Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:41:24 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:


But what's really wacky is the idea that they're buying up all the
ammo. It's probably all gun owners.

Of course it's gun owners, the millions of new gun owners who need ammo
for their first time gun purchases.

One interesting comment from a gun
store, published somewhere over the last few weeks, is that ammo
buyers are asking for one caliber; when they can't get it, they ask
for another caliber; some move on to a third or fourth, and when they
can't get that, they start asking for shotgun shells.

This seems to be the work of some "scalpers" trying to speculate on the
market, waiting in line at stores to buy ammo in hopes of reselling it
for a profit. They are soon going to find themselves with ammo they have
to unload at a loss since the market seems to be starting to normalize
again.


How many first-time buyers do you think go out and buy three or four
guns right off the bat? Those are established gun owners, who have at
least several guns.

Nope, those are the scalpers again. There aren't many of them since most
of these scalpers don't have real employment if they can wait in line
every morning at the stores and thus most scalpers have been limited to
less expensive ammunition rather than actual firearms.

It has also been noted that the scalpers who have been buying $900 ARs
at Wal-Mart to try to resell for $1,500 are likely committing felonies
since they are not FFLs and they are purchasing for the express purpose
of reselling rather than for personal use.

All of these anecdotes are interesting, but you're engaging in a lot
of speculation about who is buying the ammo. That's typical of these
discussions. Everybody has a theory, but few have any data to back it
up.

Ultimately nobody has any solid data, and those polls have the least
valid data of them all. Most people don't participate in polls to begin
with, and those that are security conscious and thus more likely to own
firearms are less likely still. The minority gun ownership is
underrepresented since many in those communities get their guns through
illegal sales simply because they don't know how to buy one
legitimately, much like many in those communities have no experience
with fine dining (a subject noted on NPR recently due to a project that
was educating urban youth so they wouldn't be out of their element at a
business lunch).


So we'll wait and see how it shakes out. From some investment reports,
big players are selling gun stocks because they think they're near a
peak and it can't be sustained much longer. But they had a nice run.

I peaked with the first Obummer election and then subsided, peaked again
with Obummer2 and then subsided, now it peaked again with the renewed
attacks by the anti-gun minority and it's showing signs of subsiding
again. Each one of those events has significantly expanded gun
ownership, making the rabid anti-gunners an even smaller minority.

It's clear you've decided what information is convincing to you, Pete,
so there's no point in discussing it further. Once someone dismisses
Pew Research as "crap,"

There has been no Pew research presented, only Pew analysis of the
flawed polls conducted by others.

or swallows the anecdotes and wishful thinking
of people with an interest in propagandizing about trends in gun
ownership even though it flies in the face of one of the largest, most
thorough, and most respected surveys ever done (the General Social
Survey), there's no point.

Sorry bud, that GSS survey is simply flawed, which is one reason it
doesn't square with other polls.


I've been involved in survey research since the '70s, first with TV
license-renewal studies, and then for years with marketing research,
and I know it's fruitless to talk to people who have their minds made
up about top-level poll and survey companies producing "crap."

I'm afraid you're stuck in the mentality that these "social" surveys
follow the same rules as those of product / market research, and this
assumption is deeply flawed. With product / market research those being
polled have no interest in protecting anything private, there are no
personal security implications to whether you use dish detergent X or
watch TV show Y, and those being polled are often compensated for their
time. When you get into "social" research personal security and privacy
come into play and the quality of the data you receive declines
drastically. Many people simply won't participate at all, especially
since "social" research polls usually don't provide compensation, and
for those that do participate they will typically provide less than
truthful information on anything that should be private.