Most gun owners in this country are rural bumpkins who don’t have any education at all.
Tiffany Miller
June 17, 2014
Comment to Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[This is what they think of you.
Via her Facebook page we have some more insight from our intellectual superior:
- Conservatives cannot be reasoned with or negotiated with.
- …all conservatives are stupid it’s why they are conservative.
- How in the world is the deficit an issue at all? IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance. It looks like someone has a problem with diversity.—Joe]
Interesting since the majority of the gunnies I know have degrees in engineering or other sciences.
Those that don’t have degrees are still usually highly intelligent. While yes you can certainly find bumpkins within this group, they are far from the minority but instead are barely a footnote.
*It should be noted at the WSU Second Amendment club when we founded it had about 30 members at the start. 29 of them were engineering majors of one form or another, they other was a history major. But yes, keep running your mouth on how stupid we are, it’s like a self appointed “I’m Stupid” sign so we know to stop listening.
Well, she’s right on the fact that the majority are rural. Here’s some statistics: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
Where one lives is not necessarily correlated with educational level.
A whole lotta Texas kids go to Texas A&M for Ag degrees, then back to the family ranches to use the latest technology in running their family businesses.
I think you are misreading the numbers. It says 59% of the rural households versus 28% urban and 36% suburban own guns. But because there are so many more people living in urban and suburban areas, even with lower ownership rates, there are more people in urban and suburban areas that own guns.
Hence she is wrong on that point as well.
That could be, though we don’t know what the definition of “urban” and “suburban” is. For example, Vernon California has a population of 114. Would that be considered rural? It’s low population. Or is it suburban, since it’s a suburb of LA? Or would it be urban since it’s smack in the middle of LA?
So you’re admitting that her argument isn’t even viable because of the complexity involved in demographics?
Okay, you’re right on that point too. I couldn’t find where the poll said how many people were polled but it does show (at the bottom) how many were identified as rural, suburban and urban.
I’m a bumpkin. I am a research scientist making six figures running my own research department and have two masters degrees. All I can say is, duuuuuuh!
I’m an engineer, who works with (literally) rocket scientists, for a facility that is considered part of “Washington DC” for organizational purposes. A very large proportion of the local population that doesn’t work in this facility commutes to DC or Northern VA to work in those urban locales. The percentage of the local population that are stereotypical introverted mathematicians and physicists with advanced degrees is ridiculous.
Yet the county is rural. And we like it rural, but close enough to drive into Alexandria or DC as desired. . . especially those of us who like being able to shoot at home, because we have the space and terrain to do so safely.
Oh, and I relocated here from a far more urbanized area. I was a “gun enthusiast” LONG before I ever considered moving to a rural area.
In other words, even if the correlation that rural families are far more likely to be gun enthusiasts than urban families is correct (and it seems to be), that has exactly diddly-squat to do with *causation*. Many people (like myself) are living rurally in part *because* we enjoy being able to shoot without spending an hour in traffic to get to a decent range.
It’s really no more surprising than figuring out that, if you like surfing, you are more likely (all other things being equal) to move someplace with decent surf, rather than continuing to live in Kansas where you grew up.
Unless you have some way of knowing the future, I think you meant 2014 instead of 2018. 🙂
If you did mean 2018, could you give us back in 2014 some stock tips?
Fixed. Thanks.
Sell short. Everything.
Buy physical gold and silver as well.
Why? If a real collapse is coming, all that “physical gold and silver” is going to do is attract the attention of Paco and Rastus, who are going to end up wearing your gold and silver coins, along with your ears, and your wife’s, and your kids’, on strings around their necks.
I’m investing in a different assortment of precious metals: iron, brass, and lead.
After acquiring a handful of firearms and a few thousand rounds of ammo for each, a few dozen hours of training, then hundreds of hours of practice I think it more than reasonable to invest in gold and silver. The situations are rare where having such is a liability.
So this idiot thinks that only “educated” suburban/urban folks should be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights? Because that’s exactly what she’s saying.
By extension, only the people statistically not-as-inclined to exercise their rights should be allowed to do so. Just like they perceive “wanting to own a gun” as a mental illness worthy of “prohibited person” status.
The old term “undesirables” comes to mind.
That’s what gun bans are all about.
It started with laws keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Next came the Sullivan law, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of undesirable immigrants.
Bumpkin, eh? Despite my intentions and efforts, I can only claim to be a suburban bumpkin at this point.
