Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 416
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

Ed,

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


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.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

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.



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...

Ed Huntress
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 416
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

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
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 416
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

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.


I was beginning to wonder.


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...


I've now read it, and have a few observations:

The stated rationale for making this study is to show that the results
of such surveys are correct enough to be used in policymaking.

The claim is that by seeding the sample with CCW holders, they are able
to tell if people on average tell the truth about their gun use and
possession to telephone interviewers who cold call.

Now surveys that poll only a subset of the population are required to
demonstrate that the sample is representative of the larger population
not polled before one may draw conclusions about the population from
such a sample. This is why everything possible is randomized - true
random sampling increases the error band (margin of error) but does not
bias the answer one way or the other.

In other words, the sample must be truly representative of the often
far larger population it claims to represent.

So right away, we have an element of circularity. We are using the CCW
holders (a subsample of the sample) to estimate if the sample at large
tells the truth to interviewers. But CCW holders are already known to
tell the truth to a government (never mind an interviewer), and so
cannot be used to deduce the behavior of non-CCW holders. They are not
a random subset. In other words, this methodology begs the question.

This is a methodological flaw that invalidates that part of the study.


Also, on page 443 it was noted that of 778 CCW holders in the original
contact list, there were 300 interviews (39%), 230 refusals (30%), and
194 people not reached (25%). In round numbers, almost as many refused
to be interviewed as agreed. I don't recall seeing a similar analysis
for the larger full sample (it should be in the referenced studies),
but one would hazard that the refusal rate in the larger sample must be
similar. (This assumes that the CCW holders are a random subset of the
entire sample, which they aren't, but never mind.)

The problem here is that if more gun owners refuse than non gun owners,
the effective sample (those answering) will be enriched with non gun
owners, thus biasing the study in favor of non gun owners. It is
impossible from the published data to estimate how large this bias is
or might be.


Recalling the discussion about the apparent decline in gun ownership
and the change in texture of the curve in 1988, another issue comes to
mind - the politics changed.

If in the 1960s and 1970s you had asked my parents if they possessed
and used firearms, they would have thought nothing of answering
truthfully.

Now days, I'm not so sure. My father later obtained a CCW permit, but
did not carry. Nor was he worried about self defense. His reason to
get a CCW was that the gun laws in Mass had gotten so strange that he
was afraid of making a mistake and getting nailed. A CCW eliminated
that risk.


Joe Gwinn
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

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.


I was beginning to wonder.


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...


I've now read it, and have a few observations:

The stated rationale for making this study is to show that the results
of such surveys are correct enough to be used in policymaking.

The claim is that by seeding the sample with CCW holders, they are able
to tell if people on average tell the truth about their gun use and
possession to telephone interviewers who cold call.

Now surveys that poll only a subset of the population are required to
demonstrate that the sample is representative of the larger population
not polled before one may draw conclusions about the population from
such a sample. This is why everything possible is randomized - true
random sampling increases the error band (margin of error) but does not
bias the answer one way or the other.

In other words, the sample must be truly representative of the often
far larger population it claims to represent.

So right away, we have an element of circularity. We are using the CCW
holders (a subsample of the sample)


Since you're being precise here, the CCW permit holders are not a
subsample. They're a new sample, chosen from the whole body of CCW
holders, and they were added to the original random sample of people.
In the lingo of polling, they are "seeds."

...to estimate if the sample at large
tells the truth to interviewers.


Sort of. The researchers were qualifying their results a bit more
restrictively, but that's the ideal version of what they would like to
have measured.

But CCW holders are already known to
tell the truth to a government (never mind an interviewer), and so
cannot be used to deduce the behavior of non-CCW holders. They are not
a random subset. In other words, this methodology begs the question.

This is a methodological flaw that invalidates that part of the study.


