User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 8:58:36 AM EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/06/some-of-the-most-conservative-states-rely-most-on-federal-government-aid/?postshare=8891452666318826&tid=ss_fb
Five states are among both the 10 most conservative and the 10 most reliant on federal funds. Four states are among both the 10 most liberal and the 10 least reliant on federal funds. The most reliant states tend to collect less revenue on their own and house larger poor populations, the Tax Foundation notes. I guess someone has to pay for the Welfare recipients right?  Seems like the article is misleading in terms of who's on Welfare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:00:17 AM EDT
[#1]
That article insults me, not as a conservative, but as a policy analyst.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:08:05 AM EDT
[#2]
So five out of ten and four out ten. Sounds like about an even split to me. Amazing how they can spin things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:09:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Article is retarded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:13:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Several southern states are in fact the poorest and biggest users of welfare/federal funds per capita.
But that might have something to do with the end of an agrarian economy and the failure of northern reconstruction? What party ran the south for over a century after the American civil war? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:19:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Democrats are obsessed with this topic and most of these studies are atrocious in their assumptions and ridiculous in their conclusions.
Feds spend more money in a red state than comes out in federal tax revenue? Well, clearly reds states are comprised of un-sophisticated poor white trash. It of course has nothing to do with population densities and the inherently higher wages (and costs of living) in large cities. But according to "progressives" those poorly populated states with lower overall wages should be responsible for covering all federal expenditures within their states. 20 million New Yorkers have to cover the cost of Fort Hamilton ("FortLOL"), but 3 million Utahans should pay enough in federal taxes to cover the cost of Hill Air force Base (+ 6 or 7 other military installations) while having nearly half of it's lands generating money for the Feds, not Utahans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:27:14 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Several southern states are in fact the poorest and biggest users of welfare/federal funds per capita. But that might have something to do with the end of an agrarian economy and the failure of northern reconstruction? What party ran the south for over a century after the American civil war? In Texas is has a shit ton to do with our neighbor. 
Every state has FSA, there is no escaping it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:33:13 AM EDT
[#7]
So this means there are FSA liberals in conservative states? Wow, I bet there are even some conservatives in California and New York!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:35:06 AM EDT
[#8]
I'd be very interested to see how the breakdown of the 'Federal Grants-in-Aid' go.
If it's a bunch of funding for highways, etc....that's a whole lot different than the feds paying for medicaid, supplementing welfare funds, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:36:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So this means there are FSA liberals in conservative states? Wow, I bet there are even some conservatives in California and New York! I think you'd be surprised how many FSA in Red States vote Republican (so long as the Republican doesn't attack their place at the trough). Republican-dominated States really do need to wean themselves off from the Feds and run their own shows and cut down on the Provider State in general (which is a basic conservative principle and also the basis for the original conservative opposition to Social Security and Medicare). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:37:06 AM EDT
[#10]
I'd be interested in seeing that map overlaid with one showing demographics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:39:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Good to know. I'm still rebuilding my donk, and need the .gov to sponsor me. Perhaps just the paint job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:41:37 AM EDT
[#12]
So the liberals don't want to pay their fair share.
I've had this discussion on another board, and boy do they hate to hear it. What it really comes down to is they don't want their taxes being redistributed to people who aren't going to vote for Democrats. Point out that what they're doing for their own constituency isn't charity but rather vote farming and they piss their pants. This is the same group that will complain about the Republicans using the term "welfare queen" but they feel the same way themselves about welfare bubba. They don't really believe in progressive taxation and a social safety net, they just know that's the cost of doing business if they want certain demographics to vote for them. They really don't like to hear that shit, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:53:14 AM EDT
[#13]
It's like the main users of abortion: religious minded people who would rather not have people see their daughters as sluts.