Reading further, I’m not even sure I’d rate scorn, as I consider myself to be a “Repub-litarian” with the emphasis on the the second part of the hyphenated made up term.
It’s also good to know that the deficit doesn’t matter. I guess I’ve been concerned about nothing, after all. Maybe I can be like Tiffany and return to the bubble of the sheep and all their other fantasies.
What a frigging nimrod.
No, not a nimrod (look up the definition). A self-important, poorly educated, intolerant, bigoted, unaware, spite, fearful hate-monger, perhaps, but not a nimrod.
Anyone that says the debt doesn’t matter and believes it has proven they have lost all mooring with reality, because they either hate the young (who will have to pay it back), the old (savers are retirees who’ll get screw if you inflate it away), and people that live wisely (within their means). If they say it trying to dupe their enemies, and they don’t believe it, they are evil connivers and should be summarily removed from the voting rolls, positions of any sort of economic decision-making in corporations or government, and the presence of impressionable children.
To quote the conservative icon, Dick Cheney, “Deficits don’t matter.”
Actually, to put the quote in context, the complete sentence was “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” So, it was really Reagan who PROVED that deficits don’t matter.
This is a conservative idea, not a liberal one.
I don’t care who thinks that. It’s still, at best, a foolish idea.
If she thinks deficits don’t matter, send her a bill.
Context: Regan thought that deficits mattered enormously. He thought the the tax cuts would lead to the dems supporting spending cuts when they saw the huge deficits being racked up. What was being said that is that when you have a relatively small debt to GDP ratio, deficits don’t matter POLITICALLY, because there is still enough strength in the system, and debts are still manageable; the present-value of the political vote-buying benefits greater then the long-term cost, which is past the (political) horizon of the next election. He NEVER meant that no debt of deficit ever matter in the real world. Anyone that says they don’t matter, lib, conservative, or loon, is an idiot.
If interest rates return to their long-term average, and don’t even overshoot, we are looking at a trillion dollars a year just to pay the interest. We’ll have to borrow money to pay the interest on our borrowed money. That’s an African kleptocracy situation, regular banana-republic stuff. Brought to you by spending too damn much.
Here’s a quote from Ronald Reagan:
“I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.”
Here’s an analysis of Reagan and the deficit:
http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/ronald-reagan-hypocrisy-the-deficit-spending-anti-free-market-conservative/
One – That line strikes me as a very obvious joke.
Two – He thought that we would be growing out of them. His tax cuts spurred growth, and tax revenues soared. But he hadn’t counted on congress raising spending even faster.
Three – If he truly thought they didn’t matter, then he would have spent even more, because why not?
Four – Short and long term are two very different beasts. Short term, putting off the credit card payment by making a minimum payment this month isn’t a big deal; do that every month and the interest will destroy you.
Five – If he actually thought it didn’t make a difference in the general sense, ever, then that’s one thing he was wrong about, just like everyone else that ever uttered such a stupid thing. But I don’t think he really did think this, sound-bites and out of context quotes aside.
The best shot I ever saw at my local range is a surgeon that plays in their shooting league. My god, the man had hand control. 2.5 inch group at 50 feet. Most impressive thing I have ever seen. Hands of steel. I am pretty sure he’s not that dumb. “Othering” makes it so much easier to hold on to your emotional constructs.
Did you mean 50 yards or 50 feet? 2.5″ at 75 feet (25 yards) is pretty good. 2.5″ at 50 yards would justify an “oh my God that’s good”, both for the shooter and the handgun.
Growing up in something or a rural setting, we always considered “city kids” to be ignorant, flabby, weak, pale and unable to cope. They were no fun. You ended up spending most of your time waiting for them or trying to explain things to them. They’d insist on going home or they’d end up crying, or both. You didn’t want to take a city kid out playing because it would be no fun at all and you’d probably end up being yelled at my his mom. (Why am I reminded of Chuck Schumer at this point?)
Therein lies the problem. Those who cannot cope have extreme envy (and fear) of those who can cope. It can drive a person insane, and often does.
We were always amazed at the terror city kids had when confronted with cattle.
Well, I may not have gone to one of them fancy Ivy League places to get a degree in Ancient Aztec Gender Studies or Feminism 101, but…
I started reading at 2 1/2 years old. IQ? 155. SAT’s? 98th percentile.
