Gun ownership hits new low

[rshoemaker]

Its funny because a good friend of mine who is way left swinging, used to be anti gun, just bought himself a mossberg because he recently became a victim of a crime and was worried that the next one could be in his home.

 

[Mark W.]

Don't you guys have to get a stamp or Class 3 or register FA or SBR or "Real Cans" ?

YES we do and the Tax stamp is a federal thing not a State thing. There is no gun registration in the state of Oregon. That said yes there are lists of guns and owners held for periods of time. But there is no actual gun registration in Oregon.

 

[Jamie6.5]

For God's sake, gentlemen!!
"pollsters?" Are you serious?? Do you think of the University of Chicago faculty as "pollsters?" These people are so far beyond the average people in their expertise, experience, methodology, and review processes that they make all of us look like yokels!

Gentlemen, you and I are totally, completely, indisputably outclassed by the scientists who have spent decades creating the GSS. At least I know it.

For GAWD's sake Chemist!
I have been a "pollster," for an economist. The people that do the number crunching rarely if ever do their own polling.
The "scientists" (AKA statistical analysts) don't do the polling. They are supplied data (sometimes "raw" data, sometimes "filtered") by the "pollsters." They do their number crunching thing, and regurgitate the results.

Just because they used peer reviewed methodology in their analysis doesn't mean the data they received was unbiased, or even close to reality.
Just because they are more mathematically astute does NOT mean they are without agenda.

Given that this/these results are coming out of the city with the most stringent gun regs in the nation, where political corruption is known to be rampant, where the ruling class prefers it's subjects disarmed,...
I see lots of potential for bias in both the data collection for the analysis, and the analysis itself.

Are college and university professors, regardless of IQ or education, above bias where guns are concerned?
I would say no.
(Of course we could "poll" them and find out!)

If you would say yes, then I'll sell ya time shares in a bridge!

 

[Trlsmn]

I still can't find the actual poll, anyone have a link to it? how do I know that VPC interpreted the data fairly unless I look at it myself. Chemist have you looked at the actual poll?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I don't buy it.. I know many people who have armed up after getting to know more about firearms and shooting via contact with my associates and I.. and the latest obongo/lefty congress situation has resulted in the greatest binge buying in US history

 

[Ought Six]

John Lott's Website

Here is a preliminary response to the study by researcher John Lott.

 

[tionico]

I don't doubt sales have gone down since the buying frenzy in 08-09. The prices reflect that. But that doesn't mean gun ownership hits a new low. It just means folks armed themselves already.


funnyb thing... in EVERY MONTH since about two weeks before the obummernation, NICS figures show a monthly year-on-year increase in background checks called in. The increases I've seen run anywhere from about 5% to 10% increase over the same month of the previous year. Bear in mind, that is only the raw number of NICS check forms being called in. Remember, up to five firearms can be called in on the same form... and the data aggregates make no indication of how man firearms are on each FBI Background Checks.. Nor do these NICS figures include private party sales....

I rather suspect not as many households are TELLING them anything...

I've stood in line at Cabelas and watched as folks are lined up filling out the NICS form to purchase their first firearm. I was at an Appleseed shoot last November and several on the line were new shooters.... never fired a long gun before. Good.. they were starting out right.

 

[4Freedom]

Didn't I hear gun ownership as at a record high?? Even sporting good stores that once detested guns and focused on fitness products now are hosting giant gun sections and even a nice selection of ARs. I just went to Sports Authority and they had a lovely selection of S&W M&P 15s AR-15s, along with a couple others. Also, Sports Authority now is undercutting Wal-Mart on ammo prices. I can get a box of 50 rds of 9mm Winchester WWB at Sports Authority for $11.99 which is less than what Wal-Mart, which is selling them for like $13.00-$14.00.

Anyhow, people need to just see through liberal propaganda and this is no exception. The Huffiington Post is hardly are reliable news source anyhow. I think it rivals the Star and Daily Sun for authenticity in its news articles. Seriously, what type of weirdos read the Post for any unbiased and serious news reports?

The reason the Huffington Post released this article is that more and more average Joes are becoming gun owners and more and more people are purchasing "deadly, evil-assault type weapons", which the liberal/anti-gunners are determined to put to an end. So, of course, they need their liberal propaganda media outlet, such as the Post, to assure the people, that gun ownership is bad and that very few people are really doing it. Yeah right..

 

[Steve32]

That's nice and all, but those numbers are irrelevant. Firearms sales did not increase because more people bought firearms. They increased because the same people that already owned firearms bought more of them.

