Dances With Dogs: Guns and Nudity (part 2)

Warning: This blog entry contains a light hearted discussion of nudity, a subject that many people find offensive. If you are offended by nudity, discussions of nudity, guns, or free speech, you may not want to continue reading.

However, if you like nudity, or at least discussions of nudity, or just want to find out what bizarre and off the wall things I have to say, then by all means continue reading.

In Guns and Nudity (Part 1) I stated that I was mostly discussing nudity because nudity was more fun to discuss.

This may, or may not be true. After doing a bit of statistical research, however, I have discovered that guns may be more popular than nudity.

According to the data, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has a membership of 5,000,000. In contrast, the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) only has 50,000 members.

This means there is a 100:1 gun to naked ratio!

Simple Mathematics?

Now this ratio is somewhat off, because it does not take into account NRA members who are also card-carrying nudists (although I'm not sure you can really have card carrying nudists - where would they keep their wallets?). However, using some basic math...

OK, maybe not so basic.

Using some advanced mathematics, we can make a reasonable estimate of how many nudist/gun nuts are out there.

Nation wide, we estimate about 786.

Kind of a scary thought, huh? What this means is (statistically) if you live in a city of half a million, an the average you would have 7861 gun enthusiasts and 78 nudist (one of which was packing a gun).

One of the advantages
of being a nudist gun-
enthusiast is that you
never have to bother
about getting a permit
to carry a concealed
weapon.

Now the numbers I came up with are estimates, based on a branch of mathematics called "statistics". Statistic is a fuzzy science, as the numbers can easily manipulated by omitting data that would give results contrary to the desires of the statistician.

The "wrong" hands

I have always wondered: Is Obama
deliberately lying to us, or does he
actually believe the crap he is saying?

In the wrong hands, statistics can be used for sinister purposes, such as misleading millions of Americans into believing absolute untruths.

Consider: Statistics from the White House indicate that the Affordable Care Act is not only popular, but working better than was originally expected.

Another indicator of the popularity of guns versus nudity is magazine subscriptions.

According to data from the Alliance for Audited Media, the most popular gun magazine is The American Rifleman #33 on the top 100 magazines (based on circulation) with 1.93 million readers. Playboy, the most popular nudity magazine (and the only one on the top 100 list) was #59 with 1.26 million readers (Although some may not be "readers" in the traditional sense).

And it gets worse:

#52, with 1.4 million readers, is Golf Magazine - which means more people would rather Golf than look at nudity.

And over 2,000,000 read TV Guide (#28) - which means more people would rather sit at home and watch TV than shhot guns or look at nudity.

Although many of the TV watchers are probable naked, or partially naked. I bet there are more nude TV watchers than nude gun shooters.

And #18 is The Oprah Magazine.

Draw your own conclusion from this.

Now, this might not be conclusive evidence as to the popularity of puns as opposed to the popularity of nudity, but it does tend to indicate that people would rather look at guns than look at nudity.

However, this may not be entirely accurate as it only considers printed media and does not take into account electronic media.

I bet when Hugh Hefner dies,
nobody is going to say "He
has gone to a better place."

In 1995, Playboy's circulation was around 5 million. Now, twenty years later, it has declined by 75% and the reason for this is the World Wide Web. Because of the preponderance of porn on the Internet, many Playboy readers have declined to renew their subscriptions.

Why pay for it, when you can get it free.

In a previous blog entry entitled Where Are the Aliens? I hypothesized that online porn (specifically icky porn) was the reason we have not been contacted by the extraterrestrials.

Now it appears that it has adversely effected Hugh Hefner's empire.

Poor Mr. Hefner. After all he has dome for humanity.

Yeah, right. Poor Hef is just suffering, isn't he?

Actually, do you know what the most popular nudity magazine is?

You mean it's not Playboy?

If you stretch the definition a bit (OK, a lot) the most popular nudity magazine, # 8 of the top 100 magazines with just over 4 million readers, is National Geographic.

And if you don't believe NatGeo is a nudity magazine, you were never a pre-pubescent male.

Before we could get ahold of Playboy or Penthouse (or worse), there was NatGeo. Unless you where your dad hid his stash in the garage, you rarely saw a Playboy.

National Geographic was available in the library.

Seriously. Does nobody in Liechtenstein

ever get naked?

NatGeo was (and still is) noted for its photography, and as kids we (pre-pubescent males) looked forward to articles (and photos) about third-world countries in which the natives wore nothing, or at least nest to nothing. As kids, we waited eagerly for the next issue to arrive. Sometimes our waiting would be rewarded with another well researched photo-essay on a third world African, South American, or Indonesia country.