Hunters Richer than "Assault Weapon" Owners?

[Ben]

Quote from the linked article on the Zumbo debacle. Wonder where MSNBC came up with the statistic??? I could buy two Savage 110s, a Mossberg pump, and a 10/22 for what my M1A cost me. But what do I know --  hunters (and I am one) all use $5000 doubles, and "Assault Weapon" owners obviously live in trailer parks.

------------------
They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/

[Gewehr98]

Ben, just one question.

Are you a "Fudd"?

[Lee]

I noticed that to.  I don't doubt it though.  Hunting is not an inexpensive hobby for most folks,and I would guess that the "typical" hunter is older.  See the Jeff Foxworthy video about deer hunting.  For a lot of folks, lobster would be cheaper by the pound if you account for all the extraneous equipment purchased.

[Manedwolf]

I noticed that to.  I don't doubt it though.  Hunting is not an inexpensive hobby for most folks,and I would guess that the "typical" hunter is older.  See the Jeff Foxworthy video about deer hunting.  For a lot of folks, lobster would be cheaper by the pound if you account for all the extraneous equipment purchased.

That depends on what you're trying for. A SKILLED hunter looking for food could go out with a K-31 and bring home a deer to put in the freezer. Plenty of people in the depression went hunting with surplus trapdoor springfields.

Trophy hunting seems to the sort where people require $2000 magic rifles and scopes with magnification greater than the Hubble. Or perhaps it's just bragging rights, showing off your gear?


And sorry, if someone needs a $1000 rotary deer feeder to attract deer to where their out-of-shape behind will be parked in a $300 "400-lb-capable" tree stand with cooler and heated seat, they're not exactly what I'd call "a hunter". I regard that as canned hunts, too.

[Ben]

Ben, just one question.

Are you a "Fudd"?

No, I'm an Elmer. 

[K Frame]

Text of a message I just sent to the author of the article (which originated at the Washington Post):

Mr. Harden,

Regarding your article about the furor caused by Outdoor Life writer Jim Zumbo, I have one question to ask, and one point to make.

Question: Your article claims that "...hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash."

I'd like to know the basis for this statement; where this information came from. Is it actually backed by factual information collected either inside or outside the industry, or is it speculation?

Point: You repeatedly used the term "assault weapon" or "assault-style" in your article.

Semi-automatic rifles that look like military-issue firearms are most emphatically not assault rifles.

An assault rifle is capable of either semi-automatic or fully automatic operation. Fully automatic firearms are heavily regulated by Federal and state laws, and not a single legally owned fully automatic weapon (machine gun, submachine gun, or assault rifle) has ever been used by a civilian in the commission of a crime in the United States.

I applaud the balance that is given to both sides in your article, and ask only that you adjust your terminology so that it is equally correct and balanced.

Thank you,

M. R. Irwin
NRA Life Member
Hunter
Owner of numerous military-style semi-automatic firearms


I, personally, doubt very much the claim that "hunters" are richer than owners of semi-automatic rifles of the type Zumbo was yelping about.

I think it's a matter of perception generated by people such as Jim Zumbo and other outdoor writers who tend to write about fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime hunt to Wyoming, Alaska, or Africa.

Most of the hunters I grew up with would laugh at the concept of their being rich.

[Manedwolf]

Text of a message I just sent to the author of the article (which originated at the Washington Post):

Mr. Harden,

Regarding your article about the furor caused by Outdoor Life writer Jim Zumbo, I have one question to ask, and one point to make.

Question: Your article claims that "...hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash."

I'd like to know the basis for this statement; where this information came from. Is it actually backed by factual information collected either inside or outside the industry, or is it speculation?

Point: You repeatedly used the term "assault weapon" or "assault-style" in your article.

Semi-automatic rifles that look like military-issue firearms are most emphatically not assault rifles.

An assault rifle is capable of either semi-automatic or fully automatic operation. Fully automatic firearms are heavily regulated by Federal and state laws, and not a single legally owned fully automatic weapon (machine gun, submachine gun, or assault rifle) has ever been used by a civilian in the commission of a crime in the United States.

