More Gun Owners Than Non Gun Owners

[Kramer1113]

Reading another thread Vernsimpson said "There are more gun owners than non gun owners". I guess it took that statement to shake my head.
I am always a little surprised when someone says they don't own a gun. In the county I live in it is very surprising. We are very "Country" out here and so guns are just a natural extension of our tool shed.
This country continues to place the majority in the rear.

 

[Bikenut]

Reading another thread Vernsimpson said "There are more gun owners than non gun owners". I guess it took that statement to shake my head.
I am always a little surprised when someone says they don't own a gun. In the county I live in it is very surprising. We are very "Country" out here and so guns are just a natural extension of our tool shed.
This country continues to place the majority in the rear.

Just out of curiosity what thread are you referring to?

The statement that "There are more gun owners than non gun owners" (doesn't matter who said it really) got me curious and just a quick use of my admittedly very weak google fu turned up...

A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear | Pew Research Center

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
June 4, 2013
A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear

There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child. But in point of fact, only a minority of Americans own guns.
-snip-
By Drew DeSilverLeave a comment
37%

More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun.
-snip-
bold added by me for emphasis....

 

[wolf_fire]

More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun.

Is it possible that many more that own guns won't admit to it in a public survey?


I have no idea if gun owners are the majority or the minority. But if you assume that every gun owner owns three firearms and we take the high end of 310 million guns out there. Then that means only about 100 million people own guns. That would be a minority. But then you have to factor in the fact that a lot of these people are children in homes that do have guns.

Is it a minority of people or a minority of households?

*shrugs*

I usually have more questions than answers.

 

[cch35]

I can very proudly say I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA as well.I love my guns!

 

[GB-Boater]

If most of the gun owners have two guns, then we are down to only half of Americans own guns.

If many of the gun owners own multiple, more than 10 in some cases, then very easily there are more non-gun people than gun owners.

I know many that have Dad's guns, Grandpa's guns, and their own.

 

[Bikenut]

If most of the gun owners have two guns, then we are down to only half of Americans own guns.

If many of the gun owners own multiple, more than 10 in some cases, then very easily there are more non-gun people than gun owners.

I know many that have Dad's guns, Grandpa's guns, and their own.

There was a time when I was collecting firearms and my (by "collector" standards) meager collection, if divided by 3, would have represented more than 20 "gun owners". Had I been financially able to continue collecting I have no idea how many "gun owners who have 3 guns" my collection would have represented today.

But the question that I think is important isn't if gun owners are a majority or a minority of the population. This is the question that I think is of paramount importance:

"How many gun owners are willing to support the right to keep and bear arms by being politically active?"

 

[nogods]

But the question that I think is important isn't if gun owners are a majority or a minority of the population. This is the question that I think is of paramount importance:

"How many gun owners are willing to support the right to keep and bear arms by being politically active?"

the answer to that question by any individual gun owner is going to depend on what you mean by "the right to keep and bear arms...."

If you mean a right to own any gun and carry anywhere under any circumstances, then no, I'm a gun owner who won't be willing to support such a right.

There are others who would say that they would not be willing to support a right to bear arms unless you mean a right to own any gun and carry anywhere under any circumstances.

The problem is that there is no universal definition of the concept of "the right to keep and bear arms." We first have to define what is meant by that phrase in the concrete world before we can decide if we would support it.

 

[Axeanda45]

The problem is that there is no universal definition of the concept of "the right to keep and bear arms." We first have to define what is meant by that phrase in the concrete world before we can decide if we would support it.

I beg to differ (in other words you are a nut and have no clue)

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


That right there is 100% self explanatory to anyone with a clue....... It is written in VERY PLAIN English...... not hard to understand AT ALL if you do not have ulterior motives about trying to infringe on that which SHALL NOT BE.....

 

[mappow]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Sealed it for me many, many years ago. NO concrete needed.

 

[golocx4]

"How many gun owners are willing to support the right to keep and bear arms by being politically active?"