But yes, red states have huge welfare expenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 9:57:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/06/some-of-the-most-conservative-states-rely-most-on-federal-government-aid/?postshare=8891452666318826&tid=ss_fb Five states are among both the 10 most conservative and the 10 most reliant on federal funds. Four states are among both the 10 most liberal and the 10 least reliant on federal funds. The most reliant states tend to collect less revenue on their own and house larger poor populations, the Tax Foundation notes. I guess someone has to pay for the Welfare recipients right? Seems like the article is misleading in terms of who's on Welfare.It's very misleading. Those states are historically poor, and had Democrat government from the Civil War on up until the 1980s at least in most cases. South Carolina for example, had Dem controlled Governorship and legislature from the Civil War until Carrol Campbell was elected in 1987, so that's 120 years of Democrat control. The other thing, is that reconstruction's effects on southern states were felt well into the 1930s, and then with the depression, the south , already in the hole, was first to suffer the most. It took another 30 years to dig out. The other thing that was prevalent in the South, and a democrat tradition, was the good ole boy network. Unless you lived in the south before the 1990s you wouldn't understand the hold and power it had. Entire families , many very, very hard working, were kept from good jobs, blackballed, by already powerful and connected families. It's still that way to some extent. A well respected family's word can keep someone from being able to build a house, or get a loan at a local bank, or a job / job promotion. Hell, that word could keep you in jail with no evidence. If your family was black, or if your great grandpappy got caught with a powerful man's great grandpappy's wife, or ran over his dog, whatever the reason for the grudge, you'd be libel to feel the effects of it. I'm lucky my family was not one of the ones that was kept down, but I know a lot of them that were. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 10:01:32 AM EDT
[#15]
This comes along every election cycle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 10:02:44 AM EDT
[#16]
OK. Cut off all welfare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 10:04:28 AM EDT
[#17]
Feel free to stop being so kind to us, masser.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 10:04:32 AM EDT
[#18]
Up is down. Black is white.
1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 10:05:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK. Cut off all welfare. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:27:42 AM EDT
[#20]
In 4 butthurt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:31:16 AM EDT
[#21]
Shouldn't they do this by cities? Newark? Detroit? Brooklyn?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:39:34 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/06/some-of-the-most-conservative-states-rely-most-on-federal-government-aid/?postshare=8891452666318826&tid=ss_fb Five states are among both the 10 most conservative and the 10 most reliant on federal funds. Four states are among both the 10 most liberal and the 10 least reliant on federal funds. The most reliant states tend to collect less revenue on their own and house larger poor populations, the Tax Foundation notes. I guess someone has to pay for the Welfare recipients right? Seems like the article is misleading in terms of who's on Welfare.Is this another one of those threads were some doofus tries to make the argument that there are more Conservatives than Liberals collecting welfare? Are you sure you want to go there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:41:43 AM EDT
[#23]
Wapo, no agenda or lies there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:44:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shouldn't they do this by cities? Newark? Detroit? Brooklyn? This is a common misconception - that inner city blacks are the largest consumers of direct public aid. The bulk of the money goes to rural whites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:46:37 AM EDT
[#25]
They should do an analysis of it by congressional district.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:47:15 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Up is down. Black is white. 1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 11:56:34 AM EDT
[#27]
1)Conservative states that have no state income tax still have taxation whether it's property or sales taxes. 2) Conservative states with no state income tax still pay into the Federal income tax system and are thus eligible for funds. So is this study saying that conservative legislators are better at bringing Federal tax dollars back to those states or that liberal states already have enough granted subsidies from the Federal level?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:01:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They would not compare "favorably" to much of Appalachia or poor rural areas in the west. This is a common misconception - that inner city blacks are the largest consumers of direct public aid. The bulk of the money goes to rural whites. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shouldn't they do this by cities? Newark? Detroit? Brooklyn? This is a common misconception - that inner city blacks are the largest consumers of direct public aid. The bulk of the money goes to rural whites. No it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:05:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. Cut off all welfare. I like your plan 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:07:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Hm, all that tells me is that those states have the most to complain about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:13:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They should do an analysis of it by congressional district. http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m542/swolf318/Political%20Geography/UnitedStatesHouseofRepresentativesElection2012byDistrict_zpsb1ca52af.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:15:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hm, all that tells me is that those states have the most to complain about. This. When you see Bubba getting his check for "back pain," or D'rachelmika getting her check for "fiber my alga," and has a Cousin Eddie while you are working 40+ hrs/week it tends to make people vote a little more conservative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:18:20 PM EDT
[#33]
If you zoom in on the most population dense areas of Texas those counties generally are blue. I would bet a more granular look at where the money is going would reveal the opposite of what the article is trying to push.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:18:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Are people still pretending that federal dollars are only welfare, and the actual numbers include all federal spending including highways, national parks, federal offices for hundreds of agencies, and military bases and all of their personnel? Is that why DC is conveniently left out?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:22:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So five out of ten and four out ten. Sounds like about an even split to me. Amazing how they can spin things. Not to mention conservatively run states don't hand out money by the bucket full like my socialist wonderland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:23:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Texas is has a shit ton to do with our neighbor.
Every state has FSA, there is no escaping it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Several southern states are in fact the poorest and biggest users of welfare/federal funds per capita. But that might have something to do with the end of an agrarian economy and the failure of northern reconstruction? What party ran the south for over a century after the American civil war? In Texas is has a shit ton to do with our neighbor.
