Declining percentage of households that report gun ownership

[Rudy Canoza]

One really has to wonder why the gun nut crowd is so exercised over
this. They seem to take the declining percentage as a personal affront,
and feel some bizarre need to "explain" it away by horseshit conjecture
about survey respondents "lying" to the survey administrators.

The percentage of households that report gun ownership is declining, and
it is not explained by fatuous and wholly unsupported claims that survey
respondents have begun "lying" about gun ownership. There is no
evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at increasing rates,
which would have to be the case to explain away the fall *other* than by
accepting that the fall is real.

[slate_leeper]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:41:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

There is no
>evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at increasing rates,

There is no evidence they have not, either.


-dan z-




--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/23/2015 6:46 AM, slate_leeper wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:41:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>

>> One really has to wonder why the gun nut crowd is so exercised over
>> this. They seem to take the declining percentage as a personal affront,
>> and feel some bizarre need to "explain" it away by horseshit conjecture
>> about survey respondents "lying" to the survey administrators.
>>
>> The percentage of households that report gun ownership is declining, and

>> it is not explained by fatuous and wholly unsupported claims that survey
>> respondents have begun "lying" about gun ownership. There is no

>> evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at increasing rates,

>> which would have to be the case to explain away the fall *other* than by
>> accepting that the fall is real.
>

> There is no evidence they have not, either.

Meaningless. Your the one who needs evidence in order to support your
claim. Your claim is that the falling percentage of households
reporting gun ownership is explained by an *increasing* percentage of
gun owners lying to the surveyors. You need evidence to support that,
and you have none.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:moq28j$mp7$2...@dont-email.me:

You got nothing but bluster.

[Terry Coombs]

Guns ? What guns ? We don't have any guns here . That ? Oh , that's just a
piece of wood carved into a gun shape . It's to scare off thieves and
murderers .
And remember , when seconds count the police are only minutes away .
--
Snag
If they respond at all ...

[raykeller]

"Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mor11p$2nb$1...@dont-email.me...

Meanwhile
Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row

[Rudy Canoza]

Bullshit.

Anyway, even if it were true - which it isn't - they're going to
households that already own guns.

[slate_leeper]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:20:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza

I have made no claims (although you claim I have). Where is your
evidence for this one? Same place as the last one?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:20:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Really?

He made that claim?

Because I'm not seeing it. Was it in another post? In another reality?
Where was this claim made, exactly?

Meanwhile.....

There is no evidence presented EITHER way.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal. I guess I can only counter with

Whale shit.

Let's see you top that, motherfucker.

[Greg Smith]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:bhc4ra5vjd7nbu6iv...@4ax.com...

#####
Godzilla shit?

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:moskft$dk9$2...@dont-email.me:

"U.S. gun makers are aiming for record quarterly sales as first-time buyers, including a growing
number of women and pensioners, rush to buy weapons before anticipated gun-control laws come into
force...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/gun-makers-record-sales_n_2756954.html

"Michael Bazinet, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry group, said
the increase is driven in part by the influx of more women and first-time gun owners into the
market...."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/07/news/gun-sales/

"The gun grabbers will claim that gun sales were based on the 'corporate gun lobby' fear mongering
and pandering to old gun owners who then stockpiled.

"However, retailers report that one-quarter of gun sales were to first-time buyers who don’t fit
that stereotype...."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/gun-sales-2013-break-all-records-due-obamas-gun-co/?page=all

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 5:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:20:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/2015 6:46 AM, slate_leeper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:41:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One really has to wonder why the gun nut crowd is so exercised over
>>>> this. They seem to take the declining percentage as a personal affront,
>>>> and feel some bizarre need to "explain" it away by horseshit conjecture
>>>> about survey respondents "lying" to the survey administrators.
>>>>
>>>> The percentage of households that report gun ownership is declining, and
>>>> it is not explained by fatuous and wholly unsupported claims that survey
>>>> respondents have begun "lying" about gun ownership. There is no
>>>> evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at increasing rates,
>>>> which would have to be the case to explain away the fall *other* than by
>>>> accepting that the fall is real.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence they have not, either.
>>

>> Meaningless. You're the one who needs evidence in order to support

>> your claim. Your claim is that the falling percentage of households
>> reporting gun ownership is explained by an *increasing* percentage of
>> gun owners lying to the surveyors. You need evidence to support that,
>> and you have none.
>
> Really?
>
> He made that claim?

