166 replies to this topic

[DarkFox]

Nobody said he did... but I did say that the national total doesn't win anything... it's just a more embarrassing loss. It's like a baseball game... the most hits does not win the game, you have to score the most runs. You must have not read the entire conversation.

 

I wasn't arguing your point but rather LS's. I also don't begrudge Trump for winning since I didn't want either of them to win so that election was a lose lose for me. With that said our election process is fundamentally broken and we need to fix it, I cant remember the exact percentage but you only need like 5% of the population to win enough electoral votes to win an election. I have a neat video on it if you folks are interested but yeah the system is broke and no one in power wants to fix it

[Lysistrata]

I wasn't arguing your point but rather LS's. With that said our election process is fundamentally broken

Understood. I did say earlier that the states determine how the electoral votes are cast. A couple of them actually went against their state law, and cast their votes for people other than Trump or Clinton. If all the states would agree to cast their electoral votes for the candidate that won their district, rather than a winner take all, we may get to a system more to your liking. The Senators would then be free to vote for who they wish to vote for, but that would be much like the Democrats super delegate model that everyone hates.

 

The problem is, smaller states will never let go of the winner take all model, because it weakens their position to the level of non-existent, and a national total popular vote model will never happen either for the same reason. Most important here is you need to make every attempt to make your position known, and when it gets turned down you have to understand why, and accept the decision. We don't live in a majority rule country, and the people of Montana are just as important as the people in California. It's a Republic... you can try to change that, but it's about as likely to happen as controlling the global climate through taxation.

[Rand0m her0]

 

I only disagree with this because I'm under 30 and very much utilize my voting rights... However I do agree that keeping the vote to who understand how the world works would prevent scary situations like Clinton's campaign from occurring again

I would never deny any adult American Citizen the right to vote. It was a smartass comeback to Random's desire to prohibit the vote from anyone over 65. 

 

 

 

The fact you still can't tell when your being made fun of is just great. 

 

Remember this:

 

 

And people are shocked... SHOCKED! when I say this country needs a divorce. An irreconcilable difference is when they side with the worst enemies we have over our own country....

 

Cause you said that. "the country needs to separate because people don't agree with me, whine whine", while all the same while all the same projecting like you show movies for a living

 

 

 

the problem with using the popular vote is that, as you can see, if you control the cities then you can dictate to the country how they should live.   the needs of city dwellers are far  different than those in the country.  for example, the left wants to ban guns, but that would be brutal to the survival of citizens in Alaska.  i am happy with the electoral college overall.  it did what it was designed to do and that is to protect the smaller states from the bigger states. 

 

as for the accuracy of the map i posted here are links to the nytimes election results for the two states in question.

 

 https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/washington

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/oregon

 

i hate using the ny times for facts but sometimes even the ny times can be useful.

 

 

Oh dear. 

 

so, one, if you control for the cities, you're ignoring 70 odd percent of the population. As well, favouring rural areas is not what the electoral college is for. It A exists to give smaller states some abbitly to stand next to larger states and B as a way to conduct elections across a continent in times when it took months of travel to get anywhere, with B being the primary motivation. Prior to the modern era, getting votes into washington from far flung states was not reasonable, and so you sent a representative incase the person you're voting for dropped dead or murdered someone or whatever. 

 

It's questionable if it even favours smaller states anyways. Flyover country remain flyover country. All it does it create dead dog states, where a party needs to put in next to no effort to win, and the other has no chance. Which I why you get shit like literally nazis running under major party banners and other such fuckwitery. 

 

 

If you do wish to apply such a geographic region bias, there are many ways to do so, far better than the electoral college. the electoral college is such a broken system in general that 23% of the population is enough to get you victory, and i think we can all agree that 23% of the population deciding against the choice the other 77% would be fucked up. 

 

For example, the left wants to ban guns, but that would be brutal to the survival of citizens in Alaska.

