Article - New Term: 'Super Owner'

If you read the article you only need 8 to be a super owner 17 is the average # owned by super owners.

 

8 is a pretty low threshold. Leave it to the left to try to come up with a way to catagorize us. "super owner".


That term isn't very original thought. My buddy who is rather left leaning prefers to use the term Ammosexual. I find it rather endearing.

 

I dislike that derogatory term intensely for obvious reasons. This is nothing more than the quasi-intellectuals doing the usual trying to control the language. Don't use their terms folks. Laugh at them.

 

"That top 14% of gun owners – a group of 7.7m people, or 3% of American adults – own between about eight and 140 guns each. The average is 17." -- Lois Beckett, "Meet America's gun super-owners – with an average of 17 firearms each", The Guardian, 20 Sep 2016.
17 guns is mentioned five times in that article.
"average of 17", "easy to get to 17" (twice), "The average is 17", "end up with 17 guns"
"Eight" is mentioned twice: "between about eight" and more and "people who own more than eight guns".
The number 17 sticks with most readers.

So a sad eight is all it takes to be a super owner? Where's that get fun?

 

Interesting; I'd never heard the term before, and a co-worker mentioned the "study" during a corporate lunch yesterday. I calmly asked her to consider how that kind of distribution would compare to the distribution of wealth in the country, and the amount of firearms in the hands of most other people, something clicked with her, and the said something to the effect of "oh, that makes sense, that doesn't seem like that big of a deal then."

 

Hmmm. That means I'm just a regular owner.........

Something to strive for.

 

Only 8 huh? Well then in their eyes I am a "super owner". Sweet

 

I'm one more than three times over.

I hope it chills the anti-gun cultists to their rotten hearts.

 

Eight? Only eight?

Hmm... I've got more Ruger Mk II pistols than that.

 

I think I will wait til they come up with more descriptive terms like Ultra Super Owner or Mega Super Owner; I'd even settle for New and Improved Super Owner.

 

"I am the SUPREME super owner!"

 

Deanimator

Yeah, Supreme Super Owner will work too! Just don't want to labelled plain old Super Owner like everyone else out there. Got to have some sort of distinction!

 

Pretty sure the proper Japanese reference for a "super anything" person involves glowing, yellow hair, and lots of screaming/lightning

"The number of his guns; it's over NINE THOUSAND!!!"


TCB

 

AlexanderA has it exactly right. No sane gun owner tells some stranger on the phone how many guns and what types on the phone. If someone asks me, I might admit to having a handgun (or shotgun) to defend the home but nothing else. To offer more information is to invite a robbery. When I lived in upstate New York, nearly every one of my neighbors has at least one handgun. NO ONE admitted to having them and none were registered. Getting a pistol permit was a PITA and you would have to account for where the gun came from. Most were WWII bring-backs and they had at most 10-20 rounds of ammo. I saw this to also be true when living on Manhattan in NYC. LOTS of handguns hidden away but none registered. In NYC I saw mostly "Saturday Night Specials" .32 S&W, H&R and Iver Johnson break-opens etc. No one had a gun permit and they would never tell a stranger that they had any gun. ANY survey that depends on gun owners admitting how many guns they own is BOGUS. Any real statistical scientist knows this. So what's the point?

 

I must admit to not reading the 6 prior pages of replies so maybe someone covered it already.

The purpose of this story is to try and marginalize gun ownership, a step towards further erosion of gun rights.

They are trying to imply that while a lot of guns are in circulation, not many people are gun owners, and so their desires and rights are not as important. They are a tiny minority and you shouldn't be afraid of taking away those rights, and they don't represent most Americans.


However even going with what they say they conveniently say half of guns, while the other half are more evenly spread out. And going with what they say is dubious at best.