How about How many gun owners are willing to support the right to keep and bear arms by simply voting?
How many citizens are willing to support the constitution by just voting?
How many citizens are willing just to go along to get along.

Sad really.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
But the question that I think is important isn't if gun owners are a majority or a minority of the population. This is the question that I think is of paramount importance:

"How many gun owners are willing to support the right to keep and bear arms by being politically active?"

the answer to that question by any individual gun owner is going to depend on what you mean by "the right to keep and bear arms...."

If you mean a right to own any gun and carry anywhere under any circumstances, then no, I'm a gun owner who won't be willing to support such a right.

There are others who would say that they would not be willing to support a right to bear arms unless you mean a right to own any gun and carry anywhere under any circumstances.

The problem is that there is no universal definition of the concept of "the right to keep and bear arms." We first have to define what is meant by that phrase in the concrete world before we can decide if we would support it.

Actually the problem is too many gun owners believe they personally have the one and only true definition and will only support what strengthens their personal definition.

There are trap/skeet shooters who don't care about those evil black so called "assault rifles" and think no one else should either yet will scream indignantly if their precious shotguns are threatened.

There are hunters who don't care about pistols and think no one else should either yet will scream indignantly if their precious rifles are threatened.

There are concealed carriers who don't care about open carry and think no one else should either yet will scream indignantly if their precious carry permit is threatened.

But the common theme is that there are "gun owners" who only care about the part of "keep and bear arms" that they themselves personally like and that they themselves personally think is "acceptable"... and believe that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to their personal definition of what is "reasonable" (in their own minds), "appropriate" (according to their own opinion), and therefore "acceptable" (and if it is not "acceptable" then it is "unacceptable") .... and think everyone else should have the same belief.

 

[golocx4]

I beg to differ (in other words you are a nut and have no clue)

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


That right there is 100% self explanatory to anyone with a clue....... It is written in VERY PLAIN English...... not hard to understand AT ALL if you do not have ulterior motives about trying to infringe on that which SHALL NOT BE.....

WHAT!!! You mean it doesn't mean that I have the inalienable right to wear sleeveless shirts?

If I didn't know the context of the Second Amendment where the authors were constructing it to lay down the principles for a new government that they were forming after just beating the worlds most powerful Army in a rebellion. A rebellion that broke their ties with the Empire of a Sovereign King, who may at anytime change his mind an start another war.
A new Government that removed the sovereignty from a King and made (for the first time in history) the individuals of the country sovereignty. (Hence the words free state")
Sovereignty of a King meant that he or his government owned everything and you were subject to his will as to how you can use his property.
So These fellows had to worry about other empires attacking realize the need for a standing army and they knew all to well the dangers of a standing army.
They also knew and were required by law before the war to have a militia in each town consisting of every able bodied man.
If you didn't own your own arms they would supply you with one from the town armory. Which is why British General Thomas Gage ordered Major John Pitcairn to Concord to confiscate or "Disarm a group of colonists and Seize all powder, shot and arms" (from the town's armory) which sparked the flame that started the Revolutionary War.
Notice in the Generals orders the "arms" he was referring to had nothing to do with sleeveless shirts.
But if you were not familiar with the history and context of the writing of the Bill of Rights I can certainly understand how one may be dumbfounded and confused with that one sentence amendment.
Tomorrow's generation may be taught in schools that it is all about sleeves. Who knows.

 

[nogods]

I beg to differ (in other words you are a nut and have no clue)

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


That right there is 100% self explanatory to anyone with a clue....... It is written in VERY PLAIN English...... not hard to understand AT ALL if you do not have ulterior motives about trying to infringe on that which SHALL NOT BE.....

Anyone who thinks a general phrase is self explanatory doesn't have command of the English language.

Does the right to keep and bear arms include anyone, any gun, any time, and any place?

Same as the right to free speech. It doesn't include anything anyone wants to say anywhere.

There is a big difference between using a phrase and defining it.

