Many fewer U.S. gun owners

[/MSG/]

Its a damn shame you live up north. Those are decent transfer fees. I pay $20 to $25 on long guns.

I only maintain a license to do transfers right now. But I'm the cheapest game in town, the only gun store around here that does transfers charges $50.

 

[WinterBorn]

some genius called guns his portfolio, stocks are the highest returning asset class period.
Now if guns crank your shaft, great. Some guy's like woman for that.
not hollier than though, fuck that. Richer than though

I have a woman who does that quite well, thank you.

I'm glad you have your net worth. But I choose to enjoy my life AND prepare for my retirement. I know plenty of people who are richer than me, as far as money goes. Damn few that are any happier though.

 

[WinterBorn]

waisting money on guns like cars inhibits one's abilty to accumulate a real portfolio. In laymans terms, keeping up with the Joneses or in your case the Bubba's kills ones net worth.

Very few people buy guns to increase their net worth. I buy them because I enjoy shooting and hunting. But there are not many sports that you can resell the used sporting gear for more than you paid for it.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You are big on wanting people's personal info, aren't you?

I assumed his interpreter would be able to vouch for him. My mistake.

 

[WinterBorn]

I assumed his interpreter would be able to vouch for him. My mistake.

Would it matter if I did? You asked for verification of his FFL.

When you whine about me being his interpreter, it makes it look as though you somehow thought this was a one-on-one conversation. You do understand the concept of a public forum?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Cool story Legion.

I'd like to acquire a blunderbuss, so I could name it after you. Since you have - again - claimed to know who I am, then go ahead and run a check on me, and debit my bank account for whatever funds will cover your expenses. If you are clairvoyant and know my identity, that shouldn't be an issue, should it?

Cite.

Perhaps the dwindling population of gunlovers borrow, sell assets or make other sacrifices in order to feed their hysteria-induced buying.

Here's your citation: per·haps/pərˈ(h)aps/Adverb, used to express possibilty.

As has also been shown, the increase in guns sold are not primarily hunting guns, nor are they marketed as such. So the decline in hunting (and you've only shown it to be on the decline in certain states, not all states) is irrelevant as to the number of guns sold.

It's declining nationwide. That is irrelevant to the number of guns sold, but it does kinda put a crimp in any gunlover's rationalization that guns are tools, unless you want to claim you're going to feed your family with a non-hunting weapon when the 'apocalypse/revolution/insert rightwing fear fantasy here' comes.

Also irrelevant..

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted, and will be regarded with the gravity it merits.

I still dispute the validity of the study, as it hasn't been duplicated by other studies and uses statistical flaws to determine its conclusion, along with the suspect impartiality of the group doing the study in the first place.

Yet you cannot list those purported "statistical flaws", and again 'attack the messenger', which to seems to place your disputation on an even more suspect footing.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Would it matter if I did?QUOTE]

You seem to have a low opinion of your personal credibility. I guess you know yourself best.

You asked for verification of his FFL.

I did?

Here's what I said: "Naturally, attempting to verify that "St Adolphus" has a valid FFL at https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/ is not problematic for you?"

Had I wanted to verify his FFL, I would have asked him, not you. You may want to have your comprehension skills checked by a professional.

When you whine about me being his interpreter, it makes it look as though you somehow thought this was a one-on-one conversation. You do understand the concept of a public forum?

I do, which is why I found it odd that you took it upon yourself to speak for him when you said "That is not what he said at all."

 

[/MSG/]

I'd like to acquire a blunderbuss, so I could name it after you. Since you have - again - claimed to know who I am, then go ahead and run a check on me, and debit my bank account for whatever funds will cover your expenses. If you are clairvoyant and know my identity, that shouldn't be an issue, should it?

It says your account was declined due to insufficient funds.

Perhaps the dwindling population of gunlovers borrow, sell assets or make other sacrifices in order to feed their hysteria-induced buying.

Here's your citation: per·haps/pərˈ(h)aps/Adverb, used to express possibilty.

So a baseless claim and trolling? Cool story Legion.

It's declining nationwide. That is irrelevant to the number of guns sold, but it does kinda put a crimp in any gunlover's rationalization that guns are tools, unless you want to claim you're going to feed your family with a non-hunting weapon when the 'apocalypse/revolution/insert rightwing fear fantasy here' comes.

Hunting is not the sole use of a gun, and as I stated earlier, many guns sold are perfectly suited for hunting, even though they are not marketed as such. And please show me where you mentioned that it is declining nationally.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted, and will be regarded with the gravity it merits.

Do you have any other evidence? Hinging your entire premise on a single study with these sort of flaws isn't exactly the best sort of argument.

Yet you cannot list those purported "statistical flaws", and again 'attack the messenger', which to seems to place your disputation on an even more suspect footing.

[/quote] I've listed them, along with other posters, numerous times. That you continue to ignore it is no ones fault but yours. And attacking the messenger is perfectly acceptable when their credibility in the matter is suspect.

 

[WinterBorn]

Would it matter if I did?

You seem to have a low opinion of your personal credibility. I guess you know yourself best.

You asked for verification of his FFL.

I did?

Here's what I said: "Naturally, attempting to verify that "St Adolphus" has a valid FFL at https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/ is not problematic for you?"

Had I wanted to verify his FFL, I would have asked him, not you. You may want to have your comprehension skills checked by a professional.



I do, which is why I found it odd that you took it upon yourself to speak for him when you said "That is not what he said at all."

The only way to verify his FFL is to have his personal info.

And I simply understood what he said, whereas you did not. Was I wrong? Are you saying that was what he said?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It says your account was declined due to insufficient funds.

Funny, my bank says no such transaction posted. Your statement has been declined due to insufficient truth, however. 2 + 2, and all that.

