Is Obama really the best gun salesman in America?

[Kable]

@Human_Action

Me too, but not enough to cough up $500.

Me too, I could buy another gun for that price.

Not exactly, the magazines were banned, but not the firearms themselves.

True, but people want to buy their high cap guns and mags while they can. At least everyone I know does and did.

They were instead issued with 10-round magazines with a floorplate that had a spacer to reduce capacity to 10.

And we all hated that. Do you have any idea how hard it is to load the last round in a 10 round Glock mag? Its a PITA.

[quote]
It could well be that 2012 was different from '09-'11, but since the thread is about the entire Obama administration and not just 2012, it’d be drowned out the the data from other years.

[quote]

We would have to see graphs going back years too. I assure you that “assault” weapons were not near as popular in years past as they are now, and I expect the changes in 2012 were dramatic.

I saw the same thing, and they were selling well; it just doesn’t mean that such rifles were 75%+ of new sales, I think it’s more indicative that demand for such weapons increased faster than expected, and outstripped supply. If you look at the chart I linked to, the jump in sales from '10 to '11 was substantially higher for assault rifles than for any other category, which surely took many manufacturers by surprise.

Right, and I expect the jump from 2011 to 2012 was substantially higher still. Same with high (really normal) cap pistols.

[BlinkingDuck]

@UDS

Are the statistics correct? I can’t say. But they are rather selective, and not presented in a way calculated to be helpful.

For example, we’re told that “Ruger’s quarterly firearm sales” have risen 98% since the third quarter of 2008. We’re not told what the comparator quarter is, but let that pass. We are also not told to what extent this is due to (a) a general rise in the price of weaponry, or (b) a shift in purchasing pattern from cheaper to more expensive weapons, or (c) a rise in retail sales generally since 2008 as opposed to (d) people buying more guns. We’re also not told to what extent it’s due to Ruger’s having increased its market share, with increased sales at Ruger’s being offset by reduced sales elsewhere. In fact, we’re not told why we’re being given figures just for Ruger’s, as opposed to figures for the market at large.

Similarly with the second statistic; increase in annual sales of Winchester ammunition since 2007. If the first statistic is given on a quarterly basis, why is the second given on an annual basis? If the first takes 2008 as a comparator, why does the second take 2007? Why just Winchester ammunition? Why is the information given in dollar terms, which could partly be accounted for by price changes or shifts in preference from cheaper to more expensive products, instead of numbers of rounds sold?

And you could go on in this vein. Each of the statistics seems to be almost deliberately given in an inconsistent way, in a partial way, in a way which wraps up several effects at once, and in a way which makes comparison or correlation with the other statistics very difficult. The kindest thing you can say about this collection of statistics is that it’s been put together in a very sloppy way which makes it difficult to draw any real conclusion about what, if anything, we can conclude from it. Less kindly, we can suspect that whoever assembled this did so in a way that makes it difficult to analyse the statistics because he knows or fears that, correctly analysed, the statistics will not support the claim he is making. And perhaps we can also say that whoever assembled these statistics seems to have been reasonably confident that the audience to whom he was presenting them wasn’t going to want to subject them to any serious analysis, or be at all troubled by its inability to do so.

So, having said all that, are they correct? It probably doesn’t matter greatly whether they are or not. My guess is that they are. If you are willing to cherry-pick statistics which can be made to look as if they support a claim that you and your audience want to believe is true, it’s quite easy to cherry-pick authentic statistics, so why would you take the risk of making them up? For example, with the Ruger’s statistic, if you can pick among all the manufacturers the one who can produce a figure that best supports your thesis and nobody is going to ask awkward questions like why you picked that particular manufacturer, then you won’t need to make up a figure. So my guess is that, as far as they go, these figures are likely to be correct.

I get a Al Franken vibe from your writing. I like it

[marshmallow]

If gun grabbing Democrats propel gun sales to such an extent the gun manufacturers should back all such Democratic candidates.

[Kable]

@marshmallow

If gun grabbing Democrats propel gun sales to such an extent the gun manufacturers should back all such Democratic candidates.

Maybe they should.

[Esox_Lucius]

@BrainGlutton

Heroin gets used up. But once you have a gun, what difference does a second one make?

“If one gun makes me feel more secure and powerful, more guns will make me feel even better.”

@Kable

Enough that I’m not sure how many. Maybe 30.

Would you have been unable to buy any of those guns if you were subjected to the expanded background checks proposed last year (or earlier this year, whenever it was)?

[Human_Action]

@Esox_Lucius

“If one gun makes me feel more secure and powerful, more guns will make me feel even better.”

No amount of self-confidence will make my shotgun suitable for hunting deer, or my AR-100 suitable for shooting clay pigeons, or my FN-FAL suitable for cheap plinking, or my 10/22 suitable for long-range target shooting. It’s a matter of physics.