Our founders were wise enough to realize that the phrases they were using had no universally accepted menaings, even among themselves.

They had the genius to set up a system of government in which the meaning of the phrases would get hashed out by the legislative and administrative process, and then if need be, be arbitrated by the judicial branch.

"Keep and bear arms" is about a general phrase as can be. What you might think it means is not necessarily the meaning We the People subscribe to it through the system for doing so devised by our founders.

 

[Warrior1256]

I can very proudly say I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA as well.I love my guns!

Same here, I'm with you. However, in this day and time if someone called me saying that they were taking a survey and asked if I owned firearms I probably would not answer.

 

[Axeanda45]

Anyone who thinks a general phrase is self explanatory doesn't have command of the English language. Bullcrap... It has been studied by one of the highest experts of the English language and it DOES say exactly what the plain language says... look it up BEFORE spouting of your ignorance any more...

Does the right to keep and bear arms include anyone, any gun, any time, and any place? Yes, other than when you are in jail... while you are there, your rights are suspended... any more questions?

Same as the right to free speech. It doesn't include anything anyone wants to say anywhere. Another bullcrap statement you pulled out of your azz.... Got any cites?

There is a big difference between using a phrase and defining it.

Our founders were wise enough to realize that the phrases they were using had no universally accepted menaings, even among themselves. Really? nothing I ever saw shows that... PROVE IT....

They had the genius to set up a system of government in which the meaning of the phrases would get hashed out by the legislative and administrative process, and then if need be, be arbitrated by the judicial branch. Now, this is REAL FUNNY..... and 100% bullcrap.... if YOU were correct, the supreme idiots, oops, sorry, the supreme court could rule that the 2nd amendment is null and void except for bb guns, and I bet you would believe them........

"Keep and bear arms" is about a general phrase as can be. What you might think it means is not necessarily the meaning We the People subscribe to it through the system for doing so devised by our founders.

You have no clue... and you keep proving it......

 

[Axeanda45]

Here is a study by one of the most prestigious language experts in the country...

Link Removed

nogods.. I suggest you go get schooled before spouting off more of your bullcrap.

 

[nogods]

You have no clue... and you keep proving it......

and you have no ability to respond to the issue.

So tell me professor, does the right to keep and bear arms include any gun, by anyone, anywhere at anytime?

Here's your problem - a yes or a no answer is a definition of the term whether you like it or not.

But I'm curious, do you adopt the "Yes it does" definition? If not, then pray tell, what is your definition of the phrase?

See the corner you are painted into? You can't apply the right to keep and bear arms without defining it, but you are not the final arbiter as to the definition. that role was reserved for the courts by our founders.

Yes, I know that is painful for you to swallow. you thought you could just throw the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" up on the wall and it would stick to whatever you wanted it to stick to.

Life is tough. Here, I'll make it even tougher for you - dose the right to keep and bear arms include the right to discharge a weapon any place at any time for any reason? No? Then...ummmm...we have to start defining what is and what is not covered by the right to keep and bear arms now don't we.

Thanks for playing but as you can see from how easy it is to deflate our delusional balloon, I'm looking for a little more challenging discourse from people who in fact, rather than in their own fantasy, do have a clue.

 

[telpinaro]

WHAT!!! You mean it doesn't mean that I have the inalienable right to wear sleeveless shirts?

I will wear sleeveless shirts whenever I please. It's my right! I don't care if it's winter and -10 out.

 

[nogods]

Does the right to keep and bear arms include anyone, any gun, any time, and any place? Yes, other than when you are in jail... while you are there, your rights are suspended... any more questions?

I just can't resist....

Exactly where in the Constitution does it specify that one loses their rights under the bill of rights if they are in jail?

be careful, it's a trick question.

 

[wolf_fire]

Here is a study by one of the most prestigious language experts in the country...

Link Removed

nogods.. I suggest you go get schooled before spouting off more of your bullcrap.

That's a good read. Thanks for sharing.