He and several others. Here's the first complete instance of it (from
someone else) who references other posters saying it:

Yes, and from 1950 to 2014, it has only gone down to 42% from 49%
not really much of a drop since the population has increased by a
couple million over that period of time. Additionally, I agree
with some of the other posters in here that if they get a cold call
from someone claiming to represent a survey.....Guns? I ain't got
no stinkin' guns!" Particularly with the present crowd in the
White House.

But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
said they had no guns, so, *necessarily*, if one is going to explain a
fall in the percentage of households that report owning guns in these
surveys, there must have been an *increase* in the percentage of
respondents who lied. But there's no evidence of an increased
willingness to lie over time.

> Because I'm not seeing it. Was it in another post? In another reality?
> Where was this claim made, exactly?
>
> Meanwhile.....
>
> There is no evidence presented EITHER way.

Those who want to believe there has been an increase in the percentage
of gun-owning respondents who lied are the ones with the burden to
produce evidence to support the belief. The percentage of households
that report owning guns has declined. I am going to assume that the
decline is real until someone comes up with *evidence* to support an
alternate interpretation. So, you can pick whichever poll you like, but
for now, we will all assume that the percentage of households that own
guns *really is* lower than in the past. If you have *evidence* that
those percentages are wrong, let's have it. No one is interested in
uninformed and deeply partisan speculation about how people might be
reacting to the "political climate" <scoff> today.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 5:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:20:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/2015 6:46 AM, slate_leeper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:41:48 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One really has to wonder why the gun nut crowd is so exercised over
>>>> this. They seem to take the declining percentage as a personal affront,
>>>> and feel some bizarre need to "explain" it away by horseshit conjecture
>>>> about survey respondents "lying" to the survey administrators.
>>>>
>>>> The percentage of households that report gun ownership is declining, and
>>>> it is not explained by fatuous and wholly unsupported claims that survey
>>>> respondents have begun "lying" about gun ownership. There is no
>>>> evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at increasing rates,
>>>> which would have to be the case to explain away the fall *other* than by
>>>> accepting that the fall is real.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence they have not, either.
>>
>> Meaningless. Your the one who needs evidence in order to support your
>> claim. Your claim is that the falling percentage of households
>> reporting gun ownership is explained by an *increasing* percentage of
>> gun owners lying to the surveyors. You need evidence to support that,
>> and you have none.
>
> Really?
>
> He made that claim?

Here's another:

If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
tell him the truth. There are many others who agree. [he can't
possibly know that] I think THAT's what your surveyors are actually
measuring.

Okay, good for him - he wouldn't tell the truth. He still is trying to
explain the fall in the percentage of households that own guns by saying
an *increasing* percentage of gun owners have begun lying when asked by
surveyors and claiming not to own guns. He has no evidence for that.

[Rudy Canoza]

It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no figures
about gun sales. No one does. Even the irrational gun nuts concede that.

[Greg Smith]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:motjot$rsb$2...@dont-email.me...

####
Cite?
Nah, don't bother, Rudy.
Every time you hit the send button for your posts, is proof enough that you
are wrong and retarded.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Prohibition created more barstools, the criminals made out like crazy
because of the ban on liquor.... just like the drug war and the
Liberals war on guns.



They're too stupid to learn from their mistakes.


They remind me of someone with an unfounded fear of flying or a fear of
thunder and lightening (storms). They panic and yet have no real reason
to have so great a fear that it paralyses them.


Liberalism is that same kind of neurosis with an unrealistic and
unwarranted fear of guns and freedom.
--



*Rumination*
#67 - The least government necessary is the best government possible.

[Greg Smith]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me...

####
"From someone else.." BWAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motjot$rsb$2...@dont-email.me:

> about gun sales. No one does....

Now THAT is bullshit!

> ... Even the irrational gun nuts concede that.

You ignore my earlier post, Mr. Dudu v2.0.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:

> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and

> said they had no guns,...