 

No, the left wants just about any working model of gun control in lieu of the completely broken and useless hunk of shit america currently has. There are plenty of them that would in no way abridge the 2nd amendment, all of which work quite well, and all of which are adaptable. If you control for a handful of "super collectors" (the 3 percent of american who  own half of all guns in america),, the USA falls pretty well within the norm for western nations. Per capita, Canada owns more guns than the US does, and the canadian model could pretty much be exported to the USA with minimal effort or disruption. Most of the effort would be unfucking the bullshit holes in the US's background check system, which would be a good idea all around. 

 

Unfortunately, the US gun lobby is utterly opposed to this because they would make fractionally less money, and when coupled with the useless fuckwits in media, the only thing that can get any traction is shit from lunatics that would go nowhere. Oh and lies. Lots of lies. Someone says "We should consider reforming the system background checks"  and despite that shit having something like a 97% approval rate, the media spins it to the point people panic buy so much ammunition to literally cause a freaking ammunition shortage. 

 

the needs of city dwellers are far  different than those in the country.

 

 

 

Also that in general is just nonsense, the needs of urban and rural regions have never been more entwined than today. Is goes especially for any policy set at the federal level. The divide is most strongly about cultural/moral issues, rooted in the rhetoric that "small town christian values are under attack". A significant amount of this is rooted Nixon's Southern Strategy and the continuation around that. Even then, the division is primarily along party lines with republican and democrat voters in rural areas showing the same major divisions as anywhere else. It's just the rural regions where that rethoic found a foothold.

[Lysistrata]

Flyover country remain flyover country.

 

Which I why you get shit like literally nazis running under major party banners and other such fuckwitery.

 

the electoral college is such a broken system in general

 

the left wants just about any working model of gun control in lieu of the completely broken and useless hunk of shit america currently has.

I can't stop laughing. I say the country needs a divorce... and you say I'm whining? Then you type out this wall of text, full of hateful whining. What you're saying here is "I'm more important than they are", "I hate that they are in charge", "The system is rigged against me", "I know better than them", "The country is broken", "Things need to change because I lost", "It's all wrong because I think so".

 

Yes... I want a Constitutional Convention, so you can lose again, and leave.

[Rand0m her0]

 I say the country needs a divorce... and you say I'm whining? 

 

 

No, you are. Liiibrulls don't agree with me, wah wah, "kids" (by which you mean anyone under the age of 35) don't share my fanatical party line politics wah wah. You are snowflaking just so damn hard and it is *hilarious* 

 

The country doesn't need a divorce. There is not some hard line polarization dividing the country. What there is, is a generation of entitled boomers throwing a shitfit because for  the first time in 20-30 years they're not mainstream america anymore. 

 

"I'm more important than they are", "I hate that they are in charge", "The system is rigged against me", "I know better than them", "The country is broken", "Things need to change because I lost", "It's all wrong because I think so".

 

 

 Like really, you're actually feeling threatened because someone says "oh, the electoral college has flaws because it's a compromise system designed to handle issues in a world where stagecoaches were the height of transportation technology."  That bit wasn't even in response to you and you're flipping out over it.  But then you probably didn't even bother to read enough to realize that because anything that disagree with #MAGA in anyway, even at third degree separation is an attack on you personally. 

 

Check yourself. The issues with the electoral college have been a topic since longer than you've been alive, and outside of the last 15 years, reform has had bipartisan support. Freaking Nixon endorsed it. But you know, Trump lost the popular vote so anyone saying that the electoral college isn't perfect actually hates you and hates america and so you gotta throw all the toys out the pram because every single thing must be about you. 

 

 

melt some more. 

[onbekende]

the problem with using the popular vote is that, as you can see, if you control the cities then you can dictate to the country how they should live.   the needs of city dwellers are far  different than those in the country.

 

- points out rural vs city

- annoyed if city > rural

- non-issue when rural > city

 

see the laughs I just had?