No. All the news about guns and interview with gun store owners were all about how people who had no guns before buying guns.

(I had no firerams 15 months ago. Now I have 3.)

 

[tionico]

Good work, there, Steve 32. I only had two before "the election"..... a thirty year old Ruger 10/22 carbine, and a forty year old Ithaca off-brand 12 bore pump.. buth somewhat rusted from poor storage but functional. Had never fired a handgun in my life. Now I;ve got somewhere near thirty of each.. short ones, long ones.... big ones, little ones. Carry a handgun everywhere. Buying another long gun today from a friend.... a gorgeous Swede Mauser 6.5 x 55 Carl Gustav, 1942....... near mint, near new bore. Had one safe given me by a friend who was moving back east.. filled it over capacity, bought another like it, its overfull now, got stuff stashed here and there.... more coming.

Someone asked if I'm suffering from a bad case of hoplophilia, and I responded "no, I'm not suffering at all.. fact is, its great fun and very fascinating". Learned a lot about history, as well......

Oh, and 4Freedom, thanks for the tip on Sports Authority.. last I'd been in one of those they were king of the hill for footie gear, exercixe machines, running shoes... sort of like Big 5 on steroids. Never did like the attitude in most WalMarts at the gun counter... most of the clerks there seem to have the heebie jeebies even getting close to all those "dangerous" things, and seemed to be interested in infecting me with their malady. Bi Mart are FAR better in that regard... most of their gun counters are run by fine old gents who've been shooting since they were knee high to a rat terrier. And never hesitate to talk their favourite subject.... their prices are about as low as I've seen anywhere, too. And they had stuff, though with purchase restrictions, when hardly anyone else did.

 

[tionico]

way back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, I took a college class in statistics.... wherein we all were astounded to learn statistics to be a "science" uniquely useful in that any foregone conclusion can be "authenticated" and "substantiated". Yes, folks, statistics CAN, and DO, lie.... and statisticians are the experts at figuring out how to "prove" anything they've a mind to prove.

You are correct...... before putting much stock in any "statistical analysis" I'd want to read the questions asked the polled population, AND view the composition of the population itself. Ask the same set of rigged questions of five different "sample populations" and you can prove five different things. And the folks in Chicago know well how to do this. All statisticians begin with a premise, which typically flows from an agenda they're on about. Or they are suppplied with these by the one writing the check, and set about "proving" the foregone conclusion.

Science, indeed.... VERY predictable. Just not much at portraying reality.

 

[chemist]

I am deeply, truly embarrassed by what I read here.

Yes, the University of Chicago is one of the finest institutions on Earth, and their methods and peer review are entirely above reproach. If you know what you're doing, you can sample a thousand carefully selected individuals and predict the norm for the whole population. That's basic to statistics, and the issue is sampling, not the validity of the concept.

I'm no sock puppet, but I do have a Ph.D. in Statistical Mechanics. I chose Stanford over Harvard for my graduate work, but I couldn't possibly have gotten into U. of Chicago or Cal Tech - I'm not good enough.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it untrue, invalid, or otherwise worthy of dismissal. Conversely, just because you like a message doesn't mean that the underlying arguments are logical or rational. I don't like the POTUS either, but I know he was born in Hawaii.

This antipathy toward intellectual processes that I read here is the opposite of civilization itself. Why, if you don't believe smart people are smart and statistics work, would you trust your life to drive in a car or ride in a plane designed and developed by such individuals, using said methods?

In a nutshell, this refusal to accept reality is behind our national disgrace. The Deliberately Ignorant elect clowns who lie to us, and the Arrogantly Ignorant deride people who tell us the truth about our country, our economy, and our personal responsibility as citizens. Heck, our great nation even elected one of the Arrogantly Ignorant to be the previous POTUS. Anybody still think that was a good idea?

It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother.

The trouble is, when I talk to anti-gun people and they point to the kind of slack-jawed, slapdoodle cracker peckerwood drivel that appears with appalling regularity on many gun forums, how can I respond? "We're not all morons, promise!" I frankly don't blame them for being scared of trusting willfully blind fools with guns.

 

[Grunwald]

I am deeply, truly embarrassed by what I read here.

........ I don't like the POTUS either, but I know he was born in Hawaii.
.............

Actually you DO NOT know he was born in Hawaii.
You accept as fact the assertion that he was born in Hawaii. There is a big difference.


I hate to say it, but that is not a very impressive display of logic from someone who claims to have a Ph.d in a scientific field.
I'm only armed with a BS in Computer Science, and can make swiss cheese out of your arguments.

