The Acid Test - or What Happens If Guns Become Scarce

No evidence for that.

Rudy Canoza wrote in news:%5ydB.90772$ snipped-for-privacy@fx12.iad:

There is if you look at background check numbers.

The statement was that the percentage of the population who own guns "bottomed out" in 2013-2014 and is now increasing. There is no evidence of that. The number of background checks proves nothing. If a thousand people each attempt to buy six guns a year, each purchase two months apart, that's six thousand background checks - but still only one thousand people.

Fuck, but you're stupid, Ol' Unka.

Rudy Canoza wrote in news:0hKdB.146004$ snipped-for-privacy@fx36.iad:

It seems that you simply cannot comprehend numbers with more than one comma.

That would be you, Ol' Unka

1,000 people * 6 gun purchases apiece = 6,000 background checks

That's still only 1,000 people acquiring guns, Ol' Unka. If all 1,000 of them previously had no guns, then only the first background check represents an increase in the gun-owning population. The next five checks apiece do not.

Fuck, but you're stupid, Ol' Unka.

No. 1 person buying 6 guns at once = 1 background check. Since the overwhelming majority of NICS checks are for the purpose of buying a gun (or several at once), the number of NICS provides a rough approximation of gun sales through FFL dealers. What it DOESN'T tell you much about is the number of NEW guns sold, since FFL dealers sell both new and used guns.

It also doesn't tell you much about total sales because there are many private sales that don't use NICS checks. For example, if I owned ten guns and decided to sell four of them, the number of gun owners (and possibly gun households) could increase from one to five even though no part of the transaction shows up in background check records. And the likelihood that any of those buyers becomes a data point in any survey is so close to zero it can safely be ignored.

Most people don't buy five guns at once. You have no way of knowing how many background checks are on existing gun owners and how many are on newbies. No one does.

No, fucktard. I stipulated at the outset that each of the thousand persons buys one gun every two months, for a total of six gun purchases per person in the year. Each gun purchase requires a background check so that's six thousand background checks, but only one thousand persons bought guns.

Background checks are not a proxy for the number of people with guns. This is settled.

Rudy Canoza wrote in news:kDRdB.202258$ snipped-for-privacy@fx41.iad:

IOW, your numbers depend on your self defined numbers, not the actual numbers.

He didn't say that they were. He said that they were a good indicator. You, in your wet dream, made up numbers that would fit your scenario. IOW, unlike a pollster, you went in with the result already in mind and set your scenario to fit it.

Fascinating how people can afford a firearm every 2 months in Judy's world.

Fascinatinng how few people can afford a firearm once a year in the real world.

Gunner Asch wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

percentages.

;)

It's a hypothetical situation to illustrate the point. The point is proved: a background check is required for each separate gun transaction. If you buy N guns in a year in N separate transactions, there will be N background checks - but only one gun purchaser. The N background checks do not mean N gun owners - there is one gun owner, by stipulation.

Fuck, but you're stupid, Ol' Unka.

There are a huge number of private sales that, because they don't involved FFL dealers, also don't involve background checks. That should more than offset your scenario that doesn't account for those sales.

Just Wondering wrote in news:yAveB.412674$ snipped-for-privacy@fx33.iad:

They are also used guns and a change of ownership that does not change the total number....only who has them.

also don't involve background

Rude Cannoli is arguing percentages of houses with guns. If there are five households, and only one of them has guns, but the owner has five guns and sells one to each of the four, the total number of guns hasn't changed, but the percentage of households with guns has changed big time - from 20% to 100%.

Just Wondering wrote in news:A8OeB.255656$lx.82931 @fx43.iad:

I know. It is the same thing that dechucka was arguing earlier.

Yes. The data that I have and have presented in here shows that although the *percentage* of total households has decreased, the total number of housholds has *increased* and that there are more guns and more gun owners. That seems to be what Judy has a problem grasping.

And one of MY points is that there is no reliable data on the issue for

2015, 2016, and 2017 (assuming prior years data is reliable in the first place). Even if the percentage had decreased up to 2014, any such trend may well have reversed itself in the last couple of years.

Just Wondering wrote in news:WM4fB.228680$ snipped-for-privacy@fx07.iad:

Could be,

However the data shows otherwise