 

I am not even going to entertain the hilarity that is "Trumps knows how to run a country over Hillary". The guy is the epitomy of stealing someones idea's and running with it. Think the only original sounding notion he has is his "stamina is a non-rechargable battery" melarky, which is hilarity I would entertain

[Lysistrata]

Like really, you're actually feeling threatened because someone says "oh, the electoral college has flaws

Still laughing... I don't feel threatened at all. I'm saying that's the way it is. You lost. Get over it... or if you don't like it, change it. You can try... I really wish you would. Then it can get crushed so hard that maybe... just maybe, we won't hear about it again for the rest of my life.

 

Now back to the topic... What will you do in a few days if Trump ends a 65 year war, denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, and North Korea is suddenly a Capitalist country? It's a long shot... but if it happens, I do believe, Progressive heads will explode so loud and so bright, it will measure 6 points on the Richter Scale all over the world, and the blast will be seen from space.

[Lysistrata]

This is hilarious... angry Socialists attack a bus load of Progressive Stormtroopers.

As Alanis Morissette once said... "Isn't it Ironic?"

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Protesters-toss-scooters-into-street-to-block-12957488.php

[Rand0m her0]

 

 

Now back to the topic... What will you do in a few days if Trump ends a 65 year war, denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, and North Korea is suddenly a Capitalist country? It's a long shot... but if it happens, I do believe, Progressive heads will explode so loud and so bright, it will measure 6 points on the Richter Scale all over the world, and the blast will be seen from space.

 

 

 

Ohhh deflection. Deflection based on pure and utter speculation even. 

 

I'll start planning on that shortly after I finalize my plans to handle defecating winged simians. 

 

 

But no you don't get the change the topic.

 

Still laughing... I don't feel threatened at all. I'm saying that's the way it is. You lost. Get over it... or if you don't like it, change it. You can try... I really wish you would. Then it can get crushed so hard that maybe... just maybe, we won't hear about it again for the rest of my life.

 

 

Come-on lys, can you manage even one halfway researched point on the electoral college. Cause you haven't actually said one single thing to counter any point that's been made. Do you know anything at all about the topic of reform of the electoral college? Do you know what goal it was introduced for and the views of the founding fathers? Have you ever bothered to read any analysis of how and if it's managed to act in that capacity? If you'd like a historical perspective  Herbert Wechsler 1949 paper on the topic is quite a good one, as is Feerick 1969 paper. And of course there's Nixon's address to congress.  Perhaps you've read Haraway's "The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism". Care to reference anything? 

 

Or perhaps you have an opinion taken from analysis of previous removals of and changes to constitutional limitation on direct democracy. Because there's quite a lot around that was written around the time of the 14th, 17th and 19th Amendments, and it might be interesting to see how your take mirrors the arguments then. 

 

 

Or is all you've got just feels>reals

Edited by Rand0m her0, 31 May 2018 - 09:23 PM.

[Lysistrata]

Ohhh deflection. Deflection based on pure and utter speculation even.

How can commenting on the topic of the thread be a deflection?

Come-on lys, can you manage even one halfway researched point on the electoral college.

What are you talking about? Can you manage even one halfway researched acceptance that the Electoral College is the law of the land? There is no speculating about it. Trump won the election. It's not up for debate. The only thing you can effectively do is oppose his policies in a positive way, and get out there and vote against his reelection in 2020. Though you will have to come up with a platform and a message that people will vote for. "He's a lying, racist, Nazi" is not gonna fly... it already failed once.

 

If you don't like the Electoral College... gather enough support to change it. I have no problem with the law.

[onbekende]

 

Now back to the topic... What will you do in a few days if Trump ends a 65 year war, denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, and North Korea is suddenly a Capitalist country? It's a long shot... but if it happens, I do believe, Progressive heads will explode so loud and so bright, it will measure 6 points on the Richter Scale all over the world, and the blast will be seen from space.

 

You go from somewhat plausible (end of war, doubtfull about hostilities thou) to obvious fiction (neither NK nor USA is pulling back nukes anytime soon) to basic lunacy (really, capitalist?).

