Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The NRA is Not Too Popular These Days...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    A I have said all along, estimations never give accurate numbers, but the trend of reduced gun-ownership is still obvious because we have results of NUMEROUS such estimations over many decades which consistently give a result of significant differences of gun-ownership rates between today and a couple of decades ago.

    I also noticed that even though I try to keep the conversation on point without trolling, you just cannot remain calm, logical and civilized. It is not in you...
    The point here is that the numbers don't add up. Sorry to disappoint you but you fail at simple logic.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Statistics are BASED on sampling. Just because you do not know statistics, it does not mean that it is BS!

    The GSS has been used for DECADES by the left and the right!

    Here is the Economist, which is not a leftist publication, using the GSS in an article talking about the same thing I say- we have more guns and less gun owners (as a percentage of the population)

    https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ked-and-loaded
    You just don't get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Stupid comment again, as I have been saying all along those numbers are not accurate, but you keep on believing them.

    A I have said all along, estimations never give accurate numbers, but the trend of reduced gun-ownership is still obvious because we have results of NUMEROUS such estimations over many decades which consistently give a result of significant differences of gun-ownership rates between today and a couple of decades ago.

    I also noticed that even though I try to keep the conversation on point without trolling, you just cannot remain calm, logical and civilized. It is not in you...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    More sampling bullshit? How scientific can you get.
    Statistics are BASED on sampling. Just because you do not know statistics, it does not mean that it is BS!

    The GSS has been used for DECADES by the left and the right!

    Here is the Economist, which is not a leftist publication, using the GSS in an article talking about the same thing I say- we have more guns and less gun owners (as a percentage of the population)

    https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ked-and-loaded

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Well, when I talk abut a 3% of gun owners having half of the gunstock, I obviously talk about exceptions...
    More sampling bullshit? How scientific can you get.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    It is not if somebody claims that he cannot read someone's posts. Apparently, this is Rimmer's claim which makes him clueless regarding the development of the conversation here since he cannot see the evidence that I present.
    Do you have any friends?

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    So, even though I was talking about a survey you could not figure out that I was talking about samples? it figures... Did you really expect a study that asked every single American if it possesses a gun?
    Stupid comment again, as I have been saying all along those numbers are not accurate, but you keep on believing them.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Bullshit, I have known a lot of gun owners over the years, and only one guy fits this description of yours. He has more guns than you have underwear, he is the exception, not the norm.
    Well, when I talk abut a 3% of gun owners having half of the gunstock, I obviously talk about exceptions...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    There is no ignore list; it's a figure of speech.
    It is not if somebody claims that he cannot read someone's posts. Apparently, this is Rimmer's claim which makes him clueless regarding the development of the conversation here since he cannot see the evidence that I present.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Funny, those are not actual numbers they are samples. Someone here needs to take a course in statistics to understand how a sampling of numbers can give you any skewed result desired.
    So, even though I was talking about a survey you could not figure out that I was talking about samples? it figures... Did you really expect a study that asked every single American if he possesses a gun?
    Last edited by pamak; 06 Sep 18, 19:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    One cannot compare the number guns between the 1970's and today even taking into account the increase of the population without examining the huge increase of the GDP per capita from 1970 until today which permits people to spend more money for their hobbies. See chart in the following link which is adjusted for inflation


    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...D?locations=US


    And, yes, this 3% which owns half of the gun stock buys guns not because they need all of them but because it is a hobby just like wargames is a hobby for others who spend a lot of money to collect them even though they are not rich and even though they rarely play them...

    In other words, none of your observations refutes the information I have provided...
    Bullshit, I have known a lot of gun owners over the years, and only one guy fits this description of yours. He has more guns than you have underwear, he is the exception, not the norm.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    And this poster is definitely clueless since he tries to make comments about what I am posting even though he says that I am on his ignore list in which case he cannot read most of the things that other posters do not quote.
    There is no ignore list; it's a figure of speech.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Actual numbers? Table 1 and Table 2 give the numbers. But since you do not know statistics to see how the results of a survey can lead to an estimation of the percentage for the total population, they are meaningless to you. Anyway, those who want (and have the background) to learn more, they can start with

    http://gss.norc.org/documents/codebo..._AppendixA.pdf

    The above link comes from the documentation page in the link I provided earlier
    Funny, those are not actual numbers they are samples. Someone here needs to take a course in statistics to understand how a sampling of numbers can give you any skewed result desired.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Your surveys are false : in 50 years the population has increased by 130 million, the number of guns by 250 million,this indicates that gun ownership (= people who have at least 1 gun ) is not going down, but is going up ,because most people own only one weapon : the Deplorables are not rich enough to have several weapons .For most people gun ownership is not a hobby, but a necessity ,to survive in a society where criminals have the freedom to kill,to plunder, to rape .
    One cannot compare the number guns between the 1970's and today even taking into account the increase of the population without examining the huge increase of the GDP per capita from 1970 until today which permits people to spend more money for their hobbies. See chart in the following link which is adjusted for inflation


    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...D?locations=US


    And, yes, this 3% which owns half of the gun stock buys guns not because they need all of them but because it is a hobby just like wargames is a hobby for others who spend a lot of money to collect them even though they are not rich and even though they rarely play them...

    In other words, none of your observations refutes the information I have provided...
    Last edited by pamak; 06 Sep 18, 18:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

    So what are you saying? that the gun ownership has gone down? fraid not, it's the highest it's ever been, get more democRats elected and it will even get higher, I sh-t you not.
    That's because paranoid and fearful people will spend money they don't have. Or go online and meet up in the parking lot at Walmart to buy a gun.

    Or maybe it's the tyrannical government thing coming for your guns! But only when Democrats are in office..

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

  • casanova
    Beirut
    by casanova
    A awful, dedoerate situation for the population in Beirut, Libanon. A Amoniumnitrat-explosion was the cause of the catastrophe....
    Today, 23:35
  • AntiWarmanCake8
    Battlefields
    by AntiWarmanCake8
    One day in the far future I like to visit some Napoleonic battlefields. Does anyone have any ones they would share?

    I would like to visit:...
    Today, 20:27
  • AntiWarmanCake8
    COVID-19
    by AntiWarmanCake8
    So I tested positive for COVID 19 yesterday but I had symptoms since last Thursday, probably got pneumonia in my left lung. Been resting at home, quarantined...
    Today, 20:22
Working...
X