Think of golf clubs - to a novice, they might be interchangeable, but people that play golf know better, that a putter, driver, and 5-iron are suited for different things.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

Would you have been unable to buy any of those guns if you were subjected to the expanded background checks proposed last year (or earlier this year, whenever it was)?

No, I think I would have been able to buy them all regardless.

[PigArcher]

@Kable

No, I think I would have been able to buy them all regardless.

So what’s the issue then?

[Kable]

@kenetic

So what’s the issue then?

I’m sorry you didn’t know. The democrat party wasn’t asking merely for background checks, you were asking for an “assault weapon” ban. Your true colors showed, again, so you didn’t get shit. Worse you got 40+ million extra guns on the street (and counting). That’s like a 15% increase in 5 years (and counting). Ha ha. Will you ever learn?

[Robot_Arm]

@Kable

I’m sorry you didn’t know. The democrat party wasn’t asking merely for background checks, you were asking for an “assault weapon” ban. Your true colors showed, again, so you didn’t get shit. Worse you got 40+ million extra guns on the street (and counting). That’s like a 15% increase in 5 years (and counting). Ha ha. Will you ever learn?

This thread started with you just wanting to know if some numbers were correct, right?

[GoodOmens]

@Antinor01

My current favorite is the people going on about the last lead smelter in the US (located in Herculaneum MO) closing recently due to not being able to meet the newest EPA guidelines. They say that it’s the Obama administration forcing this to happen as part of attempted gun control, but fail to notice that the rules went in effect in 2008, before he was even elected.

His parents actually set this up the same time they fakes his Kenyan birth certificate. If you’re going to forge one document, might as well do several at once.

Much more efficient, you know.

[Kable]

@Robot_Arm

This thread started with you just wanting to know if some numbers were correct, right?

Yes, and UDS was able to verify that they are pretty close to correct in post number 18 with a direct link to FBI documents, which helped me find a better document from the same source that I linked in post number 25.

However, now that the numbers have been vetted, I did have a point I wanted to make with them.

[LC_Strawhouse]

I don’t really care about firearm issues one way or another… but the President stirred things up with that line about “clinging to religion and guns” during his first campaign. That statement made some people go into permanent panic mode; and many still believe THAT was the moment that exposed the true soul of the man. I still see bumper stickers mocking that line.

[elucidator]

Kable, you guys just totally outsmarted him, no two ways around that. I’m wondering if we have a specific custom for which forum is appropriate for gloating?

[VinylTurnip]

@Kable

Worse you got 40+ million extra guns on the street (and counting). That’s like a 15% increase in 5 years (and counting). Ha ha. Will you ever learn?

Thank you for your dissertation, Dr. Muntz. Iif you would, please yield the podium to Professor P. W. Herman, who will now present his rebuttal: “Empiricism, Ontology and Identity: Finding Oneself through External Observation.”

[PhillyGuy]

After being shown that the first year with a substantial increase in gun background checks was 2006:

@Kable

Yeah, I imagine people were anticipating Obama’s coming.

@Kable

I just remember all that talk of stricter gun control on the news and the reaction being a lot more gun sales. Millions and millions more it seems.

Is this even meant seriously, or is someone pulling a chain?

I’m a 58 year old American, and there has been “talk of stricter gun control on the news” my whole life. The same is true in many other countries. Most of the time gun ownership has gone down, but not always. I would have thought everyone knows that.

There is no correlation between talking against guns and gun death. The correlation is between guns and gun death:

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934313004440.pdf

[hansel]

Has it been demonstrated yet that there was an actual increase in the number of guns sold, or are we still pretending that background checks are an effective proxy stat?

[Kable]

@PhillyGuy

There is no correlation between talking against guns and gun death.

Look at the spike in gun sales starting in December 2012:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-113013.pdf

The correlation is between guns and gun death:

If that’s what you think, put two and two together.

[Kable]

@hansel

Has it been demonstrated yet that there was an actual increase in the number of guns sold, or are we still pretending that background checks are an effective proxy stat?

Are you unfamiliar with the background check process? They are performed for all new guns sales, and all dealer sales of used guns (with exceptions made for CCW carriers because they are known to be so trustworthy). Nobody gets a background check unless they are buying a gun, so yes background checks are an effective proxy stat. Only 1% of background checks result in a denial of purchase: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/justice/guns-background-check/

The only pretending going on is denial that gun control advocates unwittingly sell a lot of guns, preferentially the guns they hate most. Got to love irony.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

The only pretending going on is denial that gun control advocates unwittingly sell a lot of guns, preferentially the guns they hate most. Got to love irony.

This seems likely. I guess i’m just not sure why it’s the gun control advocates that deserve especial derision in this situation. I mean, the gun control advocates are attempting to do something and failing, which certainly is pretty foolish. But the gun owners are buying guns that they otherwise would they would not do, which seems foolish too. And gun sellers are the ones actually profiting from all this foolishness. I suppose for my part it seems like we’re glossing over that both sides are getting played by a particular group while we stand by and laugh at each other.