Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The NRA is Not Too Popular These Days...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Gun ownership is definitely on the rise. The number of first-time owners has skyrocketed, and continues to climb after every mass shooting. Concealed carry permits continue to climb as well.
    And this poster is definitely clueless since he tries to make comments about what I am posting even though he says that I am on his ignore list in which case he cannot read most of the things that other posters do not quote.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    GSS is funded by the Joyce Foundation. Follow the money and you'll find the motive.
    While the left is frequently up in arms about the about the Koch brother’s money funding political and campaign projects, there is no shortage of big leftist corporate and foundation money floating around hot political issues.


    Both the Joyce Foundation and Google are established players in the anti-second amendment movement as well as other progressive political causes.

    The Joyce Foundation has injected large chucks of money into the anti-gun movement, including Mayor’s Against Gun Control and the Violence Prevention Center. (Aside: Who was on the Board of the Joyce Foundation? None other than President Barack Obama who keeps assuring us that he doesn’t want to take our guns away. Obama sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994-2002.)

    Likewise, Google’s support for anti-gun “advocacy” is no secret.

    Specifically, they’ve banned results related to firearms and other products that they don’t deem to be “family safe.” Until recently, gun-related products appeared with other products in search results on the shopping section. Many of America’s 80 million gun owners have used Google as a powerful price-comparison tool. Not anymore.

    And the connections go further, Ben Howe writes:

    We know that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina received personal mentoring on both technology approaches and management style from Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, his friend since the 2008 campaign. We know that Google employees overwhelmingly contributed to Democrats in the last cycle (and aggregate individual employee contributions outnumbered the company’s PAC contributions). We know that Google vice president and “chief Internet evangelist” Vint Cerf received a presidential appointment to the National Science Board following last year’s election.

    The left wing Joyce Foundation just funded a digital advocacy study co-authored by Organizing for Action’s (formerly Obama for America) Michael Slaby, who used to work for Google’s Eric Schmidt.

    As we continue hear wailing and lamenting about “big money” in politics and the need for campaign finance reform, let’s keep in mind the left is as big a benefactor if not bigger of “big money” as the right.

    https://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/...wing-activism/
    I do not see anywhere there that the GSS is funded by this Foundation.

    If you want to see how is funding the GSS, here is the answer:

    http://gss.norc.org/Lists/gssFAQs/DispForm.aspx?ID=26
    Question





    Who is sponsoring the survey?




    Answer ​​





    The National Science Foundation (NSF) -- the NSF is an independent agency of the U.S. Government, established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. The Foundation’s mission is to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense. The GSS is the largest project funded by the Sociology Program of the National Science Foundation.​

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    I'd like to see the actual numbers; you have not proven anything. How are guns obsolete? Because you can push the numbers on your phone to connect with a 911 operator?
    Actual numbers? Table 1 and Table 2 give the numbers. But since you do not know statistics to see how the results of a survey can lead to an estimation of the percentage for the total population, they are meaningless to you. Anyway, those who want (and have the background) to learn more, they can start with

    http://gss.norc.org/documents/codebo..._AppendixA.pdf

    The above link comes from the documentation page in the link I provided earlier

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    GSS is funded by the Joyce Foundation. Follow the money and you'll find the motive.
    While the left is frequently up in arms about the about the Koch brother’s money funding political and campaign projects, there is no shortage of big leftist corporate and foundation money floating around hot political issues.

    Both the Joyce Foundation and Google are established players in the anti-second amendment movement as well as other progressive political causes.

    The Joyce Foundation has injected large chucks of money into the anti-gun movement, including Mayor’s Against Gun Control and the Violence Prevention Center. (Aside: Who was on the Board of the Joyce Foundation? None other than President Barack Obama who keeps assuring us that he doesn’t want to take our guns away. Obama sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994-2002.)

    Likewise, Google’s support for anti-gun “advocacy” is no secret.

    Specifically, they’ve banned results related to firearms and other products that they don’t deem to be “family safe.” Until recently, gun-related products appeared with other products in search results on the shopping section. Many of America’s 80 million gun owners have used Google as a powerful price-comparison tool. Not anymore.

    And the connections go further, Ben Howe writes:

    We know that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina received personal mentoring on both technology approaches and management style from Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, his friend since the 2008 campaign. We know that Google employees overwhelmingly contributed to Democrats in the last cycle (and aggregate individual employee contributions outnumbered the company’s PAC contributions). We know that Google vice president and “chief Internet evangelist” Vint Cerf received a presidential appointment to the National Science Board following last year’s election.

    The left wing Joyce Foundation just funded a digital advocacy study co-authored by Organizing for Action’s (formerly Obama for America) Michael Slaby, who used to work for Google’s Eric Schmidt.

    As we continue hear wailing and lamenting about “big money” in politics and the need for campaign finance reform, let’s keep in mind the left is as big a benefactor if not bigger of “big money” as the right.

    https://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/...wing-activism/

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Nothing you have shown is scientific; those estimates are based on opinions and the absence of data.
    and

    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

    There's that. And also as the gorbal warming movement has shown that faking statistics has really become a fad of the left.
    What I have shown comes from a credible sources which has been used for decades in studies related to social issues. Statistics require math skills and expertise.

    http://gss.norc.org

    The GSS gathers data on contemporary American society in order to monitor and explain trends and constants in attitudes, behaviors, and attributes. Hundreds of trends have been tracked since 1972. In addition, since the GSS adopted questions from earlier surveys, trends can be followed for up to 80 years.