 

You should rather be feeling bad cause Trump gutted the State department, making it obvious that talks are very mono-dimensional and as such anyone else related gets shafted (see SK having to read twitter to know the summit went bust).

[Rand0m her0]

 

Ohhh deflection. Deflection based on pure and utter speculation even.

How can commenting on the topic of the thread be a deflection?

 

Has anything changed in the last week that i've missed? Because all we've see is more of the same bloviating nothing. 

 

 

What are you talking about? Can you manage even one halfway researched acceptance that the Electoral College is the law of the land? There is no speculating about it. Trump won the election. It's not up for debate. The only thing you can effectively do is oppose his policies in a positive way, and get out there and vote against his reelection in 2020. Though you will have to come up with a platform and a message that people will vote for. "He's a lying, racist, Nazi" is not gonna fly... it already failed once.Come-on lys, can you manage even one halfway researched point on the electoral college.

 

If you don't like the Electoral College... gather enough support to change it. I have no problem with the law.

 

 

And speaking of bloviating nothing. Words Words Words, #Maga, but not one thing to actually say. 

 

You've spent all your time lambasting people who disagree with you, and but not one word in defense of your principles. Infact I don't think i've seen you even stand in defense of a single point you've made, all you do is lash out and attack others. I'm starting to think that's all you can actually do. 

 

So have a line in the sand. You think the electoral college is so great. Back that up. If we're so very wrong, putting together even a half assed argument should be really easy. Or even just referencing a single article, opinion, vlog, talk, whatever else  that you think presents your position well.  Really anything other than knee jerk defensive attacks because your threatened by even the slightest most meger counterpoint. 

 

 Anything  of substance. Any single thing that would demonstrate you've got something grounding your views and that you're not just posting here in some elaborate act of virtue signaling. 

[Lysistrata]

You think the electoral college is so great. Back that up.

I didn't bring up the Electoral College... you did. I never expressed any feelings about the Electoral College... you did. I never expressed any desire to change the Electoral College... you did. What I said was... it's the law, it determines who wins, and if you don't like it... change it. I'll care about it when you get your proposal on a ballot.

 

I have no problem with the Electoral College... it's the same now as it has always been. Actually it's very hard for Republicans to cobble enough EC votes to win... unless we're running against a candidate as bad as Hillary Clinton. That's rough losing to Donald Trump. He won't be that easy to beat in 2020. He actually has a record of making things happen now. Those high tax states that didn't vote for him will still not vote for him since he killed the ability to write off State taxes on Federal returns... but we all know that was a game for high tax states to push their taxes on the rest of us. I suggest moving to Nevada... we don't have any state taxes here at all.

[DeathMerchant]

 

I only disagree with this because I'm under 30 and very much utilize my voting rights... However I do agree that keeping the vote to who understand how the world works would prevent scary situations like Clinton's campaign from occurring again

I would never deny any adult American Citizen the right to vote. It was a smartass comeback to Random's desire to prohibit the vote from anyone over 65. 
 

 
 
The fact you still can't tell when your being made fun of is just great. 
 
Remember this:
 
 

And people are shocked... SHOCKED! when I say this country needs a divorce. An irreconcilable difference is when they side with the worst enemies we have over our own country....

 
Cause you said that. "the country needs to separate because people don't agree with me, whine whine", while all the same while all the same projecting like you show movies for a living
 
 
 

the problem with using the popular vote is that, as you can see, if you control the cities then you can dictate to the country how they should live.   the needs of city dwellers are far  different than those in the country.  for example, the left wants to ban guns, but that would be brutal to the survival of citizens in Alaska.  i am happy with the electoral college overall.  it did what it was designed to do and that is to protect the smaller states from the bigger states. 
 
as for the accuracy of the map i posted here are links to the nytimes election results for the two states in question.
 
 https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/washington
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/oregon
 
i hate using the ny times for facts but sometimes even the ny times can be useful.

