jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed
statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

Then why are you commenting? You do not have the CV that shows you are not
a dimwit, Rs: gun ownership.

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:20:43 PM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:59:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


You don't have the credentials to make the statements above. After all, you think that people with an academic background magically don't have an agenda when writing a report. How na�ve is that?


It's not naive. The numbers are the numbers. You just don't want to
face facts.

There's absolutely no proof, and very little chance, that the "numbers" in this case are based on reality. As others point out, getting factual data on gun ownership is impossible.


Doesn't have anything to do with laws, just density of ownership (yes,
double entendre).

Clever, but you point out that homicide rate has nothing to do with law. So what's the point of outlawing guns? If someone wants to own one and kill with it, they will regardless of any existing or new law.

Besides, I'll wager that the area I live in has as high or an even higher density of gun ownership than Chicago (gun lovin southerners), but far fewer deaths per capita than same. As the alderman I quoted earlier pointed out, it's not the guns, it's "morality", and that can't be legislated.

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...


Other than telephone surveys, there's no possible way to determine if
gun ownership is going up or down because there's no national registry
of who owns what. You have to believe that if a stranger calls you
up and asks if you have a gun, that everyone will answer honestly. My
answer would be, "None of your business".

Manufacturing production numbers (yes, and even the resultant company
stock prices) represent a real indicator of guns being sold.
Agreed, many are split between current owners and new owners but
again, those numbers aren't readily available. However, add in the
record number of permit applications, again split between new
applicants and renewals, a logical conclusion is that gun ownership
is going up, despite what random, limited and likely biased surveys
say. If ownership was declining, so would both new permit and renewal
applications. That has not been the case. Where required, the
permit issuing agencies have been swamped. In MA, a new permit
application typically took 6 weeks to process years ago. They are now
taking as much as 6 months due to the backlog.

I don't have any answers, just suspicions about gun ownership.
Here's something from a Boston paper.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...-toughest-gun-
control-law-made-massachusetts-less-
safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

I don't know anything about this guy. Sounds like a typical gun nut.
Everybody knows that nobody knows the number of illegal guns.
But he says Mass knows how many legal gun are owned.
?There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in
1998,? the AP reported. ?In June [2002], that number was down to just
200,000.?
He contradicts you, and jps.

The current figure for legal guns in Mass should be known.
But maybe the NRA got a Fed secrecy act passed so now nobody can get
that info.
I don't believe anything I read about gun ownership.
From the guy above, you, jps, or anybody else.
Because the NRA has made it impossible to get good statistics.
They are slime. Not because guns are inherently bad, but because
the NRA are money-grubbing low-lifes who seek to hide the truth.

Personally, I think most gun purchases are made by people who already
own a gun, and want more guns. Gun nuts.
Criminals get most of their guns from gun nuts.
A much smaller percentage of gun purchases are made by responsible
people - for specific sport use or genuine self-defense concerns.
Criminals also get some of their guns.

With the "general public," I think guns are more and more looked upon as
- excuse the analogy, but it works - cigarettes.
They are found to be increasingly unacceptable.
Like cigarettes, guns won't go away, but will be more highly taxed,
regulated, and suppressed.
And it will make a difference in innocent deaths.
But the NRA will do all they can to keep that from happening.

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...


Other than telephone surveys, there's no possible way to determine
if
gun ownership is going up or down because there's no national
registry
of who owns what. You have to believe that if a stranger calls
you
up and asks if you have a gun, that everyone will answer honestly.
My
answer would be, "None of your business".

Manufacturing production numbers (yes, and even the resultant
company
stock prices) represent a real indicator of guns being sold.
Agreed, many are split between current owners and new owners but
again, those numbers aren't readily available. However, add in
the
record number of permit applications, again split between new
applicants and renewals, a logical conclusion is that gun ownership
is going up, despite what random, limited and likely biased surveys
say. If ownership was declining, so would both new permit and
renewal
applications. That has not been the case. Where required, the
permit issuing agencies have been swamped. In MA, a new permit
application typically took 6 weeks to process years ago. They are
now
taking as much as 6 months due to the backlog.

I don't have any answers, just suspicions about gun ownership.
Here's something from a Boston paper.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...-toughest-gun-
control-law-made-massachusetts-less-
safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

I don't know anything about this guy. Sounds like a typical gun nut.
Everybody knows that nobody knows the number of illegal guns.
But he says Mass knows how many legal gun are owned.
?There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in
1998,? the AP reported. ?In June [2002], that number was down to just
200,000.?
He contradicts you, and jps.

