On Monday, April 15, 2013 10:55:55 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:34:53 -0500, "Pete C."

wrote:





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.



"The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our

surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our

December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in

early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A

January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a

gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the

General Social Survey."



Next time, read it before expounding your conclusions, Ok?





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.



See above. It squares quite nicely with Pew's studies. And if you know

how the GSS is seriously "flawed," you can become famous.







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.



Bad guesswork on your part. Studies like the GSS pre-test and

post-test six ways to Sunday. They've thought of, and tested and

corrected for, potential biases that you haven't even considered.



And you run into situations like this: Pro-gun people who talk before

thinking, or who talk before studying, constantly cite the Kleck study

on defensive uses of a gun. For God's sake, that's a self-reported

survey with no pre-test checks, and Kleck estimates up to 2.5 million

defensive uses. It's interesting that his estimates for burglary

defenses work out to more than 100% of the burglaries committed with a

homeowner in the house g, but aside from that, what better evidence

do you need that people are MORE than willing to brag about having a

gun at home? Some of them claimed they've used their guns in defense

of their home dozens of times...



So your comment about my "assumptions" being "deeply flawed" are taken

with a large grain of salt. I'm not making assumptions. I've actually

done the work, both academically and in actual field studies, for

marketing clients and for others who were satisfying government (FCC)

requirements.



How many surveys have you done?



--

Ed Huntress

Ed,
How you be so very SURE of these surveys... If oyu haven't physically went to a local sportng store, gun store, etc.. And actually asked them, if THEY are getting in all this ammo?

You seem convinced that ALL of it is getting snatched up by hoarders.
No outlet that I can find is getting in ANY significant amount.

They cannot get it!
Go, ask, find out first person.

Your sacred research report is pointless, if it doesn't reflect physical realty, but only represents the party line point of view.

Most sectors of the country, the shops are NOT getting it in.
No one can be hoarding it if it is NOT available.

Tell us what YOU find out locally, not what your researchers tell you to believe.