Where's your evidence?

> ... so, *necessarily*, if one is going to explain a

> fall in the percentage of households that report owning guns in these
> surveys, there must have been an *increase* in the percentage of
> respondents who lied. But there's no evidence of an increased
> willingness to lie over time.

There is evidence, but it's all anecdotal.

Someone needs to ask for a grant from the feds to commission a study of respondants who lie to
pollsters.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
>> said they had no guns,...
>
> Where's your evidence?

The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you HIV-oozing
fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:

Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that if
they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"

If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.

There's your evidence. Now fuck off.

>
>> ... so, *necessarily*, if one is going to explain a
>> fall in the percentage of households that report owning guns in these
>> surveys, there must have been an *increase* in the percentage of
>> respondents who lied. But there's no evidence of an increased
>> willingness to lie over time.
>
> There is evidence, but

There's no evidence. You're a liar.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 8:44 AM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motjot$rsb$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:05:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:24 PM, raykeller wrote:
>
>>>>> Meanwhile
>>>>> Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row
>
>>>> Bullshit.
>
>>> Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal.
>
>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no figures
>> about gun sales. No one does....
>
> Now THAT is bullshit!

Nope. You dopes take NICS numbers as a proxy for gun sales, because you
don't have any actual gun sales numbers.

Fuck off. You're done.

[Frank]

Looking at this thread, I have always refused to be polled on the phone.

Now I think maybe it would be better to lie to them.

These pollsters are a PITA and it is my opinion that the only ones that
answer them think they may effect some policy or the other i.e. young
minds full of mush.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motnf3$997$3...@dont-email.me:

"U.S. gun makers are aiming for record quarterly sales as first-time buyers, including a growing
number of women and pensioners, rush to buy weapons before anticipated gun-control laws come into
force...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/gun-makers-record-sales_n_2756954.html

> Fuck off. You're done.

Done proving you the liar.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:

>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
>>> said they had no guns,...

>> Where's your evidence?

> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you HIV-oozing
> fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:

> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that if
> they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
> survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"

> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
> in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
> tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.

> There's your evidence....

It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago, fool.

> ... Now fuck off.

You first.

>>> ... so, *necessarily*, if one is going to explain a
>>> fall in the percentage of households that report owning guns in these
>>> surveys, there must have been an *increase* in the percentage of
>>> respondents who lied. But there's no evidence of an increased
>>> willingness to lie over time.

>> There is evidence, but it's anecdotal.

> There's no evidence...

Thanks for the admission. We knew you were lying.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 9:47 AM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motnf3$997$3...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 8:44 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motjot$rsb$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:05:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:24 PM, raykeller wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile
>>>>>>> Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row
>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>
>>>>> Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal.
>
>>>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no figures
>>>> about gun sales. No one does....
>
>>> Now THAT is bullshit!
>
>> Nope. You dopes take NICS numbers as a proxy for gun sales, because you
>> don't have any actual gun sales numbers.
>
> "U.S. gun makers are aiming for record quarterly sales

Where are the numbers? There aren't any.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 9:51 AM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
>>>> said they had no guns,...
>
>>> Where's your evidence?
>
>> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
>> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you HIV-oozing
>> fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:
>
>> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that if
>> they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
>> survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"
>
>> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
>> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
>> in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
>> tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.
>
>> There's your evidence....
>
> It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago

That's not what you asked, cocksucker. I said, people lie in surveys
and polls, and you - bitchily - demanded evidence. I gave it. Fuck off.

>> ... Now fuck off.

>
>>>> ... so, *necessarily*, if one is going to explain a
>>>> fall in the percentage of households that report owning guns in these
>>>> surveys, there must have been an *increase* in the percentage of
>>>> respondents who lied. But there's no evidence of an increased
>>>> willingness to lie over time.
>
>>> There is evidence, but it's anecdotal.
>

>> TThere's no evidence. You're a liar.
>
> Thanks for the admission.

It's *your* admission, asshole. You have no evidence for your idiotic
beliefs.