 
 
Oh dear. 
 
so, one, if you control for the cities, you're ignoring 70 odd percent of the population. As well, favouring rural areas is not what the electoral college is for. It A exists to give smaller states some abbitly to stand next to larger states and B as a way to conduct elections across a continent in times when it took months of travel to get anywhere, with B being the primary motivation. Prior to the modern era, getting votes into washington from far flung states was not reasonable, and so you sent a representative incase the person you're voting for dropped dead or murdered someone or whatever. 
 
It's questionable if it even favours smaller states anyways. Flyover country remain flyover country. All it does it create dead dog states, where a party needs to put in next to no effort to win, and the other has no chance. Which I why you get shit like literally nazis running under major party banners and other such fuckwitery. 
 
 
If you do wish to apply such a geographic region bias, there are many ways to do so, far better than the electoral college. the electoral college is such a broken system in general that 23% of the population is enough to get you victory, and i think we can all agree that 23% of the population deciding against the choice the other 77% would be fucked up. 
 

For example, the left wants to ban guns, but that would be brutal to the survival of citizens in Alaska.

 
No, the left wants just about any working model of gun control in lieu of the completely broken and useless hunk of shit america currently has. There are plenty of them that would in no way abridge the 2nd amendment, all of which work quite well, and all of which are adaptable. If you control for a handful of "super collectors" (the 3 percent of american who  own half of all guns in america),, the USA falls pretty well within the norm for western nations. Per capita, Canada owns more guns than the US does, and the canadian model could pretty much be exported to the USA with minimal effort or disruption. Most of the effort would be unfucking the bullshit holes in the US's background check system, which would be a good idea all around. 

I've seen people throw that 3% statistic around but I don't see how it has any truth to it. Nor have I personally met anyone who agreed it is true. There is no gun registry to compile that information. There is a de facto gun registry in FFL logbooks. But that is only accurate for X amount of years and then it expires. And besides the ATF can't just show up and take a peek as to who bought what. The ATF requires a legitimate reason to go through an FFL's logbook. Registered pistols are about the only statistic that is the most accurate. All the ATF publishes every year is how many firearms were sold. They might break it down into type, rifle, shotgun, and pistol, buy thats about it. Another point is we have seen a MASSIVE influx of new people purchasing firearms over the past 10 years. People that never owned a firearm in their life, suddenly showed up between 2008 and present day to purchase their first firearm. They are scared that they may never get the opportunity to own a firearm if more gun control regulations are passed. I've personally lost track of how many times people have asked me advice on buying their first firearm. I know a lot more people who only own 1 or 2 firearms, then people who own 5+.

[Rand0m her0]

 

I've seen people throw that 3% statistic around but I don't see how it has any truth to it. Nor have I personally met anyone who agreed it is true. There is no gun registry to compile that information. There is a de facto gun registry in FFL logbooks. But that is only accurate for X amount of years and then it expires. And besides the ATF can't just show up and take a peek as to who bought what. The ATF requires a legitimate reason to go through an FFL's logbook. Registered pistols are about the only statistic that is the most accurate. All the ATF publishes every year is how many firearms were sold. They might break it down into type, rifle, shotgun, and pistol, buy thats about it. Another point is we have seen a MASSIVE influx of new people purchasing firearms over the past 10 years. People that never owned a firearm in their life, suddenly showed up between 2008 and present day to purchase their first firearm. They are scared that they may never get the opportunity to own a firearm if more gun control regulations are passed. I've personally lost track of how many times people have asked me advice on buying their first firearm. I know a lot more people who only own 1 or 2 firearms, then people who own 5+.

 

 

 

Without getting too much into the math, that it fits quite well with a Pareto distribution, which shows up quite consistently in similar analysis and has been shown to apply in other countries that do track. Gun ownership in the USA being  a Pareto distribution would be utterly unremarkable, especially since it should correlate with other metrics that definitely do (wealth for example. Someone who owns half a dozen guns probably aint hurting for money).  Counter intuitive as all fuck, but not actually surprising or unusual .

 

Even if the 3% figure isn't dead on, I'd be shocked if it wasn't close simply because of how the Pareto distribution works. No larger than 7%owning half pretty much for sure, and probably no larger than 5% owning half.  Regardless, It's definitely good enough for a first order estimate.