I applaud the balance that is given to both sides in your article, and ask only that you adjust your terminology so that it is equally correct and balanced.

Thank you,

M. R. Irwin
NRA Life Member
Hunter
Owner of numerous military-style semi-automatic firearms


I, personally, doubt very much the claim that "hunters" are richer than owners of semi-automatic rifles of the type Zumbo was yelping about.

I think it's a matter of perception generated by people such as Jim Zumbo and other outdoor writers who tend to write about fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime hunt to Wyoming, Alaska, or Africa.

Most of the hunters I grew up with would laugh at the concept of their being rich.

There's also the fact that he was GIVEN those rifles by a sponsor. People who have sponsored anything have far more toys to play with than they could afford on their own income.

That applies to all sorts of things, especially expensive things like cars and boats and airplanes. All those magazine-cover cars you see, the "owner" is basically driving an assemblage of parts sponsorships. Best reply on a performance car board I'm on, for example: "I'm wanting to install a turbocharger...what's the first thing I should look for?" "A sponsor."

[Lee]

Good grief...we're talking generalities here.  I live an hour from Appalachia.  There are people there who haven't ever held a job, and probably have never purchased a hunting license.  The artlcle is saying that generally, hunters and hunting organizations are better financed.  Is there a "Tec 9 Unlimited" organization, that wines and dines politicians?   

[K Frame]

It's a generality being presented as a FACT.

And I damned well want to know the basis for it.

I spent 3.5 years inside the National Rifle Association on staff at American Rifleman magazine, and the donation figures and statistics I saw during my time there certainly don't GENERALLY lend creedence to that claim at all.


But, maybe it's also GENERALLY a fact that hunters are sophisticated, debonaire men about town, bulwarks of their communities, and owners of these so called terrorist rifles are nothing but knuckle-dragging Dylan Kleibold wannabes who are just waiting for a good chance to shoot the *expletive deleted*it out of the Winn-Dixie.

[Declaration Day]

Most of the shooters I know own both "sporting" arms for hunting and military-style firearms.  Of the ones who own only one or the other, I see no correlation between their shooting interests and income.

[Perd Hapley]

Is there a "Tec 9 Unlimited" organization, that wines and dines politicians?   

Of course.  Where have you been?  We meet every third Tuesday at the Vineyard.  Dick and Trent will be joining us this coming April.  You should come on out.  Call my secretary, she'll give you the details.

[Ben]

I spent 3.5 years inside the National Rifle Association on staff at American Rifleman magazine, and the donation figures and statistics I saw during my time there certainly don't GENERALLY lend creedence to that claim at all.

I was just going to post a reply asking you about that. The NRA obviously wants to be efficient and try and target "big money" donors as well as the $35/yr people. Do they / have they ever done demographic studies for funding targets? Seems like those would be the most accurate statistics to prove or disprove the claim.

[Manedwolf]

Is there a "Tec 9 Unlimited" organization, that wines and dines politicians?   

Of course.  Where have you been?  We meet every third Tuesday at the Vineyard.  Dick and Trent will be joining us this coming April.  You should come on out.  Call my secretary, she'll give you the details.

Tec-9? I'm picturing MD 20/20 in a paper bag, and McDonalds.

[K Frame]

I spent 3.5 years inside the National Rifle Association on staff at American Rifleman magazine, and the donation figures and statistics I saw during my time there certainly don't GENERALLY lend creedence to that claim at all.

I was just going to post a reply asking you about that. The NRA obviously wants to be efficient and try and target "big money" donors as well as the $35/yr people. Do they / have they ever done demographic studies for funding targets? Seems like those would be the most accurate statistics to prove or disprove the claim.

At the time I was there, the answer is yes. As I recall it was relatively simplistic at the time, but I understand that NRA has really gotten into the art of member demographics as both a method of fund raising AND as a method of rallying the troops depending on chosen areas of interest.

