Number of guns in society falling sharply

[jon_berzerk]

Exactly my first thought.
Given the stigma that mainstream America would put on gun owners, I'm sure that there's a significant number of people withholding their true number of guns.

(I have only 2)

Yes, definitely.

But firstly - that has always been the case, so would not change the chart.

Secondly, people chose to take part in this survey. Why do that and then lie?

So in other words those who chose NOT to take part are not included so you have a self selected group of individuals making up the survey representation.

In other words the survey isn't representative, nor robust.

Thank you for clarifying that for us.

exactly

 

[Saigon]

Missourian -

Interesting.....but are you actually suggesting 147.65 million unique people purchased guns in the past 10 years?

Funnily enough, that is exactly the logical fallacy Rabbi was just complaining about!

 

[Saigon]

And no - people phoned by polling agencies are NOT "self selected" (sic). Obviously.

The polling agencies randomly select a cross-section of people from across the country, just as they do with any poll. If people self-selected in this poll, then ALL polls are self-selected.

It always baffles me when someone throws in an obvious red herring as chum, and the hungry salmon cling to it as it if were a life raft.

 

[westwall]

And no - people phoned by polling agencies are NOT "self selected" (sic). Obviously.

It always baffles me when someone throws in an obvious red herring as chum, and the hungry salmon cling to it as it if were a life raft.

Sure they are, they agreed to the poll. That means that those who didn't, weren't counted.
So simple a child could figure it out. Why can't you?

And yes, you are perpetually baffled......

 

[The Rabbi]

Missourian -

Interesting.....but are you actually suggesting 147.65 million unique people purchased guns in the past 10 years?

Funnily enough, that is exactly the logical fallacy Rabbi was just complaining about!

Nice straw man. No, he didnt suggest that. But it isn't the same 10 people buying all those guns either.

But now that your arguments have been shown to be fallacious are you going to admit you were wrong?

 

[jon_berzerk]

And no - people phoned by polling agencies are NOT "self selected" (sic). Obviously.

It always baffles me when someone throws in an obvious red herring as chum, and the hungry salmon cling to it as it if were a life raft.

Sure they are, they agreed to the poll. That means that those who didn't, weren't counted.
So simple a child could figure it out. Why can't you?

And yes, you are perpetually baffled......

he seemed to understand that the other day

 

[jon_berzerk]

Missourian -

Interesting.....but are you actually suggesting 147.65 million unique people purchased guns in the past 10 years?

Funnily enough, that is exactly the logical fallacy Rabbi was just complaining about!

Nice straw man. No, he didnt suggest that. But it isn't the same 10 people buying all those guns either.

But now that your arguments have been shown to be fallacious are you going to admit you were wrong?

the feds do keep track of first time applicants

and those numbers have been at record levels

for quite some time now

 

[The Rabbi]

Missourian -

Interesting.....but are you actually suggesting 147.65 million unique people purchased guns in the past 10 years?

Funnily enough, that is exactly the logical fallacy Rabbi was just complaining about!

Nice straw man. No, he didnt suggest that. But it isn't the same 10 people buying all those guns either.

But now that your arguments have been shown to be fallacious are you going to admit you were wrong?

the feds do keep track of first time applicants

and those numbers have been at record levels

for quite some time now

How do they keep track of that information?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nice straw man. No, he didnt suggest that. But it isn't the same 10 people buying all those guns either.

But now that your arguments have been shown to be fallacious are you going to admit you were wrong?

the feds do keep track of first time applicants

and those numbers have been at record levels

for quite some time now

How do they keep track of that information?

your name is on the data base

if you applied before

 

[The Rabbi]

the feds do keep track of first time applicants

and those numbers have been at record levels

for quite some time now

How do they keep track of that information?

your name is on the data base

if you applied before

Um, no.

 

[jon_berzerk]

How do they keep track of that information?

your name is on the data base

if you applied before

Um, no.

that they do

it is not right but they do

they do not know what you bought

but they do know how many times you have applied

 

[The Rabbi]

your name is on the data base

if you applied before

Um, no.

that they do

it is not right but they do

they do not know what you bought

but they do know how many times you have applied

Um, no they don't.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Um, no.

that they do

it is not right but they do

they do not know what you bought

but they do know how many times you have applied

Um, no they don't.

it is the only way they can know first time buyers

 

[Saigon]

M14 -

Except the three linked studies, of course.

They say nothing of the sort. They claim that the PERCENTAGE of households with guns has declined.

No one is stupid enough to claim the total number of guns has declined.

Except Saigon, who claimed just that.

No, I do not claim that, and have said so on this thread several times.

Please try and post honestly - making up childrens stories isn't terribly compelling.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Um, no.

that they do

it is not right but they do

they do not know what you bought

but they do know how many times you have applied

Um, no they don't.

they do it through

their audit system

--Although the Brady Act mandates the
destruction of all personally identified
information in the NICS associated with
approved firearms transactions (other than the
identifying number and the date the number
was assigned), the statute does not specify a
period of time within which records of
approvals must be destroyed. The Department
attempted to balance various interests involved
and comply with both statutory requirements
by retaining such records in the NICS Audit
Log for a limited, but sufficient, period of time
to conduct audits of the NICS.
The NICS Audit Log will contain
information relating to each NICS background
check requested by FFLs and will allow the
FBI to audit use of the system by FFLs and
POCs. By auditing the system, the FBI can
identify instances in which the NICS is used
for unauthorized purposes, such as running
checks of people other than actual gun
transferees, and protect against the invasions
of privacy that would result from such misuse.
Audits can also determine whether potential
handgun purchasers or FFLs have stolen the
identity of innocent and unsuspecting
individuals or otherwise submitted false
identification information, in order to thwart
the name check system. The Audit Log will
also allow the FBI to perform quality control
checks on the system’s operation by reviewing
the accuracy of the responses given by the
NICS record examiners to gun dealers.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-register-october-30-1998-on-nics

 

[The Rabbi]

that they do

it is not right but they do

they do not know what you bought

but they do know how many times you have applied

Um, no they don't.

it is the only way they can know first time buyers

Wow, circular reasoning.
They dont know first time buyers. No way they could. They destroy the data within 24 hours. Not every state uses the FBI system.
You undersand I am a firearms dealer and run background checks every day, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

They say nothing of the sort. They claim that the PERCENTAGE of households with guns has declined.

No one is stupid enough to claim the total number of guns has declined.

Except Saigon, who claimed just that.

No, I do not claim that, and have said so on this thread several times.

Please try and post honestly - making up childrens stories isn't terribly compelling.

So someone hacked your account and posted this thread, the title of which says exactly that?

Now that you have been shown to be wrong will you admit your error?

 

[Saigon]

Rabbi -

As I explained earlier, the title of the research survey was too long for a thread title, so I had to shorten it slightly.

Anyone who actually read the OP will have seen that both research studies, and my claims based upon those studies, refer to the number of households owning weapons.

 

[westwall]

Rabbi -

As I explained earlier, the title of the research survey was too long for a thread title, so I had to shorten it slightly.

Anyone who actually read the OP will have seen that both research studies, and my claims based upon those studies, refer to the number of households owning weapons.

And the conclusion is simply wrong as anyone with even the slightest experience with survey writing can see easily. Allowing respondents to opt out of the survey skews the results thus rendering them useless for anything but conversation. There is NO scholarly use to them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

As I explained earlier, the title of the research survey was too long for a thread title, so I had to shorten it slightly.

Anyone who actually read the OP will have seen that both research studies, and my claims based upon those studies, refer to the number of households owning weapons.

Now that you have been shown to be wrong will you admit your error?