 

If you've not done that much statistics, you've probably got the tl;dr version at some point in your life : Ever been told about the 80-20 rule or something like that at your job? Usually phrased as something like "80% of all issues are caused by 20% of all problems",  "the top 20% of all workers produce 80% of all output," or "20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue" other such. That's bascily applying the same math, although in a more rule-of -thumb sort of way. 

[DeathMerchant]

I've seen people throw that 3% statistic around but I don't see how it has any truth to it. Nor have I personally met anyone who agreed it is true. There is no gun registry to compile that information. There is a de facto gun registry in FFL logbooks. But that is only accurate for X amount of years and then it expires. And besides the ATF can't just show up and take a peek as to who bought what. The ATF requires a legitimate reason to go through an FFL's logbook. Registered pistols are about the only statistic that is the most accurate. All the ATF publishes every year is how many firearms were sold. They might break it down into type, rifle, shotgun, and pistol, buy thats about it. Another point is we have seen a MASSIVE influx of new people purchasing firearms over the past 10 years. People that never owned a firearm in their life, suddenly showed up between 2008 and present day to purchase their first firearm. They are scared that they may never get the opportunity to own a firearm if more gun control regulations are passed. I've personally lost track of how many times people have asked me advice on buying their first firearm. I know a lot more people who only own 1 or 2 firearms, then people who own 5+.

Without getting too much into the math, that it fits quite well with a Pareto distribution, which shows up quite consistently in similar analysis and has been shown to apply in other countries that do track. Gun ownership in the USA being a Pareto distribution would be utterly unremarkable, especially since it should correlate with other metrics that definitely do (wealth for example. Someone who owns half a dozen guns probably aint hurting for money). Counter intuitive as all fuck, but not actually surprising or unusual .

Even if the 3% figure isn't dead on, I'd be shocked if it wasn't close simply because of how the Pareto distribution works. No larger than 7%owning half pretty much for sure, and probably no larger than 5% owning half. Regardless, It's definitely good enough for a first order estimate.

If you've not done that much statistics, you've probably got the tl;dr version at some point in your life : Ever been told about the 80-20 rule or something like that at your job? Usually phrased as something like "80% of all issues are caused by 20% of all problems", "the top 20% of all workers produce 80% of all output," or "20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue" other such. That's bascily applying the same math, although in a more rule-of -thumb sort of way.

Fair enough explanation. It is plausible based on distribution but I just don't see it. As I mentioned before I've seen way more firearm owners with a 1-2 firearms then I have seen people with a semi large collection. If I had to put a number on what I have personally seen. I would say about 70% of firearms owned are those with 1-3 firearms. While 30% of firearms owned resides with those that posses more than 5 firearms.

[Rand0m her0]

 

 

I've seen people throw that 3% statistic around but I don't see how it has any truth to it. Nor have I personally met anyone who agreed it is true. There is no gun registry to compile that information. There is a de facto gun registry in FFL logbooks. But that is only accurate for X amount of years and then it expires. And besides the ATF can't just show up and take a peek as to who bought what. The ATF requires a legitimate reason to go through an FFL's logbook. Registered pistols are about the only statistic that is the most accurate. All the ATF publishes every year is how many firearms were sold. They might break it down into type, rifle, shotgun, and pistol, buy thats about it. Another point is we have seen a MASSIVE influx of new people purchasing firearms over the past 10 years. People that never owned a firearm in their life, suddenly showed up between 2008 and present day to purchase their first firearm. They are scared that they may never get the opportunity to own a firearm if more gun control regulations are passed. I've personally lost track of how many times people have asked me advice on buying their first firearm. I know a lot more people who only own 1 or 2 firearms, then people who own 5+.

