Many fewer U.S. gun owners

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
St. Adolphus said:
Well how else are they able to buy more guns? Especially expensive guns like the AR15? The absolute cheapest AR15 you can buy runs around $600, and can go upwards of $3500.
Click to expand...

you dickweed pussy hating gun stoking bubbas buy guns, I buy stocks and no guns.
 
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;812615 said:
And you can quantify that statement....how?
Click to expand...
As I have already explained every NICS check has a corresponding transaction number. This number is attached to a sale of at least 1 gun. It could be 1,000,000 guns per check, but it is at least one. If you are not transferring a firearm it will appear as a discrepancy in your FFL book, which may be audited and MUST be surrendered to the ATF should the FFL no longer maintain it's license. Thus, there cannot be a NICS check with a without a sale. It's illegal.
 
Topspin said:
you are able to have ass sex with you'er guns, my stocks appreciate at 9% a year on average.
Click to expand...
No, I have sex with my wife, but I'm glad to see your insistence on avoiding actual discussion remains intact. And like I said, my investments will not devalue. Yours may. Thus while I may not make any returns should I choose to sell, I will not lose money. You may, depending on market fluctuations.

Also, what is you'er exactly?
 
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;812626 said:
Cite.
Click to expand...
It's the logical extension of Toppys assertion. In order for gun sales to increase significantly, along with a corresponding decrease in gun owners, it would have to mean that the remaining gun owners are financially much better off then non gun owners in order to be able to afford the increase.
 
Topspin said:
you must be poor to make that connection
Click to expand...
Well how else could they afford them? You're the master of economics here, how can a group of low income people afford a product? Especially when demand for said product creates a shortage, driving prices up substantially?
 
St. Adolphus said:
It's the logical extension of Toppys assertion. In order for gun sales to increase significantly, along with a corresponding decrease in gun owners, it would have to mean that the remaining gun owners are financially much better off then non gun owners in order to be able to afford the increase.
Click to expand...



You haven't displayed much logic that I can see, so I'm not sure you would recognize it if you saw it.



Perhaps the dwindling population of gunlovers borrow, sell assets or make other sacrifices in order to feed their hysteria-induced buying.



As has been shown in this thread, hunting is in decline, so what are fewer households planning to do with the additional guns you claim they're hoarding?



Survivalism, maybe?




Now that you finally understand that in 2010, less than a third of households reported having a gun in the home, you can stop trying to disprove a point nobody was disputing.
 
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;812636 said:
You haven't displayed much logic that I can see, so I'm not sure you would recognize it if you saw it.
Click to expand...
Cool story Legion.


Perhaps the dwindling population of gunlovers borrow, sell assets or make other sacrifices in order to feed their hysteria-induced buying.
Click to expand...
Cite


As has been shown in this thread, hunting is in decline, so what are fewer households planning to do with the additional guns you claim they're hoarding?
Click to expand...
As has also been shown, the increase in guns sold are not primarily hunting guns, nor are they marketed as such. So the decline in hunting (and you've only shown it to be on the decline in certain states, not all states) is irrelevant as to the number of guns sold.


Survivalism, maybe?
Click to expand...
Also irrelevant.



Now that you finally understand that in 2010, less than a third of households reported having a gun in the home, you can stop trying to disprove a point nobody was disputing.
Click to expand...
I still dispute the validity of the study, as it hasn't been duplicated by other studies and uses statistical flaws to determine its conclusion, along with the suspect impartiality of the group doing the study in the first place.
 
Topspin said:
you dickweed pussy hating gun stoking bubbas buy guns, I buy stocks and no guns.
Click to expand...

I've sold a few guns over the years and never gotten less than I paid for them. They may not increase in value like some stocks, but they have never lost their value like some stocks.

Plus, I get to enjoy shooting and have put a LOT of meat in my freezer before selling them. Can't say that about stocks.



Look Topper, whatever cranks your tractor is fine by me. But don't try the holier than thou nonsense.
 
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;812616 said:
Naturally, attempting to verify that "St Adolphus" has a valid FFL at https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/ is not problematic for you?
Click to expand...
I'll gladly PM you my FFL number if you want to check. However, it's my policy to do so only if there is going to be a purchase involved, in which case I'd need some personal information from you. But if you are interested in doing a transfer, I charge $15 for Long guns and $25 for pistols. I'm also a C&R and charge $5 for those. I am not a title 3 dealer and if you want an NFA item you'll have to ask someone else.
 
St. Adolphus said:
Well how else could they afford them? You're the master of economics here, how can a group of low income people afford a product? Especially when demand for said product creates a shortage, driving prices up substantially?
Click to expand...

waisting money on guns like cars inhibits one's abilty to accumulate a real portfolio. In laymans terms, keeping up with the Joneses or in your case the Bubba's kills ones net worth.
 
Topspin said:
waisting money on guns like cars inhibits one's abilty to accumulate a real portfolio. In laymans terms, keeping up with the Joneses or in your case the Bubba's kills ones net worth.
Click to expand...
Well it adds about...$20,000 to my net worth so I'm good with that. Not that I care that much, as net worth is meaningless.
 
WinterBorn said:
I've sold a few guns over the years and never gotten less than I paid for them. They may not increase in value like some stocks, but they have never lost their value like some stocks.

Plus, I get to enjoy shooting and have put a LOT of meat in my freezer before selling them. Can't say that about stocks.




Look Topper, whatever cranks your tractor is fine by me. But don't try the holier than thou nonsense.
Click to expand...


some genius called guns his portfolio, stocks are the highest returning asset class period.
Now if guns crank your shaft, great. Some guy's like woman for that.
not hollier than though, fuck that. Richer than though
 
St. Adolphus said:
I'll gladly PM you my FFL number if you want to check. However, it's my policy to do so only if there is going to be a purchase involved, in which case I'd need some personal information from you. But if you are interested in doing a transfer, I charge $15 for Long guns and $25 for pistols. I'm also a C&R and charge $5 for those. I am not a title 3 dealer and if you want an NFA item you'll have to ask someone else.
Click to expand...

Its a damn shame you live up north. Those are decent transfer fees. I pay $20 to $25 on long guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top