[Lee]

This past week has amazed me.  A single dumbass writer posts some idiodic drivel  on a blog and suddenly everyone who doesn't hunt starts calling every hunter a an elitist FUDD.   
As Declaration Day said

Most of the shooters I know own both "sporting" arms for hunting and military-style firearms.  Of the ones who own only one or the other, I see no correlation between their shooting interests and income.

That description fits the vast majority of us all. 

Mike I was posting my reply at the same time you were.  I didn't even get to read your until now.

I was buying SKSs by the bunch back when they were $70.  I've owned nearly every surplus rifle that there is and still own a few.   

I respect your recollection of your NRA days, but that still does not account for the $millions, if not $billions spent on the activites of hunters....including travel, lodging, food, permits, gear, etc.

[K Frame]

"I respect your recollection of your NRA days, but that still does not account for the $millions, if not $billions spent on the activites of hunters....including travel, lodging, food, permits, gear, etc."

Then provide FACTUAL information, in dollars and cents.

DON'T speculate out your arse and expect it to have any true traction.

Can you say, FACTUALLY, that non-hunting owners of semi-automatic military style rifles DON'T spend money?

Can you do a FACTUAL dollar-dollar wealth comparison among the two groups?

If you can't, you're only GUESSING.

Yes, hunters spend money. But do the spending habits of hunters automatically make them WEALTHIER?

No. That's what's being disputed.

Not that one group spends X dollars collectively.

The statement made in the Washington Post article draws DIRECT collelations between the relative personal wealth of two groups of individuals.

So please, everyone, get that through your heads. What is spent is NOT directly corrleative to wealth. 

Here's one other fact that of which you (and everyone else) may, or may not, be aware...

Non hunting gunowners provide significant support to the hunting community every time they purchase a firearm or ammunition via the excise taxes that are levied on firearms and ammunition sales in the United States.

Doesn't matter if the rifle is AK-47 clone, an SKS, or a Remington 700 -- the Pittman-Robertson excise tax supports activities that directly support sport hunting.

Yes, hunters contribute billions to the economy every year, but does that mean that, as has been claimed, hunters are generally RICHER?

No, it doesn't.


I'm really shocked that Jim Zumbo didn't stop and think about those aspects of the so-called "terrorist rifles" that he hates so much.

Those rifles, and their owners, have provided a lot of support to him over the years and have allowed him to get rich and famous.

To me, that's perhaps the most reprehensible thing about the statements he made.

[Lee]

The Tec 9 jumped into my head when posting due to the fact that it was THE gun I lusted for as an impressionable 21 year old.  After re-considering my first handgun purchase as an adult, I ended up with a P-38 instead.  I love all guns, but I don't see that my collectiing and shooting of ARs, AKs, FAls and such have really contributed that much to the economy, or shooting sports in general. 
My hunting habits on the other hand, have significantly.  And I'm a VERY low budget hunter. A "safari" for me includes driving to and from Zanesville OH twenty times a year.

[Lee]

No I can't - can you?  I never said they did.  I said I imagined they did. 
I Said  -  "I noticed that to.  I don't doubt it though.  Hunting is not an inexpensive hobby for most folks,and I would guess that the "typical" hunter is older"  Does that sound conclusive? 
It sounds like you may have the time and resources to follow up on that  - so go for it. 

[Lee]

Here's one rleated article...now...I hereby swear and testify before God and Assault Web, that I have NOT thoroughly researched these numbers, or the validity of this web-page.

http://www.mainehuntingtoday.com/magazine/articles/Remington/huntersworth.html

In 2001, there were 13,034,000 hunters in America. According to the survey I referred you to before, in retail sales of equipment alone, hunters spent $24,708,970,000 (yes that is billions of dollars). That averages out to each hunter spending $1895.73 on hunting gear per year.