[RD Sandman]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
news:motr4p$p8k$2...@dont-email.me:

> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys
>>>> and said they had no guns,...
>
>>> Where's your evidence?
>
>> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
>> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you
>> HIV-oozing fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:
>
>> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that
>> if they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
>> survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"
>
>> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
>> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a
>> gun in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell
>> wouldn't tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.
>
>> There's your evidence....
>
> It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago, fool.

I wouldn't have thought a thing about it bsck then. In today's
environment, starting about about 20 years ago, I have second thoughts
about it. As do several people I know. Hence my comment about "in my
experience".




--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many sizes and colors.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:motnf3$997$3...@dont-email.me:

I tend to use manufacturing and import numbers to get my average of 5 -
5.5 million per year. They can be found on line with some searching.

I don't use NICS numbers as gospel since they also contain the used or
secondary market through dealers.

[Rudy Canoza]

You really ought to shut up about "today's environment." Seriously, all
you are is an old guy pissing and moaning about how everything gets
worse. It's simply a fact: "today's environment" is no worse than the
environment 20 or 40 years ago, *except* that the right wing has
seriously degraded it. You shouldn't piss and moan about what you have
done to the environment, and blame your increased propensity to lie in
response to pollsters on your own side's toxic contribution to the
political environment.

You *still* haven't said why "today's environment" would have any effect
on your willingness to be truthful in responding to *private* polling
organizations.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 11:56 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:motnf3$997$3...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 8:44 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:motjot$rsb$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:05:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:24 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile
>>>>>>> Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row
>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>>> Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal.
>>>
>>>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no
>>>> figures about gun sales. No one does....
>>>
>>> Now THAT is bullshit!
>>
>> Nope. You dopes take NICS numbers as a proxy for gun sales, because
>> you don't have any actual gun sales numbers.
>
> I tend to use manufacturing and import numbers to get my average of 5 -
> 5.5 million per year. They can be found on line with some searching.

Those are still proxies for sales, not actual sales. Quite a lot of
what is manufactured and imported goes to police and military, so
they're not accurate measures of what is sold to the public.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/24/2015 12:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/24/2015 9:47 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>> On 7/24/2015 8:44 AM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no
>>>>> figures about gun sales. No one does....
>>
>>>> Now THAT is bullshit!
>>
>>> Nope. You dopes take NICS numbers as a proxy for gun sales, because you
>>> don't have any actual gun sales numbers.
>>
>> "U.S. gun makers are aiming for record quarterly sales
>
> Where are the numbers? There aren't any.
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/
>

There aren't accurate numbers for gun ownership itself. However, there
are pretty good numbers for how many guns are manufactured.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:37:19 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Oh, I see the problem now. Your third-grade reading level is holding
you back.

>and several others.

Then address it in THOSE threads instead of saying HE made the claim
you idiot.

> Here's the first complete instance of it (from
>someone else)

You really ARE fucking dense, aren't you?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:59:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza

>>Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal. I guess I can only counter with
>>
>>Whale shit.
>>
>>Let's see you top that, motherfucker.

>It's good enough.

Not nearly .

Poonado! The moment divers were caught up in a 30-metre wide bowel
movement as sperm whale unleashed its rare - and revolting - defence
mechanism
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921463/Poonado-moment-divers-caught-30-metre-wide-bowel-movement-sperm-whale-unleashed-rare-revolting-defence-mechanism.html

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:01:51 -0400, Frank <"frank "@comcast.net>
wrote:

Depending on my mood, I'll either give disinformation or demand
compensation. :>

[Rudy Canoza]

There aren't any accurate numbers for gun sales, either.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, you don't.

>> and several others.
>
> Then address it in THOSE threads instead of saying HE made the claim
> you idiot.

They're all part of the same discussion.

The claim that the declining percentage of households reporting gun
ownership is due to increased lying by gun owners responding to polling
organizations is unsupported. It's not only unsupported, it is
*unsupportable* by anyone posting here, because no one posting here and
making the claim has any possible hope of supporting it.

[Rudy Canoza]

>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no figures
>> about gun sales. No one does. Even the irrational gun nuts concede that.
>

> Not nearly .