The current figure for legal guns in Mass should be known.
But maybe the NRA got a Fed secrecy act passed so now nobody can get
that info.
I don't believe anything I read about gun ownership.
From the guy above, you, jps, or anybody else.
Because the NRA has made it impossible to get good statistics.
They are slime. Not because guns are inherently bad, but because
the NRA are money-grubbing low-lifes who seek to hide the truth.

Personally, I think most gun purchases are made by people who already
own a gun, and want more guns. Gun nuts.
Criminals get most of their guns from gun nuts.
A much smaller percentage of gun purchases are made by responsible
people - for specific sport use or genuine self-defense concerns.
Criminals also get some of their guns.

With the "general public," I think guns are more and more looked upon
as
- excuse the analogy, but it works - cigarettes.
They are found to be increasingly unacceptable.
Like cigarettes, guns won't go away, but will be more highly taxed,
regulated, and suppressed.
And it will make a difference in innocent deaths.
But the NRA will do all they can to keep that from happening.

----------------------------

I don't know how many permits applications are being made statewide.
Neither do you, JPS or the guy who wrote the article in your link.
Point is, permit applications are *up* statewide not "down". Here's
a link to the approximate numbers in one small area. Note that this
is for one of several types of permits, namely the Class "A" permit:

http://www.patriotledger.com/answerbook/braintree/x760605076/More-people-getting-gun-permits-across-South-Shore

In article , says...

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

Do you have data to backup your position that gun ownership is declining?

What is a gun related death? Is it anything like a beer related death?

In article ,
says...

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...


Other than telephone surveys, there's no possible way to determine if
gun ownership is going up or down because there's no national registry
of who owns what. You have to believe that if a stranger calls you
up and asks if you have a gun, that everyone will answer honestly. My
answer would be, "None of your business".

Manufacturing production numbers (yes, and even the resultant company
stock prices) represent a real indicator of guns being sold.
Agreed, many are split between current owners and new owners but
again, those numbers aren't readily available. However, add in the
record number of permit applications, again split between new
applicants and renewals, a logical conclusion is that gun ownership
is going up, despite what random, limited and likely biased surveys
say. If ownership was declining, so would both new permit and renewal
applications. That has not been the case. Where required, the
permit issuing agencies have been swamped. In MA, a new permit
application typically took 6 weeks to process years ago. They are now
taking as much as 6 months due to the backlog.

I don't have any answers, just suspicions about gun ownership.
Here's something from a Boston paper.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...-toughest-gun-
control-law-made-massachusetts-less-
safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

I don't know anything about this guy. Sounds like a typical gun nut.
Everybody knows that nobody knows the number of illegal guns.
But he says Mass knows how many legal gun are owned.
?There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in
1998,? the AP reported. ?In June [2002], that number was down to just
200,000.?
He contradicts you, and jps.

The current figure for legal guns in Mass should be known.
But maybe the NRA got a Fed secrecy act passed so now nobody can get
that info.
I don't believe anything I read about gun ownership.
From the guy above, you, jps, or anybody else.
Because the NRA has made it impossible to get good statistics.
They are slime. Not because guns are inherently bad, but because
the NRA are money-grubbing low-lifes who seek to hide the truth.

Personally, I think most gun purchases are made by people who already
own a gun, and want more guns. Gun nuts.
Criminals get most of their guns from gun nuts.
A much smaller percentage of gun purchases are made by responsible
people - for specific sport use or genuine self-defense concerns.
Criminals also get some of their guns.

With the "general public," I think guns are more and more looked upon as
- excuse the analogy, but it works - cigarettes.
They are found to be increasingly unacceptable.
Like cigarettes, guns won't go away, but will be more highly taxed,
regulated, and suppressed.
And it will make a difference in innocent deaths.
But the NRA will do all they can to keep that from happening.

What is the difference between a car nut and a gun nut?

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 11:58:31 UTC-3, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:39:15 -0400, BAR wrote:



What is the difference between a car nut and a gun nut?



Car nuts kill moire people


I'd say 'car nuts' are sociable people...gun nuts, not so much.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:39:15 -0400, BAR wrote:

What is the difference between a car nut and a gun nut?

Car nuts kill moire people

More gun nuts kill on purpose than car nuts kill on purpose.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:14:16 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 11:58:31 UTC-3, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:39:15 -0400, BAR wrote:



What is the difference between a car nut and a gun nut?



Car nuts kill moire people


I'd say 'car nuts' are sociable people...gun nuts, not so much.

One of your best buddies is a gun nut. What are you talking about? There are some gun nuts here
who've tried repeatedly to be sociable with you, only to be rebuffed.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:39:15 -0400, BAR wrote:

What is the difference between a car nut and a gun nut?

Car nuts kill moire people

More gun nuts kill on purpose than car nuts kill on purpose.

May not be much difference. Been a lot of car suicides. Taking out other
families while at it.