In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:38:08 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Ed,

I tried to send this to huntres23, but the mailbox is full, so I'll
post in on RCM.

Sorry, Joe. The mailbox is full because it doesn't exist. g My
apology. I have to start again to indicate my real address. Delete the
"3" from the one you have. That's my real address.

OK


In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:41:22 -0700, "max headroom"
wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote in
:

On 7/22/2015 8:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:25:21 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Two points:

[snip]

2. They were CCW holders. Which of course is on record and the
assumption is that they would have firearms in the home. If the folks
had not had CCW records on file, I wonder what the participation would
have been.

Wrong question. These people *agreed* to participate, and were
specifically selected *because* they are CCW permit holders.

And from whom were their names obtained?

The government. They knew lying would not keep them off any list of
gunowners they were already on.

Some of you seem to have mistaken how this study was done. First, it
wasn't a unique study. It was a seeded test *within* the 2001 National
Gun Policy Survey (NGPS).

No one except the test designers knew who the CCW holders were. No one
except them even knew there *were* CCW holders seeded among the random
sample. The interviewers didn't know and the interviewees didn't know.

This was a completely double-blind test. The people who held CCW
permits had no reason to believe they had been chosen because they had
carry permits -- and no reason to know that anyone involved with the
research even knew they had them.

So the results are pretty persuasive.

I have the complete study in PDF format, if you have any questions
about it.

I'd be interested. Thanks,

Joe

Email address is good.

Ok. Off it goes...

Got it. Thanks. Will read.

Joe Gwinn