More than good enough.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:24:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>>Not nearly .
>>
>>Poonado! The moment divers were caught up in a 30-metre wide bowel
>>movement as sperm whale unleashed its rare - and revolting - defence
>>mechanism
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921463/Poonado-moment-divers-caught-30-metre-wide-bowel-movement-sperm-whale-unleashed-rare-revolting-defence-mechanism.html
>

>More than good enough.

Not even close.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:23:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza

LOL

Thanks for admitting you were lying.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:mou1f8$hao$3...@dont-email.me:

That is correct, but there are estimates. One I use is from the ATF in
July of 1995 and it gives the estimate of 223 million guns in the US in
1992. From there I add estmates of the mumber of guns manufactured or
imported into the US per year. That number arrives at 340 - 350 million
guns which is close to most of the current estimates. That tells me that
they are using similar methodology to what I am although the detail
within may be somewhat different.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 12:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:24:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>> On 7/24/2015 12:20 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:59:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>> More than good enough.
>
> Not ev

Still more than good enough. He lied. Now you're supporting a liar.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:mou1ib$hao$4...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/24/2015 9:51 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>> news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys
>>>>> and said they had no guns,...
>>
>>>> Where's your evidence?
>>
>>> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
>>> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you
>>> HIV-oozing fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:
>>
>>> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here
>>> that if they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent
>>> a survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"
>>
>>> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
>>> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a
>>> gun in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell
>>> wouldn't tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.
>>
>>> There's your evidence....
>>
>> It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago
>
> That's not what you asked, cocksucker. I said, people lie in surveys
> and polls, and you - bitchily - demanded evidence. I gave it. Fuck
> off.

You have also stated that they do not lie anymore today than they did in
1960, for example. I believe that in today's perceived political
climate, they do lie more.

[Rudy Canoza]

>> The claim that the declining percentage of households reporting gun
>> ownership is due to increased lying by gun owners responding to polling
>> organizations is unsupported. It's not only unsupported, it is
>> *unsupportable* by anyone posting here, because no one posting here and
>> making the claim has any possible hope of supporting it.
>

> LOL

LOL! Thanks for admitting that you aren't a serious participant.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou1ov$hao$5
@dont-email.me:

Rudy, you really ought to shut up with comments. If you wish to dwell
with facts, fine....but if this to become a patronizing exercize, you
flat ass aren't worth the time or the discussion. You are beoming an
expert at poisoning your own well.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou21q$kjh$1
@dont-email.me:

The used weapons are released to the public. Anyway, what I have done is
use tham as estimates for the numbers of guns floating around in the US
no matter who has them. We voth know that they aren't all sitting around
on dealer's shelves.

[Rudy Canoza]

So, the number of guns has gone up by some 130 million in about 23
years, but the share of households owning guns may have declined by 11
percentage points (42% to 31%) in the same interval, and the number of
households has increased from 95.7 million in 1992 to 123.2 million last
year
(http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/),
or around 28 million additional households. If *100%* of those
additional households obtained guns, which we know they didn't, then on
average each of those households would have acquired 4.6 firearms. Haw
haw haw!

Where did the additional firearms go, when the percentage of households
with firearms has fallen? WE all know the answer: they went to
households of gun-worshiping lunatics who already had more guns than
they can possibly use.

[Rudy Canoza]

1. You can't say specifically what it is about <chortle> "today's
perceived political climate" that would make gun owners more likely
to lie to *private* political polling organizations

2. You don't have any *evidence* that they lie more, apart from your
own increased propensity to lie

What I actually stated is that I don't have any reason to believe there
is an increased propensity generally among survey respondents to lie to
the surveyors.

[Rudy Canoza]

You can't say anything coherent or meaningful about "today's
environment" or "today's political climate." It's just a convenient
whipping boy - no meaning to it at all.

[Greg Smith]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:mou1ib$hao$4...@dont-email.me...

On 7/24/2015 9:51 AM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>> news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
>>>> said they had no guns,...
>
>>> Where's your evidence?
>
>> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
>> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you HIV-oozing
>> fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:
>
>> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that if
>> they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
>> survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"
>
>> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
>> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
>> in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
>> tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.
>
>> There's your evidence....
>
> It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago

That's not what you asked, cocksucker. I said, people lie in surveys
and polls, and you - bitchily - demanded evidence. I gave it. Fuck off.