Every state has FSA, there is no escaping it. don't you read arfcom? there's not 100s of thousands of illiterate people flooding into TX from Mexico and then having 10 kids each the big problem is the Mystery Yankees, the invisible phantom army of Yankees that shows up and ruins virtually everything Invisible people from Rhode Island and Wisconsin are the problem, not Mexico |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:26:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Several southern states are in fact the poorest and biggest users of welfare/federal funds per capita. But that might have something to do with the end of an agrarian economy and the failure of northern reconstruction? What party ran the south for over a century after the American civil war? Not to mention, where are major defense installations located, and where are major amounts of the land off the tax base due to federal parks, forests, preserves, "monuments", etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:27:08 PM EDT
[#38]
They count money used in the space program and weapons development for places like Huntsville the same as money for people that don't work. It's totally dishonest and has already been debunked. But Liberals just can't stop perpetuating Lies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:31:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Up is down. Black is white. 1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point:  ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:35:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Looks similar to this map
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:39:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be interested in seeing that map overlaid with one showing demographics. Of course you would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:40:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Corporate welfare > FSA welfare.
Don't believe me? What was QE 1-3 about and do you enjoy your less than 1/2 gallon of ice cream, higher beef prices, samller bag of potato chips? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:44:52 PM EDT
[#43]
I don't get the point of the article.
A bunch of conservative states receive a lot of federal aid... so what? Are they trying to show that it's hypocritical of conservative states to receive federal aid? That's real retarded sir. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:44:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Up is down. Black is white. 1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. I know it is a "drop" in the bucket. The totals, and not the per-capita numbers are what libs use to obfuscate everything. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/6-myths-welfare-recipients-debunked/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:45:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Corporate welfare > FSA welfare. Don't believe me? What was QE 1-3 about and do you enjoy your less than 1/2 gallon of ice cream, higher beef prices, samller bag of potato chips? Direct public assistance is low hanging fruit for politicians, that's the only reason it's talked about so often. Corporate welfare is rarely discussed by politicians for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:47:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Up is down. Black is white. 1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! Total numbers, not % of each demographic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:50:20 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Up is down. Black is white. 1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. Drop in the bucket? I guess you define welfare differently than I do. All total welfare spending makes up nearly 60% of the federal budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:51:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Up is down. Black is white. 1) Poor whites receive more public benefits than poor blacks on a per capita basis. It would surprise me if there's not a higher incidence of fraud in the white population as well. I guarantee you that lots of fraudulent white beneficiaries do a lot of bitching about how blacks abuse the system. 2) I get the philosophical objections to welfare and the like, but fiscally it's a drop in the bucket. If we ended all direct assistance programs tomorrow, it wouldn't make a noticeable improvement in government finances. Public assistance is a big political issue, but it's not really a big budget concern. This kind of thing is where the "voting against their own interests" thing comes originates. LOL! WUT? Is this satire or do you just make things up and state them as facts? Or perhaps I am completely misreading your post! A higher percentage of blacks receive assistance than whites, but in terms of actual dollars whites receive more. The per capita thing appears to be incorrect. Also, the "other" category - Injuns (not to be confused with Indians), Hispanics, etc. collect a lot of public assistance. As to the fiscal drop in the bucket part, I stand by it. It's practically nothing from a budgetary standpoint. Food Stamps aren't the only program out there, but this is indicative of my point: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png ETA - I hate that HuffPo tagged this chart - the numbers are from the USDA. Well, yeah, we have an enormous population. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:56:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Several southern states are in fact the poorest and biggest users of welfare/federal funds per capita. But that might have something to do with the end of an agrarian economy and the failure of northern reconstruction? What party ran the south for over a century after the American civil war? Those Yankees kept people in the south from building factories for 150 years? how about that what can one bubba do against so much reckless hate? how did they do it? set up concentration camps and stick all the lawyers, engineers, bankers and businessmen in them? immediately arrive with bulldozers and knock down any factories in Georgia? agricultural production in the USA goes up about 2% a year, farms are making about 2.7x as much product today as they were in 1948 so the 270% increase in farm production is why the south is poor? why does North Dakota have a per capita income of $55,000 and Michigan, the original factory laden rust belt state have a per capita income of $35,000? who voted for all those dixiecrats that ran the south? it wasn't the residents of those southern states, was it? it's wasn't bubba voting for democrats like a robot by any chance? Let's never know anything or use any logic because hating Yankees feels sooooo gooooooooood |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2016 12:56:20 PM EDT
[#50]
How long has this "studies show" article been around?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