 

[Trlsmn]

I am deeply, truly embarrassed by what I read here.

Yes, the University of Chicago is one of the finest institutions on Earth, and their methods and peer review are entirely above reproach. If you know what you're doing, you can sample a thousand carefully selected individuals and predict the norm for the whole population. That's basic to statistics, and the issue is sampling, not the validity of the concept.

I'm no sock puppet, but I do have a Ph.D. in Statistical Mechanics. I chose Stanford over Harvard for my graduate work, but I couldn't possibly have gotten into U. of Chicago or Cal Tech - I'm not good enough.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it untrue, invalid, or otherwise worthy of dismissal. Conversely, just because you like a message doesn't mean that the underlying arguments are logical or rational. I don't like the POTUS either, but I know he was born in Hawaii.

This antipathy toward intellectual processes that I read here is the opposite of civilization itself. Why, if you don't believe smart people are smart and statistics work, would you trust your life to drive in a car or ride in a plane designed and developed by such individuals, using said methods?

In a nutshell, this refusal to accept reality is behind our national disgrace. The Deliberately Ignorant elect clowns who lie to us, and the Arrogantly Ignorant deride people who tell us the truth about our country, our economy, and our personal responsibility as citizens. Heck, our great nation even elected one of the Arrogantly Ignorant to be the previous POTUS. Anybody still think that was a good idea?

It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother.

You post as though a diploma makes for some kind of invincibility shield of righteousness, honestly and "untouchability". I have news for you the difference between the educated corruption and uneducated corruption is just the scale of the scam!

The trouble is, when I talk to anti-gun people and they point to the kind of slack-jawed, slapdoodle cracker peckerwood drivel that appears with appalling regularity on many gun forums, how can I respond? "We're not all morons, promise!" I frankly don't blame them for being scared of trusting willfully blind fools with guns.

Wow, I don't need to say anything more than you just said to prove my point, look how low you just stooped, quite sophisticated of you!





P.S. BTW I've asked you 3 times in this thread to show me the actual GSS study where this data was "Analyzed" from, so far I've heard nothing but silence, now you want to throw up your pedigree to prove your point? Please tell me you haven't relied on VPC's analysis of the data as your source for making your case here?

Please provide a link to the data, not just your word.

 

[BroncoFan]

I am deeply, truly embarrassed by what I read here.

This antipathy toward intellectual processes that I read here is the opposite of civilization itself. Why, if you don't believe smart people are smart and statistics work, would you trust your life to drive in a car or ride in a plane designed and developed by such individuals, using said methods?

In a nutshell, this refusal to accept reality is behind our national disgrace. The Deliberately Ignorant elect clowns who lie to us, and the Arrogantly Ignorant deride people who tell us the truth about our country, our economy, and our personal responsibility as citizens. Heck, our great nation even elected one of the Arrogantly Ignorant to be the previous POTUS. Anybody still think that was a good idea?

It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother.[/I]The trouble is, when I talk to anti-gun people and they point to the kind of slack-jawed, slapdoodle cracker peckerwood drivel that appears with appalling regularity on many gun forums, how can I respond? "We're not all morons, promise!" I frankly don't blame them for being scared of trusting willfully blind fools with guns.

[/I] [/QUOTE]Maybe a couple advanced courses in Reasoned Discourse might have served you a little better because I don't think you're addressing logically the arguments being made here.
Our various government intelligence agencies have cray supercomputers at their collective disposal that likely could have (and did) statistically pinpoint UBL's location with exacting accuracy, but it took them 10 years and human intelligence to get it right. I'm sure they had several different outcomes and had to decide on a certain course or courses of action based upon the inferential statistical process developed from the data they had. Therefore it takes person to interpret the data and send people down the various rabbit holes. How many Phd's were wrong before they got it right?

 

[billdeserthills]

My copy of GunDigest May 23-11 shows that the March figure of 990,000 weapon checks up 15% from March of 2010 figure of 861,408

 

[Stomper]

I am deeply, truly embarrassed by what I read here.

Yes, the University of Chicago is one of the finest institutions on Earth, and their methods and peer review are entirely above reproach.

Sounds like a bunch of elitists slapping each other on the back... above reproach from whom?

If you know what you're doing, you can sample a thousand carefully selected individuals and predict the norm for the whole population. That's basic to statistics, and the issue is sampling, not the validity of the concept.