>> ... Now fuck off.

#####
THIS is so cool!
Rudy's fuse is overloaded, glowing, and about to...gonna kill his Mom and
POP ! goes the dweasle!
What movie will Rudy be watching when he implodes?
Bets are on!
I say something by Disney.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:mou4t0$vc0$1...@dont-email.me:

I alredy produced those number, Rudy. You are a day late and dollar
short.

> Where did the additional firearms go, when the percentage of
> households with firearms has fallen? WE all know the answer: they
> went to households of gun-worshiping lunatics who already had more
> guns than they can possibly use.

They also went to the folks living in many of those new households. Here
are the number again in case you need to be retrained:

Population

1960 - 180,670,000
2013 - 316,860,000

Delta - + 136,190,000 75.4%

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

Households

Year # of households

1960 - 52,799,000
2013 - 122,459,000

Delta - + 69,660,000 75.8%

http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/


Gallup Poll households with guns

Year Pct With guns

1960 - 49% - 25,871,000
2013 - 42% - 51,432,000

Delta - + - 25,561,000 More households with guns


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx


Year Pct Households With Guns

1973 - 47.0% 69,859,000 32,833,730
2013 - 33.1% 122,459,000 40,533,929

Delta - 52,600,000 7,700,209 More households with guns


http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%
20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf



Or 8 million more homes with guns under the NORC survey and
approxiamately 25 million households with guns per Gallup. In either
case, the number of households with guns has risen not dropped. The
percentage is less but the actual number is greater.




Question - Would you rather have 50% of $100 or 5% of one million?

[Rudy Canoza]

Sorry, we're only looking at 1992 to present. There have been,
according to your estimates, some 130 million additional guns, but only
28 million additional households. As I said, if 100% of those
additional households acquired all of the additional guns, that would be
on average 4.6 guns per household. We know that it is not the case that
100% of those additional households acquired guns, for several reasons.
So, where did the additional guns - since 1992, not since 1960 - go?
The percentage of additional households with guns may not be the same as
the percentage of all households with guns, but if anything, it is
likely to be a *smaller* percentage, because an increasing percentage of
households, particularly younger ones, have no man present in them, and
it is very well known to gun researchers that men own most guns.

So, where did the additional guns go? The most plausible explanation is
they went into that declining percentage of households that already had
guns.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:mou8mm$dg0$1...@dont-email.me:

You might be but the polls weren't. Gallup started its poll on guns with
1960. Ergo, if I had started my comparison any other year you would have
whined about that. The NORC poll started with data from 1973.

There have been,
> according to your estimates, some 130 million additional guns, but
> only 28 million additional households. As I said, if 100% of those
> additional households acquired all of the additional guns, that would
> be on average 4.6 guns per household.

Yep. However, we are not sure how many of those additional households had
firearms in them. The Gallup poll said 42% of the total households but
didn't define whether they were the same households as in 1960 or
included the new ones. I assumed it included the new ones.

With the NORC poll, it claimed 33.1% but again did not delineate if that
included the new households since the 1973 poll. So I made the same
assumption.

Would you have made those assumptions or stayed with your explanation
that all the new guns since 1960 or 1973 all went to the same house and
some percentage of houses that already had guns threw them away? ;)

We know that it is not the case
> that 100% of those additional households acquired guns, for several
> reasons.

I figured that 42% of the new homes in the Gallup pole acquired some
number of guns and that 33.1% of the ones in the NORC poll did.

> So, where did the additional guns - since 1992, not since 1960 - go?

Sorry....Gallup was 1960 to 2013. As is the data. It is always nice to
have data agree with the time frame you are looking at.

> The percentage of additional households with guns may not be the same
> as the percentage of all households with guns, but if anything,

Correct.

it is
> likely to be a *smaller* percentage,

Supposition.

because an increasing percentage
> of households, particularly younger ones, have no man present in them,
> and it is very well known to gun researchers that men own most guns.

And you know that they are not families, how? Are you peeking through
bedroom windows again? I though we cured you of that.

> So, where did the additional guns go? The most plausible explanation
> is they went into that declining percentage of households that already
> had guns.

