Article - New Term: 'Super Owner'
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
GBExpat
Member
Ayup, that is where I found myself a few years ago, so I took half a day and created an Excel inventory.
I must confess that I was surprised by the final total (somewhat more than 17
) ... and it did not even include all of the receivers awaiting Build.I have found that Excel file to be very handy and keep it updated (although not always in a timely fashion).
At the same time that I created my Firearms inventory, I thought about creating an inventory of the milsurp ammo that I accumulated before the prices started to surge about a decade ago. I decided that the task was more daunting than I was prepared to deal with at that moment.
OilyPablo
Member
I use that free ATF pdf form. I have paper records. I think I have 7 or 8 pages. Not sure without checking.
Cannibul
Member
ALWAYS keep a list of serial numbers and values.
I use Google Docs. That way I can access from any device.
I also take pictures of each item and add a link.
I use Google Docs. That way I can access from any device.
I also take pictures of each item and add a link.
longknife12
Member
Guess I've gotta count them......
Dan
Dan
jamesjames
Member
defining the new minority
you guys do know what this portends, right? If they can claim that serious gun owners are only 3% of all gun owners, its a lot easier to craft and pass anti gun legislation because we are not a "significant" proportion of the population (or the electorate).
Of course with 4 million members of NRA is more like 10% of 45 million gun owners instead of 3%. But we can still be judged as a less powerful group than we have appeared to policy makers in the past.
So unless we can take the positive inferences from this study and trumpet them, the oppression will begin shortly.
Positive take-aways from the study:
1. Super Owners seem to be more knowledgeable and therefore safer, more disciplined, and more responsible gun owners than the general public.
2. Super Owners have no correlation to suicide rate or crime rate with firearms. The implication was that gun owners with a few guns seem more likely to have accidents, thefts of guns from their possession, or use a firearm in suicide.
3. Super Owners have no correlation to mass shootings or terrorist misuse of firearms.
The study interpreters tried to imply that all the increase in gun sales over the last 10 years was due to Super Owners. They found that the gun ownership rate declined a bit as a percentage of the total population during that time. But that does not seem to account for the large increase in new concealed carry permit applications during this time, which implies some first time gun owners joining the population. The crime rate also remained low during this period despite the addition of some 40 million new guns into the hands of the population. This lack of correlation to crime should prove that more regulation of firearms does nothing to reduce gun crime, and significantly more gun ownership does nothing to increase crime. People may be buying more guns for self defense (a indicated in the study) but this increase gun numbers has no correlation to an increase in violent crime and may be seen as part of the decrease in the crime rate.
There are some good pieces of information in this study and we would do well to interpret these as part of our positive narrative.
you guys do know what this portends, right? If they can claim that serious gun owners are only 3% of all gun owners, its a lot easier to craft and pass anti gun legislation because we are not a "significant" proportion of the population (or the electorate).
Of course with 4 million members of NRA is more like 10% of 45 million gun owners instead of 3%. But we can still be judged as a less powerful group than we have appeared to policy makers in the past.
So unless we can take the positive inferences from this study and trumpet them, the oppression will begin shortly.
Positive take-aways from the study:
1. Super Owners seem to be more knowledgeable and therefore safer, more disciplined, and more responsible gun owners than the general public.
2. Super Owners have no correlation to suicide rate or crime rate with firearms. The implication was that gun owners with a few guns seem more likely to have accidents, thefts of guns from their possession, or use a firearm in suicide.
3. Super Owners have no correlation to mass shootings or terrorist misuse of firearms.
The study interpreters tried to imply that all the increase in gun sales over the last 10 years was due to Super Owners. They found that the gun ownership rate declined a bit as a percentage of the total population during that time. But that does not seem to account for the large increase in new concealed carry permit applications during this time, which implies some first time gun owners joining the population. The crime rate also remained low during this period despite the addition of some 40 million new guns into the hands of the population. This lack of correlation to crime should prove that more regulation of firearms does nothing to reduce gun crime, and significantly more gun ownership does nothing to increase crime. People may be buying more guns for self defense (a indicated in the study) but this increase gun numbers has no correlation to an increase in violent crime and may be seen as part of the decrease in the crime rate.
There are some good pieces of information in this study and we would do well to interpret these as part of our positive narrative.
vaupet
Member
Luckily, we in Belgium must have a licence for every firearm and their is an extensive register, so when in doubt I can always call the government for a listing of my firearms, serial and all.