My opinion is that you're asking too much of it, and you're trying to
draw too much from it. The researchers knew the limitations of what
they were trying to do. Basically, the idea was to get a measure of
how truthful people who were *known* to have guns (a CCW permit holder
without a gun is a joke made up by someone in this thread), about the
guns they are known to have. And they got that result.

Anytime you take some modest result like that and try to project it,
one has to ask what it is you're trying to do with this limited
information, and what you would do about it if you had *perfect*
information.

I think that you have some very useful information from that study.
But it doesn't matter how perfect it is, if what you want to know is
how people's truthfulness changes over time. This is a snapshot. If
you think there is some significant change in truthfulness over time,
you'd better design and conduct another study. This one tells you
about CCW holders in 2001.

As for public policy, now they don't have to contend with some
naysayer who would claim "but half of those people wouldn't be
truthful." Now they have a better answer. Trying to narrow it down
much more than that is foolish, but knowing that the large majority of
people in this study told the truth provides enough confidence to do
other studies with a reasonable degree you're not wasting your time.

A lot of policy-making is done that way. A lot of *business policy*
decision making is done that way. You go with the probabilities, and
you hope that you win more than you lose. If you have a real,
practical, and mature sense of statistical studies, you probably will.



Also, on page 443 it was noted that of 778 CCW holders in the original
contact list, there were 300 interviews (39%), 230 refusals (30%), and
194 people not reached (25%). In round numbers, almost as many refused
to be interviewed as agreed. I don't recall seeing a similar analysis
for the larger full sample (it should be in the referenced studies),
but one would hazard that the refusal rate in the larger sample must be
similar. (This assumes that the CCW holders are a random subset of the
entire sample, which they aren't, but never mind.)

The problem here is that if more gun owners refuse than non gun owners,
the effective sample (those answering) will be enriched with non gun
owners, thus biasing the study in favor of non gun owners. It is
impossible from the published data to estimate how large this bias is
or might be.


Again, without this study to give us an idea of whether the "non-gun
owners" are massive liars, you could have a problem. But now you have
somthing that indicates that gun owners are not disproportionate
liars. That's what the seeded sample does for you.



Recalling the discussion about the apparent decline in gun ownership
and the change in texture of the curve in 1988, another issue comes to
mind - the politics changed.

If in the 1960s and 1970s you had asked my parents if they possessed
and used firearms, they would have thought nothing of answering
truthfully.


I don't see how the "texture" of the curve could possibly influence
the result. It was an up-and-down bobbling, within the MOE.


Now days, I'm not so sure. My father later obtained a CCW permit, but
did not carry. Nor was he worried about self defense. His reason to
get a CCW was that the gun laws in Mass had gotten so strange that he
was afraid of making a mistake and getting nailed. A CCW eliminated
that risk.


All in all, combined with the fact that we know we have over 14
million fewer hunters than we would have if the percentages hadn't
changed since 1960, it all points to the idea that we have fewer gun
owners with more guns. You can pick at the statistics but at some
point you have to come down somewhere, and the evidence comes down on
the side of the idea there are fewer gun owners.

From my own experience, it agrees with what I've seen over my
lifetime. But I'm not counting on anecdotal experience to draw a
conclusion.

--
Ed Huntress




Joe Gwinn



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 416
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

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.


I was beginning to wonder.


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...


I've now read it, and have a few observations:

The stated rationale for making this study is to show that the results
of such surveys are correct enough to be used in policymaking.

The claim is that by seeding the sample with CCW holders, they are able
to tell if people on average tell the truth about their gun use and
possession to telephone interviewers who cold call.

Now surveys that poll only a subset of the population are required to
demonstrate that the sample is representative of the larger population
not polled before one may draw conclusions about the population from
such a sample. This is why everything possible is randomized - true
random sampling increases the error band (margin of error) but does not
bias the answer one way or the other.

In other words, the sample must be truly representative of the often
far larger population it claims to represent.