    ...


    The National Data Program for the Social Sciences has been conducted since 1972 by NORC at the University of Chicago, with the support of the National Science Foundation. This program has had two main goals:
    • To conduct basic scientific research on the structure and development of American society.
    • To distribute up-to-date, important, high-quality data to social scientists, students, policy makers, and others.

    This research is carried out by a data collection program designed to both monitor social change within the United States and to compare the United States to other nations. Data on social change in the United States is collected as part of the GSS.

    A successful refutation of a source that has been used for decades requires something more substantial than a claim based on speculation that these statistics come from leftists.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

    What's the difference in population growth and gun ownership? There's a hell of a lot more people and urban people have a much less need than rural people.

    As Charlton Heston stated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw
    Bold mine... This is what I am saying! So, do we agree that as we become more urbanized gun-ownership becomes more obsolete?

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Gun ownership is definitely on the rise. The number of first-time owners has skyrocketed, and continues to climb after every mass shooting. Concealed carry permits continue to climb as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post



    It is the THIRD time that I have to REPEAT that an increase of the number of weapons does not mean an increase of gun ownership rates! HOW STUPID MUST SOMEONE BE IN ORDER NOT TO UNDERSTAND SUCH A SIMPLE THING? People in today's economy can spend more money for their gun hobby compared to the 1970s. That's all! ALL the surveys that I mentioned do not argue that the number of guns went down. They mention the gun ownership when down!
    Your surveys are false : in 50 years the population has increased by 130 million, the number of guns by 250 million,this indicates that gun ownership (= people who have at least 1 gun ) is not going down, but is going up ,because most people own only one weapon : the Deplorables are not rich enough to have several weapons .For most people gun ownership is not a hobby, but a necessity ,to survive in a society where criminals have the freedom to kill,to plunder, to rape .

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    I'd like to see the actual numbers; you have not proven anything. How are guns obsolete? Because you can push the numbers on your phone to connect with a 911 operator?
    I agree. Guns are hardly obsolete. And, hunting isn't the only use for a firearm. There are lots of sport uses, skeet, target shooting, etc. and of course there's self defense / home defense.

    Just because some don't want to do those things, or think that the police will save them when they are threatened, doesn't negate the utility of owning and using a firearm, nor does it make it obsolete.

    If anything, it is condescending politicians telling people who are gullible that the police will protect them and that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms will make them safe that are the real threat here.

    Just remember the next time you're being mugged at gun point... When every second counts, the police are just minutes away.... Or, as it says on their vehicles "To Protect and Serve (the Government)." They always leave those last two words off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Till the cops can use transporters and magically arrive a .357 magnum revolver with black talon bullets shall be my close defense option.

    Btw is there a site where LEO gun nuts buy and sell guns? I got a shite load that I have no need of or desire to keep. (I want them sent to a good home and are prized for their historical value and rarity.)

    I talked to a sheriff and they said it illegal for them to buy guns from me because they were cops. A cutout was to do it on-line and do the sale at a gun seller.

    So Markley's is the store where I'm gonna off load legally a shite load of firearms and hand loading dies and equipment. http://www.markleysguns.com/

    I'm glad the cop told me the legal procedure .

    Oh, and almost all the ammo.

    I spent a decade hand loading, not frenetically but my dad did it, my brother did it. Family thing, load your own.

    About 90% as near as I can tell is new brass, never been used.

    Btw.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-JoMVf_f4w
    Last edited by Bwaha; 06 Sep 18, 00:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    To clarify again, I did not bring information that the gun purchases have gone down. I brought information that the gun ownership rate has gone down, meaning a lower percentage of the population today (compared to 1970) has guns. But for sure, with a much bigger economy, this lower percentage can afford to spend much more money for its hobby, passion, love, or whatever you want to call it! So, the fact that the gun sales are up does not invalidate the information I brought which show that a lower percentage of people own guns.

    I think we can agree that the NRA has but a small percentage of gun-owners, who are most committed ideologically to guns. This demographic is not going to change. It is the less committed demographic which finds guns increasingly obsolete. If you noticed, the same study which estimated that we have a lower gun-ownership rate today found that fewer people go for hunting these days which makes sense since a higher percentage of populations has mover to urban areas. It seems such developments have affected the attitude off casual gun-owners who under different circumstances, they would have bought a gun just for hunting.
    I'd like to see the actual numbers; you have not proven anything. How are guns obsolete? Because you can push the numbers on your phone to connect with a 911 operator?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Nothing you have shown is scientific; those estimates are based on opinions and the absence of data.
    There's that. And also as the gorbal warming movement has shown that faking statistics has really become a fad of the left.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    The scientists can still make reasonable estimates. And when such estimates show a big difference between the gun-ownership rates in 1972 and today, this is sufficient to show that we have a reduction of the gun ownership rate.
    Nothing you have shown is scientific; those estimates are based on opinions and the absence of data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    The scientists can still make reasonable estimates. And when such estimates show a big difference between the gun-ownership rates in 1972 and today, this is sufficient to show that we have a reduction of the gun ownership rate.
    What's the difference in population growth and gun ownership? There's a hell of a lot more people and urban people have a much less need than rural people.

    As Charlton Heston stated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    No one can show accurate gun ownership rates.
    The scientists can still make reasonable estimates. And when such estimates show a big difference between the gun-ownership rates in 1972 and today, this is sufficient to show that we have a reduction of the gun ownership rate.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X