Captain33036
Member
Deanimator (?) nailed it.
Super owner will bring to mind "Super Predator." An extremist.
The first thing they want to do is invent a new (and nonsensical) term...which they can define (because it is meaningless, otherwise). The same thing they did with "assault weapon."
Then they brand you.
You can then be marginalized, and they can use short hand for all forms of derogatory and inflammatory comments regarding you.
Might sound paranoid...but...we have seen this time and time again. Do not be fooled, this is junk science that will be used as part of a greater agenda.
Look for the term "Super owner" to be defined by them and used against us, in the future. The exact same way they successfully got the country to start using the term assault weapon and then demonizing the AR-15.
Super owner will bring to mind "Super Predator." An extremist.
The first thing they want to do is invent a new (and nonsensical) term...which they can define (because it is meaningless, otherwise). The same thing they did with "assault weapon."
Then they brand you.
You can then be marginalized, and they can use short hand for all forms of derogatory and inflammatory comments regarding you.
Might sound paranoid...but...we have seen this time and time again. Do not be fooled, this is junk science that will be used as part of a greater agenda.
Look for the term "Super owner" to be defined by them and used against us, in the future. The exact same way they successfully got the country to start using the term assault weapon and then demonizing the AR-15.
Last edited:
Do you have a suggestion for a more Politically Correct term that won't offend you?
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
Man I only got ten I need to buy more guns!
How about "citizen"?
cc-hangfire
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 589
I'm glad to be a super something. I was in a boring meeting earlier this week, so I mentally rehearsed field stripping & assembly of my semiauto handguns. Lets just st say it took awhile - I am somewhat embarrassed by my riches.
Wild Bill Longley
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2016
- Messages
- 4
Nothing new here. People label others out of confusion and fear. Simplistic views are easy to agree to, but are often wrong. They can be used to control others that are confused and afraid. Happens on both sides.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Great idea. That sort of labeling will also solve the transgender bathroom problem, too.
Like it or not, the term super owner is not meant to be endearing.
Deanimator
Member
How about not playing that game at all? It's certainly a loser for gun owners.
Don't let lying sociopaths set the terms of debate.
Go on the attack.
Stay on the attack.
No false "compromises".
"NO, I REFUSE."
Deanimator
Member
It's all part of the same ongoing deceitful narrative.
Don't waste time playing word games with them.
Refuse their definitions outright and move on.
Attack THEIR vulnerabilities, especially their long history of racial and ethnic bias.
C.R.
Member
Media hype at its finest ! I do not think I would answer a telephone survey question about any of my personal property . It is none of anybodys buesness . Do they take wall hangers into account ? I own a few old relics that I cant,or wouldnt fire , do those apply to the final inventory?
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
I agree. Why even go there. Arguing with those folks is just lowering yourself to their level. Besides......I kinda like being "super".
Whether it is or not, I think it is hilarious to read a group of conservative people objecting to the way a few of them are being labeled.
The political correctness word police have arrived, and they live in the red states! Hopefully those liberals will consider your "cultural sensitivities" in the future.
Trunk Monkey
member
Even if the numbers are accurate 3% of Americans (30+ MILLION people) own 50% (150ish million) the 50% left over would still be enough to arm half the country
Deanimator
Member
Oh, you can "argue" with them, but you have to do it on YOUR terms.I agree. Why even go there. Arguing with those folks is just lowering yourself to their level. Besides......I kinda like being "super".
Challenge their "facts".
Challenger their "logic".
Challenge their "motivations".
Challenge their "integrity".
Make THEM defend THEMSELVES.
They use "Rules for Radicals". Turn it around on them. Make them live up (or down) to their own "values". Nothing makes them howl more.
We're objecting to a very biased media running a constant smear campaign on gun owners. Wise up genius.
SilentStalker
Member
I don't see this as a good thing at all. I view this as an attempt to say that most of the population doesn't own guns and therefore the 2A shouldn't be a protected right. if they start slinging that enough, people will believe it. However, if they are doing this to slant it towards a specific narrative then we can make a counter argument by stating how funny we, as gun owners, find it that we are bending over backwards and restructuring building codes, biology and thousands of years of western civilization to cater to 1% of the population that is transgender. If we are going to do all of that to protect their rights then we must apply it equally and protect that of the 2A supporters as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