So right away, we have an element of circularity. We are using the CCW
holders (a subsample of the sample)


Since you're being precise here, the CCW permit holders are not a
subsample. They're a new sample, chosen from the whole body of CCW
holders, and they were added to the original random sample of people.
In the lingo of polling, they are "seeds."


Yes, I know. That actually makes it worse - the subsample is even more
different than the sample it is to represent.


...to estimate if the sample at large
tells the truth to interviewers.


Sort of. The researchers were qualifying their results a bit more
restrictively, but that's the ideal version of what they would like to
have measured.

But CCW holders are already known to
tell the truth to a government (never mind an interviewer), and so
cannot be used to deduce the behavior of non-CCW holders. They are not
a random subset. In other words, this methodology begs the question.

This is a methodological flaw that invalidates that part of the study.


My opinion is that you're asking too much of it, and you're trying to
draw too much from it. The researchers knew the limitations of what
they were trying to do. Basically, the idea was to get a measure of
how truthful people who were *known* to have guns (a CCW permit holder
without a gun is a joke made up by someone in this thread), about the
guns they are known to have. And they got that result.


Yes, that is what they were trying to measure. The question is if they
found a tool capable of measuring any such thing.

Begging the question is a pretty fundamental problem.

..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


Anytime you take some modest result like that and try to project it,
one has to ask what it is you're trying to do with this limited
information, and what you would do about it if you had *perfect*
information.


Well, the authors' stated purpose was to inform policymaking, so it is
worthwhile to figure out if their study has any ability to answer the
question they posed.

Otherwise, we run the risk of misinforming those policymakers.


I think that you have some very useful information from that study.
But it doesn't matter how perfect it is, if what you want to know is
how people's truthfulness changes over time. This is a snapshot. If
you think there is some significant change in truthfulness over time,
you'd better design and conduct another study. This one tells you
about CCW holders in 2001.


Yes. It tells one about CCW holders in 2001, and about a different
population of largely non CCW holders, but cannot tell you how to
compare data from one group with the other.


As for public policy, now they don't have to contend with some
naysayer who would claim "but half of those people wouldn't be
truthful." Now they have a better answer. Trying to narrow it down
much more than that is foolish, but knowing that the large majority of
people in this study told the truth provides enough confidence to do
other studies with a reasonable degree you're not wasting your time.


I'm not convinced that this can silence the naysayers, for the reasons
we are discussing.


A lot of policy-making is done that way. A lot of *business policy*
decision making is done that way. You go with the probabilities, and
you hope that you win more than you lose. If you have a real,
practical, and mature sense of statistical studies, you probably will.


In other words, we go with gut instinct, not data? The problem with a
"mature sense of statistical studies" is that it is subjective (we all
believe that we are the mature one), which puts us right back where we
were before the studies were done.


Also, on page 443 it was noted that of 778 CCW holders in the original
contact list, there were 300 interviews (39%), 230 refusals (30%), and
194 people not reached (25%). In round numbers, almost as many refused
to be interviewed as agreed. I don't recall seeing a similar analysis
for the larger full sample (it should be in the referenced studies),
but one would hazard that the refusal rate in the larger sample must be
similar. (This assumes that the CCW holders are a random subset of the
entire sample, which they aren't, but never mind.)

The problem here is that if more gun owners refuse than non gun owners,
the effective sample (those answering) will be enriched with non gun
owners, thus biasing the study in favor of non gun owners. It is
impossible from the published data to estimate how large this bias is
or might be.


Again, without this study to give us an idea of whether the "non-gun
owners" are massive liars, you could have a problem. But now you have
somthing that indicates that gun owners are not disproportionate
liars. That's what the seeded sample does for you.


Hmm. Massive mendacity is not required.

It wouldn't take extraordinary mendacity to tilt the results enough to
explain the results. Nor would it take much refusal to be interviewed
to cause sufficient enrichment of the sample, and we know we have both
effects, but don't have any way to tell how widespread this is. And
this study cannot answer the question.