Or the actual most plausible explanation is that they are basically
spread through the country at basically the same rate as Gallup and NORC
found. Any thing else is pure supposition simply to argue. I would have
said discussed, but you don't want to discuss it, you simply want to
argue about it.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou1f8$hao$3...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/24/2015 9:47 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motnf3$997$3...@dont-email.me:

>>> On 7/24/2015 8:44 AM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motjot$rsb$2...@dont-email.me:

>>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:05:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:24 PM, raykeller wrote:

>>>>>>>> Meanwhile
>>>>>>>> Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row

>>>>>>> Bullshit.

>>>>>> Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal.

>>>>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no figures
>>>>> about gun sales. No one does....

>>>> Now THAT is bullshit!

>>> Nope. You dopes take NICS numbers as a proxy for gun sales, because you
>>> don't have any actual gun sales numbers.

>> "U.S. gun makers are aiming for record quarterly sales

> Where are the numbers? There aren't any.
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/

You ARE a Reptilian, aren't you? You weren't even on planet Earth the past two holiday seasons when
news report after news report, complete with videos, showed gun stores selling out AR15s and AK47s
right out of the crate, were ya? You must have been mid-flight when those eager, happy faces flashed
on our TV screens as they told us they decided it was finally time to buy their first guns before
they were banned. Anybody who wasn't spending his afternoons huffing airplane glue knew gun stores
were out of ammo and most semi-auto rifles.

"The gun grabbers will claim that gun sales were based on the 'corporate gun lobby' fear mongering
and pandering to old gun owners who then stockpiled.

"However, retailers report that one-quarter of gun sales were to first-time buyers who don’t fit
that stereotype...."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/gun-sales-2013-break-all-records-due-obamas-gun-co/?page=all


So... which star system do you call home?

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou1ib$hao$4...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/24/2015 9:51 AM, max headroom wrote:

>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:

>>> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:

>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:

>>>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
>>>>> said they had no guns,...

>>>> Where's your evidence?

>>> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
>>> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you HIV-oozing
>>> fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:

>>> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that if
>>> they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
>>> survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"

>>> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
>>> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
>>> in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
>>> tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.

>>> There's your evidence....

>> It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago

> That's not what you asked, cocksucker. I said, people lie in surveys and polls,

Not exactly, buttercup. Indulge me as I engage in an exercise in futility by trying to educate your
worthless ass--

You wrote, "there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys...", right?

The verb "have been", as in "have always been", is in the present perfect tense. In this case,
"there HAVE always BEEN" means from now back to the beginning of time. Without exception. Including
forty years ago.

You implied that respondents were just as inclined to lie forty years ago as they are today.

> ... and you - bitchily - demanded evidence. I gave it....

No. You provided two quotes stating that they will not tell strangers now, not forty years ago.

You demand evidence people will lie today, yet you claim they have always lied in equal numbers as
today without a shred of evidence.

So... can you supply evidence that people are no more inclined to lie to surveyors today than they
were forty years ago, or are you just blustering? You gave us two quotes stating they'd lie today,
RD has said he'd have told the truth forty years ago, but no one has piped up to say they'd tell a
stranger they own guns today.

So trot out your evidence for us to examine.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 3:42 PM, max headroom wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mou1ib$hao$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 7/24/2015 9:51 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motn7j$997$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 8:30 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:motig9$n14$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>>>> But there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys and
>>>>>> said they had no guns,...
>
>>>>> Where's your evidence?
>
>>>> The candid admissions of two gun owners in the thread "How many
>>>> privately owned guns in USA?" in these same newsgroups, you HIV-oozing
>>>> fucktard - Sandman, and Just Blundering:
>
>>>> Additionally, I agree with some of the other posters in here that if
>>>> they get a cold call from someone claiming to represent a
>>>> survey.....Guns? I ain't got no stinkin' guns!"
>
>>>> If I owned a gun, and some stranger cold-called me on the phone
>>>> claiming to be conducting a survey, and asked me if there was a gun
>>>> in my home, In today's political climate I sure as hell wouldn't
>>>> tell him the truth. There are many others who agree.
>
>>>> There's your evidence....
>
>>> It's NOT evidence they would lie 40 years ago
>
>> That's not what you asked, cocksucker. I said, people lie in surveys and polls,
>
> Not exactly,

Yes, exactly.

