Gun Sales Up, and Up, and Up

[Martinjmpr]

Anecdotal evidence aside, I wonder how many actual NEW gun owners there are?

I'd be willing to bet most of these "increased sales" are not non-gun-owners becoming gun owners, they are people who are already gun owners buying more guns.

The general increase in buying power and material affluence (due in large part to low inflation over the past ~35 years or so) means people can buy all sorts of new toys and gadgets for themselves. In the 1960's it was a sign of affluence if a family had more than one car (look at how many houses in the 50's/60's had single car garages.) In the 1970's it was a sign of affluence if a family had more than one television.

Now look at a typical middle class family, multiple cars/toys (motorcycles, 4 wheelers, RVs, etc), multiple televisions/screens, phones, tablets, etc.

It's the same with guns. People who in the 60's or 70's might have owned a centerfire pistol, a .22, a hunting rifle and a shotgun now own multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.

In terms of politics, I agree that gun owner =/= pro-gun voter. There are plenty of people who own firearms who are more than happy with laws that would prevent or restrict OTHER people from owning firearms, as long as they, themselves, are not subject to those laws.

[exxonv]

Anecdotal evidence aside, I wonder how many actual NEW gun owners there are?

I'd be willing to bet most of these "increased sales" are not non-gun-owners becoming gun owners, they are people who are already gun owners buying more guns.

The general increase in buying power and material affluence (due in large part to low inflation over the past ~35 years or so) means people can buy all sorts of new toys and gadgets for themselves. In the 1960's it was a sign of affluence if a family had more than one car (look at how many houses in the 50's/60's had single car garages.) In the 1970's it was a sign of affluence if a family had more than one television.

Now look at a typical middle class family, multiple cars/toys (motorcycles, 4 wheelers, RVs, etc), multiple televisions/screens, phones, tablets, etc.

It's the same with guns. People who in the 60's or 70's might have owned a centerfire pistol, a .22, a hunting rifle and a shotgun now own multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.

In terms of politics, I agree that gun owner =/= pro-gun voter. There are plenty of people who own firearms who are more than happy with laws that would prevent or restrict OTHER people from owning firearms, as long as they, themselves, are not subject to those laws.

GREAT points - never really looked at it that way till now, but just cars and TVs show the trend in affluence, and I know I added a few more pew pew's to my collection this last year!

[ray1970]

There are plenty of people who own firearms who are more than happy with laws that would prevent or restrict OTHER people from owning firearms, as long as they, themselves, are not subject to those laws.

Those people just can't see the big picture. The end game has always been zero firearms for anyone other than the military and maybe law enforcement. The Fudds of the world have always been ignorant of this with their mentality that since they don't own or need certain types of firearms then who cares what laws they pass. Well ain't bubba going to surprised one day when grandpappy's old deer rifle turns out to be a deadly sniper rifle and his favorite duck hunting shotgun is deemed a destructive device and his trusty 357 wheel gun is outlawed with every other handgun because they can be too easily concealed. Guess he'll be buying his meat at the grocery store and looking for some new hobbies.

[Martinjmpr]

Those people just can't see the big picture. The end game has always been zero firearms for anyone other than the military and maybe law enforcement. The Fudds of the world have always been ignorant of this with their mentality that since they don't own or need certain types of firearms then who cares what laws they pass.

I think you're making a mistake of assuming that "the other side", i.e. the pro-gun control people, are a monolithic, single-minded organism with a single goal while "our side", i.e gun owners, are riven with factions who want different things and are willing to give up "this" in order to keep "that."

The reality is that there are just as many different factions on the anti-gun side as there are on the pro-gun side. There are absolutely those who would love to ban all guns in private hands. They are actually a minority though. There are a lot of people who support various gun control measures who are not hostile to guns and who are, in fact, gun owners themselves (I have several in my family.)

Lumping them all together as a bunch of gun-confiscating commies might be effective when you're "preaching to the choir" but it's not a very effective way to debate public policy.

Well ain't bubba going to surprised one day when grandpappy's old deer rifle turns out to be a deadly sniper rifle and his favorite duck hunting shotgun is deemed a destructive device and his trusty 357 wheel gun is outlawed with every other handgun because they can be too easily concealed. Guess he'll be buying his meat at the grocery store and looking for some new hobbies.

I doubt that could happen in the lifetime of anybody on this board. Those who point to England or Australia as cautionary examples are missing the most important point: By the time draconian restrictions were enacted in those countries, total gun ownership amounted to a very small fraction of the population.