 

Without getting too much into the math, that it fits quite well with a Pareto distribution, which shows up quite consistently in similar analysis and has been shown to apply in other countries that do track. Gun ownership in the USA being a Pareto distribution would be utterly unremarkable, especially since it should correlate with other metrics that definitely do (wealth for example. Someone who owns half a dozen guns probably aint hurting for money). Counter intuitive as all fuck, but not actually surprising or unusual .

Even if the 3% figure isn't dead on, I'd be shocked if it wasn't close simply because of how the Pareto distribution works. No larger than 7%owning half pretty much for sure, and probably no larger than 5% owning half. Regardless, It's definitely good enough for a first order estimate.

If you've not done that much statistics, you've probably got the tl;dr version at some point in your life : Ever been told about the 80-20 rule or something like that at your job? Usually phrased as something like "80% of all issues are caused by 20% of all problems", "the top 20% of all workers produce 80% of all output," or "20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue" other such. That's bascily applying the same math, although in a more rule-of -thumb sort of way.

Fair enough explanation. It is plausible based on distribution but I just don't see it. As I mentioned before I've seen way more firearm owners with a 1-2 firearms then I have seen people with a semi large collection. If I had to put a number on what I have personally seen. I would say about 70% of firearms owned are those with 1-3 firearms. While 30% of firearms owned resides with those that posses more than 5 firearms.

 

 

Well yea, but that's exactly how a Pareto distribution works. Your gonna see way way more people with 1-2 firearms. I mean, even if we do some napkin math, figure on average one person in 3 owns a firearm and there's somewhere around 300 million firearms in the US and you find  that the other 97 of all gun owners, own an average of about 1.8 firearms.  Which is about your experience. That's not gonna be super accurate, but I also don't think the deviation from that is gonna be too huge. Probably not going to find that the average gun owner owns 5 guns or anything. 

 

ETA: Also keep in mind that's across america as a whole. Your own social group in a specific geographic region may well deviate from that, and would hardly be unexpected. If you something dramatic like restrict the analysis to just alaska, you'll probably find a very different result than for america as a whole. 

 

Wealth is the classic Pareto distribution and one we have a ton of solid data on (don't fuck with the IRS etc). The top 1% control 30%-40% percent of all wealth in the USA. How many billionaires do you know?

[DeathMerchant]

The geographic area I based my experience on is the North East. New York (where I reside), New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. So yes, there is definitely some variance in geographical area. Even the type of firearms can be broken down into specific areas. People who live in country or mountainous regions tend to own larger calibers firearms, .44 Mag, 500 S&W, 10 Gauge, 7.62x51. Whereas firearm owners I know that reside in residential neighborhoods own 9mm, .45ACP, 12 Gauge, 5.56.

[Rand0m her0]

Ya. Either way though, the core point is that it's good enough to mostly control for outliers, and once you start doing that, the general patterns of ownership and usage hew much closer to the rest of the world. I don't think we're gonna disagree to sharply on that.

 

The gun control debate in the USA as generally perceived is a lot of fucking propaganda bullshit tbh. You have groups like the NRA, who've spent decades doing every thing they can to spread as much misinformation and bullshit as they can because they exist to make gun manufactures profit. This leads to all sorts of hysteria whenever the topic comes up, and so the only thing that can get any traction is dramatic bullshit, which only fuels that hysteria.It's created the sort of fucked up situation where for example, if you lay out the Swiss approach as individual points, something like 80% plus of America thinks it's a pretty good idea by and large. And then someone says the phrase "gun control" to refer to the same damn thing and it's back to the hysterics and major friggin media having people on air to tell you that they're gonna take all guns away so they can take over America without resistance.

 

Although it is occasionally halarious to quote Regan on the topic and then watch the hysterics. There's a letter to congress he co-wrote and co-signed with Ford and Carter that's an absolute gold mine.

[Lysistrata]

Wow... I can't believe no one is saying anything about this. Maybe the shock is just too much to bear?

 

Trump actually produced a parody movie trailer to... wait for it... sell freedom and prosperity, over death and destruction.

This was played on huge video screens to the press pool, while they were waiting for Trump to give his press conference.

It's Priceless...