So, Tiffany, any time you want to match wits with this ‘rural bumpkin,’ let me know and I’ll knock back a fifth of JD, drop three hits of purple microdot and smoke two bowls beforehand, just to make things fair…to you. 🙂
When did you take the SAT? Before 1995?
Regardless of actual score, percentiles still mean things. 98th percentile means that only two out of every hundred taking the test scored better than he did, whatever that score happens to be (the way they have scored it has changed several times). Generally, as more and more people have taken it because more are “college bound,” more lower scores have been added compared to higher scores. Being top X percentile meant more, the further back you go, because you were being compared to a smaller slice of “near the top” kids.
Read this: http://2-bit.com/misc/satcalc.html
After 1995, it became easier to get a perfect 1600 score on the test.
According to Wikipedia: “The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile.[28]”
So, date matters.
To calculate your IQ here: http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm, you need a pre-1995 SAT score (or one of the other test scores).
YO. He gave a PERCENTILE. Not a SCORE. You /do/ know the difference, right?
Rolf, I’m trying to figure out how the test changed.
In 1990, 1.2 million people took the test and 10 got perfect scores. In 2004, 1.38 million people took the test and 939 got perfect scores. So — there aren’t that many more people taking the test, at least not enough to account for hundreds of perfect test scores. Are kids really that much smarter these days?
“Are kids really much smarter?”
Perhaps we are finding out new ways to teach individuals so they understand concepts in a shorter amount of time…?
Ubu — when someone says “98th percentile” in refernece to a metric, they mean that they were equal to or ahead of 98% of those so measured.
The actual SCORE doesn’t matter, nor when the test was given — what WOULD matter would be if the *population* dramatically shifted – not in “test scores” (as if they renormed the test), but in actual *tested ability*.
Someone who is scoring in the 98% percentile on a standardized test of intelligence and education is as smart or smarter (in the values being tested) than 98% of the population. The bell curve representing “smart rates” hasn’t really changed that much in the 88 years the SATs have been around.
Before 1980.
Wraith; that should be “…them thar fancy Ivy League places…” Git yer grammar right, yo? Let’s try again;
“I ain’t never done went t’ none o’ them thar fancy Ivy League places, nohow. Now whar’s m’gun, dammit!?”
You see how much better it flows? “Them” can be nebulous, or distant, whereas them thar (them there) makes it obvious that you refer to an immediate, specific, “them”. Jeeze, didn’t you a larn nothin’ when you was a pup?
I’m an IT professional… most of the guys at my local Range are educated men. Plenty of doctors and lawyers among the folks who shoot there.
My best buddy is a mechanical engineer, LOVES to shoot. He likes to go to competitive matches. Me? I’m an amateur. Last time I tried to shoot competitively I was dead last.
Funny. Navy Trained Electronics Technician, trusted enough (Top Secret Clearance) to help “Shoot” 16 Polaris or Poseidon Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles from MY “Guns” (U.S.S. John Marshall/U.S.S. Ulysses S. Grant) in the 70’s and 80’s, currently living in the ‘Burbs with a History Degree in my Pocket and a wife who has a Computer Science Degree in hers.
And my Uncle handed me a Rifle at the age of Ten, and I’ve been Shooting ever since. So Tiffany No-Brains, keep in mind some of us have more Trigger Time than you have Breathing Time, and do YOU know the Math to calculate Wind Drift, Terminal Velocity, Muzzle Velocity, Ballistic Co-Efficients, etc.? Heck, you don’t even know what those Terms MEAN! Dummy.
Pingback: "Most gun owners in this country are rural bumpkins who don’t have any education at all." | The Gun Feed
That’s exactly what I want people to think. It provides a tactical advantage when they underestimate my intelligence and abilities.
The only problem is when someone underestimates you that much, then they think they can get away with doing something stupid. And while you might be able to sort their shit out there’s ALWAYS some collateral damage (literal or figurative) from the fallout.
There’s a reason why rattlesnakes have rattles, after all.
Their imagined superiority means a lot to them, let them have it. It’s worked great for them so far. No?
Look who it managed to get ensconced in the Whitehouse, the ultimate empty chair who thinks extremely highly of himself.
Whatever. If you need me I’m just going to sit at the computer and keep designing interplanetary spacecraft.
I’m not at all surprised, The Waffen SS had the exact same outlook towards the Russian Partisans, right up until they got their ash’s handed to them
I just put together 60’s, and 64’s before that. Yep, they let dumb people do that.