It doesn't help that in England, in particular, hunting and gun ownership have always been upper-class practices and gun ownership amongst working class people has always been very low. By contrast, gun ownership and hunting have been popular in the lower economic classes in America since it was founded, primarily because of our frontier heritage. The yeoman farmer on the great plains NEEDED a shotgun and likely a rifle to provide food for the family and to protect against wild animals, bandits and Indians.

By contrast, in England the only one who "NEEDED" a gun was Sir Rodney Riche-Pigge, ESQ, Lord of the Estate and Duke of the Manor, to go hunting on the weekends while the proles toiled in the coal mines making him rich.

Even in wide-open Australia, private gun ownership was very low percentage wise (I think it was less than 10%, not sure the exact figures) and most of that was concentrated in the sparsely populated Outback regions.

By the time you get to that point, it doesn't really matter whether gun owners organize or lobby or whatever. Their power to affect elections is so small that from a political standpoint it makes them irrelevant which is why they get steamrolled.

That is not true of the US where gun owners and pro-gun households (which I would define as those who tend to vote pro-gun whether they personally own firearms or not) are a significant percentage of the population. I've heard estimates of 25% of households own guns and I wouldn't be surprised if it was much higher in some states.

Furthermore, our Federal system gives disproportionate voting power to low-population rural states where gun ownership tends to remain popular (the example being that Wyoming with 600,000 people has the same representation in the Senate as California with 30 million.) Since we have more low-population rural states than "urban" states, that again tilts the equation in favor of low population states.

There's another aspect of low-population states that also needs to be taken into consideration: In a low population state, the difference between a senate or gubernatorial candidate or even a representative winning or losing can be very small - in the low thousands or even hundreds. That means that candidates in those states need to tread carefully when it comes to sensitive issues like guns because it doesn't take much of a "groundswell" to boot them from office.

There have been various surveys showing the average age of hunters has been steadily climbing since the 1960's. Not nearly as many hunting licenses are being sold as there were back then either. The overall trend seems to be going away from sport hunting for a majority of the population.

Consider that as recently as the 1950's, a standard SitCom staple story would be "the guys go on a hunting trip" - showing you how "mainstream" hunting was back then.

Assuming that trend remains, we may well see the sport of hunting largely disappear (or become a very esoteric practice by a few die-hard hunters, like in parts of Europe.) When we get to that point, firearms ownership may drop to a low enough point that we may well see a push to largely outlaw guns nationwide but, again, I think it will take us at least 100 years to get to that point.

And a lot can happen in 100 years.

[exxonv]

All great and well thought out points! I tend to agree with hunting declining and the association to gun ownership, but I wonder how much conceal carry is helping hold that population up. I too have family who own firearms and yet who feel that the government should push for things like universal background checks, bans on some weapons, and capacity, etc. I point out to them that these "laws" are only in-place to impact legal gun owners, that they are in fact pissing away their rights and mine for the sake of an illusion of safety, and that the 2nd isn't' about safety, it's about tyranny, with safety being a nice addition. It makes them think (when they own guns). But there are those who would rather let other people solve their problems for them, and unfortunately, those people can be quite loud and whiny..

[Great-Kazoo]

Anecdotal evidence aside, I wonder how many actual NEW gun owners there are?

.

Based on people coming to the range, a lot. I see new gun owners trying to figure out what to do, more than the usual, seasoned gun owner. Average age is 50+ with woman an easy 80%+ of those numbers.

Then there's the new[er] shooter who brings their kids, or relatives with them.

Out here families do range time and there seems to be more of a "communal" mentality to guns and shooting, in general.

[exxonv]

Based on people coming to the range, a lot. I see new gun owners trying to figure out what to do, more than the usual, seasoned gun owner. Average age is 50+ with woman an easy 80%+ of those numbers.

Then there's the new[er] shooter who brings their kids, or relatives with them.

Out here families do range time and there seems to be more of a "communal" mentality to guns and shooting, in general.

Yep, same here, seeing similar. Conceal carry is a big thing for these new folks, lots of them clearly pro 2nd, but never were owners till now. All the "old" discussions come back, 9mm vs. .45 ACP, carry condition, situational awareness, good holster vs. bad holster, which gun to buy, where to buy, where to practice, what to shoot when, etc. I actually enjoy those conversations - try to "meet people where they are" vs. speaking down to them. A great many seem ready to defend their rights once they know what's at stake. It's not a revolution, but an evolution, and I'm glad to see more female gun owners deciding to take their protection and their rights "personal" as well as "national".