I joined the NRA today

[RNR]

My dad was a member when I was growing up and for whatever reason I never joined. I will be a member from now on~

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership...

http://jpfo.org/

Fyi, You don't have to be Jewish to join.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Oath Keepers..

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

You do have to believe in taking an Oath to defend the Constitution and the Republic to join this one....

[listopencil]

One thing that stands out to me in that chart (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...7&postcount=89) is the number of firearms vs. the percentage of individuals owning them. The two data points are taken five years apart (2005/2010) but they would seem to imply something that is counterintuitive if looking at raw gun ownership statistics. It's easy enough to say, "Well, we have about 300 million people in the country and about 300 million firearms. Gun proliferation has reached a saturation point." If the data in that chart is true, firearms are concentrated into 30% of our population. So slightly less that 1/3 of our citizens are actually armed.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Oath Keepers..

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

You do have to believe in taking an Oath to defend the Constitution.

I did that a looooooong time ago.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I did that a looooooong time ago.

Heh, ya.

btw did you expect the number of gun owners to be higher? I also wonder how many own unregistered firearms that are not on that list.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Heh, ya.

btw did you expect the number of gun owners to be higher? I also wonder how many own unregistered firearms that are not on that list.

I didn't really have any expectations about the actual number. I cringed every time someone used the total number of guns as an example of proliferation, because I know that there are owners of multiple weapons. I'd like to be able to dig deeper and see what the basis is for the 300 million figure. I don't know if that's based on sales data vs. manufacturing statistics, or specifically how they are getting that number. I don't know if registration plays a part in that statistic.

[listopencil]

Here's something:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]



The footnotes in reference:

[6] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005. Pages 56-57:

Firearm production statistics are derived from reports of firearms manufacture, import, and export made the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Estimates of firearm availability are derived by adding the net growth in the number of firearms (manufactures plus imports minus exports) to a base measure of firearms stock.⁴


[7] Web page: "Firearms Fact Card, 2010." National Rifle Association, January 20, 2010. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

"Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually."

NOTE: Although the NRA does not state that this data is derived from production-based estimates, it is consistent with the 1999 production-based estimates in the citation above.
⁴ Production-based estimates have limitations in that they account for neither additions to the stock from illegal or other uncounted means nor losses from seized, lost, or nonworking firearms. These data also exclude firearms manufactured or exported for the military but include firearms purchased by domestic law enforcement agencies.

[listopencil]

What the ****? Am I reading this correctly:

"Production-based estimates have limitations in that they account for neither additions to the stock from illegal or other uncounted means nor losses from seized, lost, or nonworking firearms. These data also exclude firearms manufactured or exported for the military but include firearms purchased by domestic law enforcement agencies."

Are they including police pistols in the total number of US handguns? I had always assumed that military, federal and law enforcement wasn't included in that 100 million.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What the ****? Am I reading this correctly:

"Production-based estimates have limitations in that they account for neither additions to the stock from illegal or other uncounted means nor losses from seized, lost, or nonworking firearms. These data also exclude firearms manufactured or exported for the military but include firearms purchased by domestic law enforcement agencies."

Are they including police pistols in the total number of US handguns? I had always assumed that military, federal and law enforcement wasn't included in that 100 million.

Looks like it to me.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

One thing that stands out to me in that chart (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...7&postcount=89) is the number of firearms vs. the percentage of individuals owning them. The two data points are taken five years apart (2005/2010) but they would seem to imply something that is counterintuitive if looking at raw gun ownership statistics. It's easy enough to say, "Well, we have about 300 million people in the country and about 300 million firearms. Gun proliferation has reached a saturation point." If the data in that chart is true, firearms are concentrated into 30% of our population. So slightly less that 1/3 of our citizens are actually armed.

The thing to remember is gun ownership was on the decline until about ’09. After that there’s been a rapid upswing in new gun ownership climbing to >40% of the population as of ’11, last year that complete date is available. By “new gun ownership” I mean people that didn’t own a gun before but went out and bought one and where the growth in new ownership is the greatest is among women.
We went through this discussion right after the Sandyhook tragedy and IIRC you can find this information at Gallup's site.

[Stewie]

I don't know if it's all Cabela's, but the one at the Legends in KCK is giving a $25 gift card if you sign up for the yearly NRA membership which is $35.

Edit: This deal is only good this Saturday and Sunday

[bandwagonjumper]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I have no idea what this babbling nonsense was posted for. The "cute" I am guessing was an attempt at sounding as if you are just so above things like this. The NRA is defending gun rights and so they have my support~

What I've tried to say, badly apparently, is that your support is not necessary for the NRA to achieve its goals. What I'm saying that you waste your money in joining the NRA. Furthermore the gathering of your resources with your fellow believers for a better world sounds pretty socialistic to me.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

The thing to remember is gun ownership was on the decline until about ’09. After that there’s been a rapid upswing in new gun ownership climbing to >40% of the population as of ’11, last year that complete date is available. By “new gun ownership” I mean people that didn’t own a gun before but went out and bought one and where the growth in new ownership is the greatest is among women.
We went through this discussion right after the Sandyhook tragedy and IIRC you can find this information at Gallup's site.

Cool, thank you. That might have happened in a thread I had on ignore. I did not want to discuss this immediately following the tragedy. I had to find a way to make peace with the incident first.

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by bandwagonjumper

What I've tried to say, badly apparently, is that your support is not necessary for the NRA to achieve its goals. What I'm saying that you waste your money in joining the NRA. Furthermore the gathering of your resources with your fellow believers for a better world sounds pretty socialistic to me.

There are lobbyists all over Washington DC trying to get their finger in the pie. I prefer to have as many lobbyists on my side trying to counter the Bloombergs and Brady's of America thank you. Without the NRA and similar groups we would be stuck with single shot 22's if we were lucky. So yes the more support the NRA gets the better. I also encourage folks to join their regional organizations.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

There are lobbyists all over Washington DC trying to get their finger in the pie. I prefer to have as many lobbyists on my side trying to counter the Bloombergs and Brady's of America thank you. Without the NRA and similar groups we would be stuck with single shot 22's if we were lucky. So yes the more support the NRA gets the better. I also encourage folks to join their regional organizations.

This x 2