They will exaggerate, but it is based on some partial truth.
This is nothing new, I know plenty of people with only a gun, or a couple guns, and some with lots of guns. I seriously doubt many of them would share a realistic number with a poll by a random stranger on the phone. This means the percentage that admit to owning a gun, never mind lots of guns is going to be lower than reality.
Some people make a couple guns do everything, and other people have a gun for different activities or are just collectors.
While plenty have just a single home defense gun, hunting, or pest control, especially younger gun owners.
But many people are distrusting of strangers or the government asking about what they possess especially things people try to take away on occasion, and especially in places where having guns is made to be something negative by the media or culture.

Legal guns are less common in dense urban areas where hunting and pest control is less common, police are everywhere and government is more authoritarian in nature, and legislation frequently makes ownership more challenging. New Jersey the densest population state in the nation traditionally makes ownership hard, and our biggest city New York prevents most honest citizens from going through the hoops for ownership.
Chicago long tried to keeps its citizens disarmed just like DC, and some entire states put so many hurdles many citizens don't go through the trouble.
In these types of places guns are seen with police and criminals.
So the parts of the nation with the highest population density often have the lowest legal private gun ownership rates.

However there is a whole other side of America where guns are common, especially among men. In many of these places people only have a carry piece or a couple guns quite often.
Gun ownership is widespread, and a large percentage of Americans are impacted by what people in DC or or New York think is best for them.
We can't tolerate this manipulation by anti-gun media with an agenda.

 

The term is intended to demonize us as individuals and marginalize us as a group.

Very similar in strategy as calling every rifle with a pistol grip an Assault Weapon even though they're used in a tiny fraction of crimes.

They will claim that it's common sense that no one needs 17 guns and that is common sense to prevent and eliminate such arsenals for the sake of the children.


Why do we have 6 pages that essentially affirm the moniker created by the antis for the purpose of gaining support to attack us?


The 3% aren't voting for that political party .

That political party has nothing to lose attacking that 3%

The 3% is a much easier group to kill off than the 19% that supposedly owns the other half of the guns and surely easier than the 2 groups combined that make up the claimed 22% of the adults own all of the guns.

It's called Divide and Concur.


They antis would love to eliminate 50% of the guns while not hurting their voter base.


Can we NOT help them by NOT embracing their monikers?

It's been said before (something like),,, he who controls the language also controls the debate.

 

The day after the report came out there was an interview of the author on NPR. I started listening with super sensitive ears since I definitely qualify as a "Super". To my surprise, it was a reasonable interview. Even when asked whether there was any statistical connection between super owners and increased crime, for example, the author said very clearly, "No." In fact she stated that there was probably just the opposite inference. She also said that probably the best efforts to help reduce accidental shootings would be to concentrate on convincing the owners who only have one or two firearms that proper storage is needed.

Super owners more consistently secured their firearms.

 

She wrote the NYT article on the untruthfulness, untruth, fallaciousness, falseness, falsehood, fictitiousness, inaccuracy of an AWB.

 

I think the 3 % figure is the most important figure in the article.

 

I didn't read all the replies so maybe this was mentioned. But their figures don't add up. Using an estimated 324 million people in the US and 265 million guns the 3% would own 13.7 firearms each. Both the population and firearm figures are low. I've seen estimates where the people to gun ratio is 1:1. And I've seen estimates that have the population over 330 million. Numbers don't lie so I'm wondering where the figure of 17 came from. Even the last census figures have it at 13.8 firearms if you're in the 3%. Math is not my strong suit but this is basic math. If they can't get this figure right than why should I believe anything else.

 

Other than sex, I can't think of anything people are more likely to lie about than gun ownership, when pollsters call. It's a hot potato and you don't really know who you are talking to. Is it the Brady Campaign? Is it the feds? Or is it really Pew or Gallup?

My rival view is that there is no decrease in gun ownership, but an increase in lying about it to strangers.

 

Well, there's the length of your barrel. People lie about that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's quite a trick to wear a gun out or damage it past repair.

How many guns sold in the USA since the Civil War are still functional?

Most of them, I expect.

People buy new guns, but the old ones don't go away.