When factoring in effects of what the hunting community does to a local economy, it is even more staggering. Jobs that are created total well over half a million. For every 25 hunters who go in the woods, one new job is created. When you add in the salaries and wages paid to employees necessary for hunting, along with gas dollars spent and all state, local and federal tax dollars generated, hunters contribute $67,568,137,514 to the United States economy. Thats only for one season. My friends a fellow hunters. I would like to be the first to announce that you are contributing $5,183.99 to our economy each year you buy a hunting license and go into the woods to hunt.

[Lee]

Mike - just make sure your numbers do not reflect $ spent by anyone who aimed the muzzle at an animal this year.

[K Frame]

You're still missing the point, Lee.

Zooming far over your head.


None of those figures eqate or show any direct correlation to relative group wealth as was claimed in the Washington Post article.


All of this has been very fun, but I need to get ready to go to dinner with a hunter - Mtnbkr.

Imagine that, a rich erudite hunter like him, and a knuckle-dragging, poor assault rifle owner like me hanging out together.

[mtnbkr]

Imagine that, a rich erudite hunter like him, and a knuckle-dragging, poor assault rifle owner like me hanging out together.

Every once in a while I feel the need to go slumming.  Don't forget the MD20/20.

Chris

[Lee]

I get the point.  And I just stated that his assumption MAY be correct, based on $ spent by the hunting group.  I would think that dollars spent MIGHT line up with dollars earned as well...but of course that's not always the case these days.

Anyway...enjoy the MD20/20 and each other's company!!

Edited to add: 
Those people are typically the ones who put their time and money where their mouth is.  I agree with the author that the evil rifle proponents are a vocal bunch -but where is the organization and where are the $. And what steady, regular,  impact have they had on our elected officials over the years?
 
My original intent kinda got lost in the rhetoric...but the author stated "If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes,..".
I personally have seen few organized non-hunting gun groups.  I tend to think of these http://www.myoan.net/hunting/orgs.html
I'll admit, there are a couple of heavy hitters in there...but how many members are exclusively non-hunters? 

ASA053      Archery Shooters Association
BM0052      Buckmasters
CSF001      Christian Sportsmen's Fellowship
DU0076      Ducks Unlimited
FWIS58      Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
HSSH93      Hunting & Shooting Sports Heritage Fund
ITA059      International Archery Federation
IBO060      International Bowhunting Organization
MDF001      Mule Deer Foundation
NAA062      National Archery Association
NHA032      National Hunters Association
NRA064      National Rifle Association
NSSF65       National Shooting Sports Foundation
NWTF66       National Wild Turkey Federation
NAB069      North American Bowhunters
PF0070      Pheasants Forever
PBHS01      Professional Bowhunters Society
QU0073      Quail Unlimited
RMBS01      Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society
RMEF74      Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
SCI075      Safari Club International
TRGS33      The Ruffed Grouse Society
USSA03      U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
WTU078      Whitetails Unlimited
       

[SteveS]

Most of the shooters I know own both "sporting" arms for hunting and military-style firearms.  Of the ones who own only one or the other, I see no correlation between their shooting interests and income.

My experience, too.  Personally, I know some hunters that are very well off.  They go on hunts all over the world, own large tracts of "hunting" land, and have expensive gear.  OTOH, I know a few people that are really into Class III stuff and they easily spend just as much as the well-to-do hunters. 

[Lee]

Me to.

My point (which I'm apparently terrible at making... is)
Money = clout = political benefit
This is not just about direct contributions to the NRA or GOA or JFPA.

When known variables are at risk -politicians tend to react.  They know that hunters spend millions or even billions of $ in their states and that it effects the economy on numerous levels...from GRITS to GUNS and everything in between.  They know that hunters tend to be an effective political group...and they also know that hunters are generally pro-gun overall, and they will vote that way, in spite of a few Zumbos.
The threat of losing that "grits to guns" money is real to them.  They react more to that than they do to Wayne LaPier or Web based groups.  Does someone who spends 50K on a machine gun worry a politician when he threatens to move out of state...or boycott the state firing range?   Hmmm ...what would be your guess?