Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:26
  #1721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Anecdotal. It doesn't prove the poll figures have been significantly under reported.

You must PROVE the figures of the poll are inaccurate as you assert.

I'm not claiming anything.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:28
  #1722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 68
Posts: 195
I didn't report the poll figures. Prove they're accurate.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:29
  #1723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Avoiding the issue.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:32
  #1724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 63
Posts: 436
West Coast wrote:

RG

Good to hear. Did you get the army model that next to the rotary selector switch says, BANG or BANG BANG BANG or NO BANG?
Nope. I got the former Infantryman model which says "Press here to fire" on the trigger mechanism.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:33
  #1725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 68
Posts: 195
Right back at ya. Prove the poll is accurate. Prove that your and Seldom's assertions as to the implications of the poll are correct. Consult the word "credibility" in the OED. Then we can discuss whether Brick is right.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:34
  #1726 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by MagnusP View Post
The figures are based on people volunteering to report that they or their household have guns. Many people, including posters here, will say that it's no-one's damn business but their own. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would volunteer the information that they have guns when they don't.
Oh I don't doubt that some might not report they have guns when they do, but you've missed my point: is that number significant enough to actually alter the overall stats? If you are asserting that they are "significantly under-reporting" then you have to show that they are. Burden of proof.
PTT is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 11:43
  #1727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Unlike you I've made no assertion about its accuracy so I have nothing to prove.

You must prove your assertions.

maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 12:43
  #1728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by MagnusP View Post
The figures are based on people volunteering to report that they or their household have guns. Many people, including posters here, will say that it's no-one's damn business but their own. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would volunteer the information that they have guns when they don't.

So in effect you have no idea what so ever and no definable data to back up your assertion......
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:20
  #1729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 68
Posts: 195
When there is definable data to prove that Brick "shot himself in the foot", then there's something to discuss. Other than that, tumbleweed.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:25
  #1730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
Pedants gonna pee...


The point of my posting the Gallup survey is to show the increase - 33% - since 2000 of Americans who think having a gun equates to more personal safety. To where now, according to this survey, 63% of Americans support the ability to possess a gun.

Whether they do or not is the heart of those pro-Second Amendment supporters. We, Americans, have the choice and we, Americans, intend to keep that option.

The support for the Second Amendment has never been stronger, as evidenced by the recent mid-term elections, and the number of firearms sold.

Go full "no it doesn't, yes it does" to your Euro heart's content.

It simply doesn't matter what you think.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:29
  #1731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,674
If you are asserting that they are "significantly under-reporting" then you have to show that they are. Burden of proof
Burden of proof to prove something that's under reported?

I and many others in California owned weapons that have since been banned. Others have since purchased the same class of weapons and moved to California. Obviously those folks are not going to report possessing a weapon that's going to get the black helicopters hovering over the house. I choose to keep mine in a commercial armory in Arizona as I'd rather not to test whether a felony conviction might affect my career. As soon as I retire, whenever that might be, the weapon comes back to California. I know dozens of other owners in the same situation.

I know your agenda won't allow it, but the fact is when you outlaw a class of weapons that were once allowed, and are readily available in adjacent states, you have an under reporting situation. I'm living it, your posting on it from a largely gun neutered country, so you'll excuse me if I dismiss your beliefs regarding statistics.
West Coast is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:34
  #1732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by MagnusP View Post
When there is definable data to prove that Brick "shot himself in the foot", then there's something to discuss. Other than that, tumbleweed.
Still got no proof then.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:35
  #1733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
WC, that's anecdotal evidence and not proof.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:46
  #1734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,336
Then, someone shot with an anecdotal gun isn't dead?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:46
  #1735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
Connecticut passed similar knee-jerk legislations making law-abiding gun owners instant felons.

Thousands of them, by the state's own admission, are refusing to comply with registration requirements, thereby becoming felons.


Connecticut gun owners REFUSE to register guns under harsh gun control law | The Daily Caller#!

I know, it's anecdotal because it's only one state.

But an anecdote here, an anecdote there, a state here, a state there, and pretty soon you've got a full-blown tyranny in progress.

We don't abide such.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:48
  #1736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,674
It is fact, whether its placed into a fancy bar graph display in a glossy report or not, there's a percentage who don't report, I've been a part of it. I'm neighbors and friends with people who don't report owning weapons. I don't expect someone with an entrenched opinion like you to give it any consideration so relax.

I simply recognize there's an underground population of weapons owners who roll the dice. It should give anyone ( who is open minded and not simply scoring points on PPRuNe) who wants to throw around statistics pause to consider the validity of those numbers.
West Coast is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 14:08
  #1737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Still doesn't prove significant under reporting.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 14:12
  #1738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 306
Short of tearing apart every home in America, I can think of no valid way of "proving" that gun ownership has been under reported.

Fortunately, it has not come to this... yet.

However, based on my own personal knowledge and experience, I can state without equivocation that many gun owners would NOT so report to anyone...pollster, government or other busybodies.
finfly1 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 14:29
  #1739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
The fact that it happens hasn't been questioned. The contention was that it has been "significantly under reported".
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 14:53
  #1740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,598
LSM, West Coast's anecdote supports the reasoning chain that under reporting is more likely than not.
My own experience is similar:
Have never report any firearms I purchased before the reporting / paperwork increased about thirty years ago.
In my case, both of those firearms remain within the "it's OK" (I never got the fascination with assault rifles thing) rules just as when I bought them, but I see no reason to accommodate big brother's intrusion into my privacy nor my rights.

Whinge all you like, you won't get proof outside of a science lab or a distillery.

In a discussion of this sort on the internet, and when dealing with polls ever/anywhere, proof is not something you'll ever get.
You get some data in support of a position, and that's about as far as it can take you.
You demanding more doesn't make you right, it makes you obstinate and shrill.

Suggest you get the fingers out of your ears and stop yelling "lalalalala."

As brick noted, it simply doesn't matter what you think.
I'll take that a notch further: you don't actually appear to be thinking, but trolling is going on.

No surprise.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.