Hunters? Gun owners?

[armedandsafe]

Interesting

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-gun-owners-outnumbered-hunters-5-1-2011

(CNSNews.com) -- In 2011, gun owners in the United States outnumbered hunters by 5 to 1.

There were 13.7 million hunters in the United States over age 16 -- 12.7 million of whom used rifles, shotguns or handguns for hunting, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That means hunters constituted only 15.9 to 18.1 percent of the estimated 70-80 million gun owners in the U.S. in 2011 -- the latest year for which statistics are available.

Pops

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Which is why the antis attempts to play divide and conquer by appealing to hunters is so goofy. It shows how out of touch and ignorant they are about the culture they want to change.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Back when the Second Amendment was written, if anything, there were more hunters than gun owners.

The times clearly change, but freedom never should.

 

[Manco]

Which is why the antis attempts to play divide and conquer by appealing to hunters is so goofy. It shows how out of touch and ignorant they are about the culture they want to change.

These statistics don't mean anything. As long as the antis get public endorsements from those who have a "legitimate" use for guns, they think they can turn most of the population against other gun owners. They aren't even going to try to change us, just outnumber and gang up on us, passing laws that would make us criminals if we don't change our ways, if not our minds. Once we're all (including hunters) limited to single-shot bolt-action rifles, then they can start calling these guns "high-powered, deadly accurate sniper rifles" and take them away, too--you know, for the children.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes; but the whole point of playing factions against each other from a strategic standpoint is to split off the little groups to make your main target less powerful. Trying to attack the largest subgroup first with the support of the smaller subgroup rarely works... Say you are talking to a group of 10,000 people and you tell them that unless we immediately feed 1,810 people to a crocodile, it will be necessary to feed all of them to the crocodile... you can get some traction with that because everybody thinks they are in the 82.9%

If you tell people, we must immediately feed 8,290 of you to the crocodile or it will be necessary to feed all 10,000 of you, then they will fight you because they already know there is a high probability they are getting fed to the crocodile.

The antis don't understand either the basic ground or the strategy they are employing or they would be going after "super-powered long-range sniper rifles" first, instead of "assault weapons."

 

[mcdonl]

The antis don't understand either the basic ground or the strategy they are employing or they would be going after "super-powered long-range sniper rifles" first, instead of "assault weapons."

Lets not forget Fienstiens first list. On it was "free floated barrels" - As only "snipers" needed that level of accuracy. Next up for sniper tools... the rifle scope.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

To engage in this too deeply is to let them set parameters of the debate in a way which invests "hunting" far too heavily in the right of firearm ownership.

 

[AlexanderA]

Hunters are a small -- and diminishing -- subset of gun owners. Yet the antigunners play on the (outdated) public perception that hunting, and other "sporting" uses, are the only legitimate reasons for owning guns. The fact is, the vast majority of people who buy guns now do so for personal protection. As gun-rights advocates, we have to destroy this myth of "sporting use" being the reason to have guns.

 

[Wyndage]

Agreed, AlexanderA. I have a large circle of friends who not only own firearms, but stay proficient in their use. Not a single one of us is a hunter.

 

[Akita1]

I own guns for both hunting and for sport shooting/proficiency. While the latter is important for success at the former, the reverse relationship is NOT required....

 

[Manco]

Yes; but the whole point of playing factions against each other from a strategic standpoint is to split off the little groups to make your main target less powerful. Trying to attack the largest subgroup first with the support of the smaller subgroup rarely works...

That would be true if that were their primary strategy, but I think that they are simply trying to maximize their exploitation of Sandy Hook at this point, without which they'd still be biding their time--they had been waiting all this time for such a tragedy. They don't care so much about actually splitting us up, piece by piece--all they need is a few members of a subgroup to take their side and provide propaganda to the general public and make it look as though we're more divided than we are. Because a certain type of rifle that has already been broadly and successfully demonized was involved, that's what they're attacking. On the one hand, they may be overreaching by attacking such a common and popular type of rifle, but on the other hand they're working with what they've been given.

It may well be a better long-term strategy to do as you describe, but time is important and they seem to be in a hurry, both in general as well as to capitalize on Sandy Hook while it is still fresh in people's minds.

The antis don't understand either the basic ground or the strategy they are employing or they would be going after "super-powered long-range sniper rifles" first, instead of "assault weapons."

The only way they'd get any real traction on gun bans is with a major tragedy that gets people feeling instead of thinking. That just shows how strong our position is when people can think half-straight, and how vulnerable we can be when people aren't thinking at all--we haven't yet defeated this latest massive attack on our rights, and we may actually lose, as we have many times before. How could they not go for the jugular while their enemy's neck is exposed? At worst they'd waste much political capital, but then again they had been losing ground anyway before some lunatics decided to shoot a bunch of people.