So a baseless claim and trolling? Cool story Legion.

Hunting is not the sole use of a gun, and as I stated earlier, many guns sold are perfectly suited for hunting, even though they are not marketed as such. And please show me where you mentioned that it is declining nationally.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released preliminary data from its 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, an assessment of participation trends among Americans over age 16, compiled at five-year intervals. Hunter numbers, according to the survey, fell by 4 percent nationwide since 2001. Only 5 percent of Americans now consider themselves hunters.​

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07182/798452-358.stm#ixzz1Lyv4qpsF​

The number of hunters in Utah reflects a nationwide decline in hunting​

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/67452​

If you need more, go back through the thread and read the linked sources. Have fun.

Do you have any other evidence? Hinging your entire premise on a single study with these sort of flaws isn't exactly the best sort of argument.

LOL. How many concurrent studies would render the NORC/UOC GSS valid in your eyes? Basing the premise on one study (that you cannot seem to factually refute) seems better than basing your refutation on vague objections about 'flaws'.

I've listed them, along with other posters, numerous times. That you continue to ignore it is no ones fault but yours. And attacking the messenger is perfectly acceptable when their credibility in the matter is suspect.

I disagree. You've stated that the sample size was too small, but you haven't proven that the sample size makes the study invalid. In fact, isn't it true that many surveys are conducted with smaller sample sizes?

"Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy...so it seems that you are in the minority in that belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

And I simply understood what he said, whereas you did not. Was I wrong? Are you saying that was what he said?

Your willingness to accept statements and claims at face value seems a bit subjective, doesn't it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Your willingness to accept statements and claims at face value seems a bit subjective, doesn't it?

I did not say it was accurate. I simply pointed out that was not what he said. You keep harping on this, and yet you do not seem to disagree with me saying it was not what he said.

 

[WinterBorn]

"LOL. How many concurrent studies would render the NORC/UOC GSS valid in your eyes? Basing the premise on one study (that you cannot seem to factually refute) seems better than basing your refutation on vague objections about 'flaws'.


Since the "study" is based on interviews with 1,500 people, there is no refuting the answers they gave.

What we have both refuted is the use of such a small sample as indicative of the population at large, and the actual accuracy of the statement.

All the study said was that fewer of the 1,500 people interviewed have guns in their household.

 

[Damocles]

I tried to fix quote boxes, hope that helps readability.

 

[/MSG/]

Funny, my bank says no such transaction posted. Your statement has been declined due to insufficient truth, however. 2 + 2, and all that.

We're getting rather long in tooth on this. Obviously I don't have your bank account information, or very much information on you past you being Legion and young but not a college student.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released preliminary data from its 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, an assessment of participation trends among Americans over age 16, compiled at five-year intervals. Hunter numbers, according to the survey, fell by 4 percent nationwide since 2001. Only 5 percent of Americans now consider themselves hunters.​

Noteed.

LOL. How many concurrent studies would render the NORC/UOC GSS valid in your eyes? Basing the premise on one study (that you cannot seem to factually refute) seems better than basing your refutation on vague objections about 'flaws'.

Well I'd prefer to see 2 more studies done with similar results, but at least one would help solidify your claims, which are tentative at best.
I disagree. You've stated that the sample size was too small, but you haven't proven that the sample size makes the study invalid. In fact, isn't it true that many surveys are conducted with smaller sample sizes?

"Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy...so it seems that you are in the minority in that belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/QUOTE]
Stating that a study has a bias towards it isn't an ad hom. I'm attacking the credibility of the study on legitimate grounds, as it may not be impartial with regards to some of its results.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

"LOL. How many concurrent studies would render the NORC/UOC GSS valid in your eyes? Basing the premise on one study (that you cannot seem to factually refute) seems better than basing your refutation on vague objections about 'flaws'.


Since the "study" is based on interviews with 1,500 people, there is no refuting the answers they gave.

What we have both refuted is the use of such a small sample as indicative of the population at large, and the actual accuracy of the statement.

All the study said was that fewer of the 1,500 people interviewed have guns in their household.

Are you aware of the methodology of conducting surveys and polls using random representative samples?

Apparently, the only results that would satisfy you would be a referendum in which each and every American was individually surveyed.

I'm wondering if you'd contend that method was flawed if it confirmed the NORC/UOC GSS.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you aware of the methodology of conducting surveys and polls using random representative samples?

Apparently, the only results that would satisfy you would be a referendum in which each and every American was individually surveyed.

I'm wondering if you'd contend that method was flawed if it confirmed the NORC/UOC GSS.

No, I wouldn't. But I also know that you can manipulate your surveys to show almost anything. That is why the major studies try to use as large a group as they can.

If there were corroborating evidence, I would be happy to concede. But I haven't seen any. In fact, I have seen more reputable evidence disputing the claim.

 

[Topspin]

small sample 1,500 someone didn't take statistics in college, no shit an ambulance chaser.
No wonder you question the Chicago University study, same city that Nigerian lived in.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You know jack shit about me, yet lie about it, and then claim credibility.



Awesome.



If attacking the messenger isn't the logical fallacy you employed, why'd you say it was perfectly acceptable when "their" credibility is suspect?





Each survey from 1972 to 2008 was an independently drawn sample of English-speaking persons 18 years of age or over, living in non-institutional arrangements within the United States. Starting in 2006 Spanish-speakers were added to the target population. Block quota sampling was used in 1972, 1973, and 1974 surveys and for half of the 1975 and 1976 surveys. Full probability sampling was employed in half of the 1975 and 1976 surveys and the 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982-1991, 1993-1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 surveys. Also, the 2004, 2006, and 2008 surveys had sub-sampled non-respondents.



Now, what are you prepared to factually dispute?

 

[Topspin]

Boom goes the dynamite!!!