People do tend to be economical with the truth when polled. I recall
an amused article from maybe 30 years ago on estimating magazine
circulation by telephone polling people: The polls showed that
magazines like Time and Newsweek and The Atlantic were the top sellers,
but audited circulation figures told a very different story: the
tabloid scandal magazines outsold these upstanding publications by a
factor of ten. (You probably have more recent examples.)

The extreme example would be a survey trying to estimate how many
people use illegal drugs by calling them up on the phone and asking.
It's only a felony.


Recalling the discussion about the apparent decline in gun ownership
and the change in texture of the curve in 1988, another issue comes to
mind - the politics changed.

If in the 1960s and 1970s you had asked my parents if they possessed
and used firearms, they would have thought nothing of answering
truthfully.


I don't see how the "texture" of the curve could possibly influence
the result. It was an up-and-down bobbling, within the MOE.


..http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

The change in plot texture is significant and quite apparent to the
eye. The question is what caused the change.

My prior speculation was that Gallop changed its polling methodology.

To that I now add the observation that the politics had also changed,
arguably in such a way as to reduce the effectiveness of polling by
biasing it.


Now days, I'm not so sure. My father later obtained a CCW permit, but
did not carry. Nor was he worried about self defense. His reason to
get a CCW was that the gun laws in Mass had gotten so strange that he
was afraid of making a mistake and getting nailed. A CCW eliminated
that risk.


All in all, combined with the fact that we know we have over 14
million fewer hunters than we would have if the percentages hadn't
changed since 1960, it all points to the idea that we have fewer gun
owners with more guns. You can pick at the statistics but at some
point you have to come down somewhere, and the evidence comes down on
the side of the idea there are fewer gun owners.


I have no opinion on the truth of this claim.

But even if it is true, is it important? We still have no shortage of
guns. And tens of millions of new guns are sold every year.

But as I said before, it is unclear what difference it makes if there
are 400 million guns, or merely 200 million, rising or falling. It's
still of order one gun per person (every man, woman, and child), and
will remain so for the foreseeable future.


Hmm. Assume that we have only 200 million guns. The FBI reports that
20 million guns were sold in 2014, or 10%. It seems quite unlikely
that 10% of the gun inventory was melted down or otherwise lost in that
year, so the growth rate is about 10% per year, and it won't be long
before 400 million is surpassed.

..https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports


From my own experience, it agrees with what I've seen over my
lifetime. But I'm not counting on anecdotal experience to draw a
conclusion.


Well, yes. But we do need better-designed studies. But there are
questions that cannot be answered by polling, and we will just have to
live with that.

Joe Gwinn
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,025
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:32:00 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Mr. Ed said:
All in all, combined with the fact that we know we have over 14
million fewer hunters than we would have if the percentages hadn't
changed since 1960, it all points to the idea that we have fewer gun
owners with more guns. You can pick at the statistics but at some
point you have to come down somewhere, and the evidence comes down on
the side of the idea there are fewer gun owners.


I have no opinion on the truth of this claim.


Fewer gun owners? This I doubt. I've talked to several of my old
friends recently and found that they either got CCWs or new handguns
recently. The reasons given: they saw data on the sparse ratio of
cops to people, media fear-mongering (despite the dropping crime
rate), fear of gun sale bans, etc.


But even if it is true, is it important? We still have no shortage of
guns. And tens of millions of new guns are sold every year.

But as I said before, it is unclear what difference it makes if there
are 400 million guns, or merely 200 million, rising or falling. It's
still of order one gun per person (every man, woman, and child), and
will remain so for the foreseeable future.


And, just as they undercount illegal aliens, I'm sure they miss lots
of guns and gun owners in their hunts.


Hmm. Assume that we have only 200 million guns. The FBI reports that
20 million guns were sold in 2014, or 10%. It seems quite unlikely
that 10% of the gun inventory was melted down or otherwise lost in that
year, so the growth rate is about 10% per year, and it won't be long
before 400 million is surpassed.