Yeah.. "carefully selected"... I read that as, "rig it to support our premise". That is the absolute antithesis of what TRUE SCIENCE is. ("antithesis"; see us knuckle dragger's can use four-syllable words too.)

I'm no sock puppet, but I do have a Ph.D. in Statistical Mechanics. I chose Stanford over Harvard for my graduate work, but I couldn't possibly have gotten into U. of Chicago or Cal Tech - I'm not good enough.

Wow... a Doctorate in a philosophical discipline analogous (wow, another four-syllable word!) to an engineer. I've found the vast majority of engineers to be dumber than a box of rocks (outside their field), they're just really good at math.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it untrue, invalid, or otherwise worthy of dismissal. Conversely, just because you like a message doesn't mean that the underlying arguments are logical or rational. I don't like the POTUS either, but I know he was born in Hawaii.

Its not that we "don't like something", its just that most of us know a pant-load when we see it. Its like p0rn... there's no clear LEGAL definition of what it is, but we know it when we see it. As for the "birther" thing... please. BHO went up against the CLINTONS in the last election, if there was something there, THEY would have brought it out in the primary election waaaaaay back when.

This antipathy toward intellectual processes that I read here is the opposite of civilization itself.

Yeah, look how well the "intellectual processes" worked for Robert Strange McNamara and his MIT "wiz kids" when prosecuting the Vietnam war, when what they REALLY needed to do was let the "knuckle draggin' TACTICAL GENIUSES in line units (like I used to be... yeah I'm real humble about my past skills, eh?) beat the snot out of the enemy and get it done with... but that wasn't a factor in the "intellectual processes", and they got SPANKED by poorly trained/fed/equipped guerillas. McNamara was responsible for the institution of systems analysis in public policy, which developed into the discipline known today as policy analysis... just look at the state of our nation now... antipathic towards "intellectual processes" you say? You bet your arse I/we are!

Why, if you don't believe smart people are smart and statistics work, would you trust your life to drive in a car or ride in a plane designed and developed by such individuals, using said methods?

First of all, not all "smart people" are "dumb". I drive my car with confidence because I'm smart enough to tell the vehicle is soundly constructed, operating properly, and maintained. Additionally, I AM in control of it when I operate it. Then there's the issue of product and negligence liability, if these schlubs produce a faulty product or are negligent in their maintenance (in the case of aircraft) they'll loose their arses financially in a (class action) lawsuit, and/or be prosecuted for negligence.

Then the "icing on the cake" against your argument... cars and planes are not designed and built based upon a lame telephone poll asking "humans being" (WHO LIE) a series of "loaded questions", they're built upon engineering priciples based on PHYSICS that have been scientifically proven by trial and error over time. They must have skipped "critical/logical thinking and debating skills" in the "Statistical Mechanics" curriculum.

In a nutshell, this refusal to accept reality is behind our national disgrace. The Deliberately Ignorant elect clowns who lie to us, and the Arrogantly Ignorant deride people who tell us the truth about our country, our economy, and our personal responsibility as citizens. Heck, our great nation even elected one of the Arrogantly Ignorant to be the previous POTUS. Anybody still think that was a good idea?

It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother.

I agree with your comments about the electorate, but you don't see someone who flaunts a "sheepskin" from a "higher learning" institution, and regards the possessors of said "sheepskin" as "infallible gods" as ignorant?

The trouble is, when I talk to anti-gun people and they point to the kind of slack-jawed, slapdoodle cracker peckerwood drivel that appears with appalling regularity on many gun forums, how can I respond? "We're not all morons, promise!" I frankly don't blame them for being scared of trusting willfully blind fools with guns.

You just have to point out that there is slack-jawed, slapdoodle cracker peckerwood drivel that appears with appalling regularity on "anti-gun" forums as well, and how would they like to be "stereotyped" based on the words and actions of a few boneheads on "their side". So they are more afraid to trust a few "willfully blind fools with guns" (I assume you are referring to use intellectually (holy cow... that's SIX syllables!!) antitheticals in this thread) than the willfully blind fools running this country?

I could go on, but if I keep slapping you upside the head like this your head will get "more pointier" than your PhD has already made it. Anyone have a toothpick? I have one of Chemist's ribs stuck in my teeth!

 

[billdeserthills]

Wow Stomper, I hope I don't find a way to get you mad at me

 

[Mason3379]

Hard to believe it is at an all time low when gun sales have been at an all time high!!?? Really makes no sense at all.

 

[billdeserthills]

Hard to believe it is at an all time low when gun sales have been at an all time high!!?? Really makes no sense at all.

Only makes sense to an Anti-gunner