For instance, who isn't for keeping guns out of the hands of "the mentally ill"? Now define "mentally ill."[/B]
As far as the no-fly and watch lists go, I just don't think very many people understand the due process angle, the bureaucracy, the incompetence, etc. Same goes for anything under the surface, really.
If only there were a way that people could get and absorb facts and ideas...LOL[/QUOTE]