.https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports


Ayup.


From my own experience, it agrees with what I've seen over my
lifetime. But I'm not counting on anecdotal experience to draw a
conclusion.


Well, yes. But we do need better-designed studies. But there are
questions that cannot be answered by polling, and we will just have to
live with that.


Agreed. Polls can be counted on to give some semblance of the truth,
not the whole truth, EVER.

If Ed ever gives up his hard-on against the NRA, he may see that.

--
My desire to be well-informed is currently
at odds with my desire to remain sane. --Sipkess
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:32:00 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Mr. Ed said:
All in all, combined with the fact that we know we have over 14
million fewer hunters than we would have if the percentages hadn't
changed since 1960, it all points to the idea that we have fewer
gun
owners with more guns. You can pick at the statistics but at some
point you have to come down somewhere, and the evidence comes down
on
the side of the idea there are fewer gun owners.


I have no opinion on the truth of this claim.


Fewer gun owners? This I doubt. I've talked to several of my old
friends recently and found that they either got CCWs or new handguns
recently. The reasons given: they saw data on the sparse ratio of
cops to people, media fear-mongering (despite the dropping crime
rate), fear of gun sale bans, etc.


But even if it is true, is it important? We still have no shortage
of
guns. And tens of millions of new guns are sold every year.

But as I said before, it is unclear what difference it makes if
there
are 400 million guns, or merely 200 million, rising or falling.
It's
still of order one gun per person (every man, woman, and child), and
will remain so for the foreseeable future.


And, just as they undercount illegal aliens, I'm sure they miss lots
of guns and gun owners in their hunts.


Hmm. Assume that we have only 200 million guns. The FBI reports
that
20 million guns were sold in 2014, or 10%. It seems quite unlikely
that 10% of the gun inventory was melted down or otherwise lost in
that
year, so the growth rate is about 10% per year, and it won't be long
before 400 million is surpassed.

.https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports


Ayup.


From my own experience, it agrees with what I've seen over my
lifetime. But I'm not counting on anecdotal experience to draw a
conclusion.


Well, yes. But we do need better-designed studies. But there are
questions that cannot be answered by polling, and we will just have
to
live with that.


Agreed. Polls can be counted on to give some semblance of the
truth,
not the whole truth, EVER.

If Ed ever gives up his hard-on against the NRA, he may see that.


The people involved in polling have a strong financial interest in
convincing customers of their value.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...a-gambler.html

-jsw


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default For Ed Huntress - file request

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 05:51:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:32:00 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

Mr. Ed said:
All in all, combined with the fact that we know we have over 14
million fewer hunters than we would have if the percentages hadn't
changed since 1960, it all points to the idea that we have fewer gun
owners with more guns. You can pick at the statistics but at some
point you have to come down somewhere, and the evidence comes down on
the side of the idea there are fewer gun owners.


I have no opinion on the truth of this claim.


Fewer gun owners? This I doubt. I've talked to several of my old
friends recently and found that they either got CCWs or new handguns
recently.


Aha, Dr. Demento sticks his oar in...

Larry, you've now contradicted yourself within the span of three
sentences -- a new record!

(If you doubt that there are fewer gun owners, and you base it on the
fact that *existing* gun owners got CCWs or new guns, you've just
jumped beyond a nonsensical conclusion, and landed flatly on top of
your head.)

--
Ed Huntress
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ed Huntress Quality Engineering jon_banquer[_2_] Metalworking 0 December 19th 14 08:26 PM
Photo question for Ed Huntress Joe Gwinn Metalworking 21 December 4th 14 03:53 AM
Pinging Ed Huntress [email protected] Metalworking 24 September 7th 12 01:07 AM
Ping Ed Huntress. Howzit? Winston Metalworking 46 August 31st 11 02:57 PM
Ping: Ed Huntress Wes[_2_] Metalworking 2 February 14th 09 08:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"