>
> You wrote, "there have *always* been gun owners who lied in these surveys..."
>

> The verb "have been", as in

There will be no parsing of verb tenses, cocksucker. You demanded
evidence to support what I said, and I gave it.

>> ... and you - bitchily - demanded evidence. I gave it....
>
> No.

Yes.

Fuck off, maxipad. You're done.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2015 2:30 PM, maxipad lied:

>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/gun-sales-2013-break-all-records-due-obamas-gun-co/?page=all

Washington Times - a load of shit Moonie paper, pure bullshit.


"One year ago this month, President Obama announced that radical gun
control was the top of his agenda for his second term."

No, he didn't. That's a lie.


"Although he failed to get any of the gun bans or government
registrations passed on the federal level"

Obama didn't seek any "gun bans."


"NICS checks have gone up a whopping 66 percent since he came to the
White House."

Those aren't sales.


"Smith & Wesson had net sales of $625 million in the fiscal year"

Those aren't units sold.

"However, retailers report that one-quarter of gun sales were to
first-time buyers"

No source. An unsupported claim.


You're a fucking idiot, maxipad.

[Ed Huntress]

And then gun sales fell of a cliff one month after that report:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports

Do try to keep up.

--
Ed Huntress

[Just Wondering]

There are pretty good numbers for how many guns are manufactured.

[Rudy Canoza]

You said sales. There are no numbers.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:moufkd$8gv$1...@dont-email.me:

Not even close.

>>> ... and you - bitchily - demanded evidence. I gave it....

>> No.

> Yes.

> Fuck off, maxipad. You're done.

Done proving you the liar.

[max headroom]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:31p5ra1icok8i364v...@4ax.com:

I do.

"Background checks for gun sales spiked 11% in June compared to last year, making it the busiest
June ever, according to the FBI's background check data....

"That's the highest volume of checks in June since 1999, when the FBI started keeping track.

"Gun background checks have climbed annually since 2003 with the exception of just three years, one
of which was 2014, indicating a clear jump in gun sales...."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/07/news/gun-sales/

[Rudy Canoza]

Fully. You lose.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:19:46 -0700, "max headroom"
<maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:moskft$dk9$2...@dont-email.me:

>
>> On 7/23/2015 6:24 PM, raykeller wrote:
>

>>> "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mor11p$2nb$1...@dont-email.me...
>

>>>> max headroom wrote:
>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

>>>>> news:moq28j$mp7$2...@dont-email.me:

>
>>>>>> One really has to wonder why the gun nut crowd is so exercised over
>>>>>> this. They seem to take the declining percentage as a personal
>>>>>> affront, and feel some bizarre need to "explain" it away by
>>>>>> horseshit conjecture about survey respondents "lying" to the survey
>>>>>> administrators.
>
>>>>>> The percentage of households that report gun ownership is declining,
>>>>>> and it is not explained by fatuous and wholly unsupported claims
>>>>>> that survey respondents have begun "lying" about gun ownership.
>>>>>> There is no evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at
>>>>>> increasing rates, which would have to be the case to explain away
>>>>>> the fall *other* than by accepting that the fall is real.
>

>>>>> You got nothing but bluster.
>
>>>> Guns ? What guns ? We don't have any guns here . That ? Oh , that's just
>>>> a piece of wood carved into a gun shape . It's to scare off thieves and
>>>> murderers .
>>>> And remember , when seconds count the police are only minutes away .
>>>> --
>>>> Snag
>>>> If they respond at all ...
>

>>> Meanwhile
>>> Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row
>
>> Bullshit.
>

>> Anyway, even if it were true - which it isn't - they're going to
>> households that already own guns.
>
>"U.S. gun makers are aiming for record quarterly sales as first-time buyers, including a growing
>number of women and pensioners, rush to buy weapons before anticipated gun-control laws come into
>force...."
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/gun-makers-record-sales_n_2756954.html
>
>"Michael Bazinet, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry group, said
>the increase is driven in part by the influx of more women and first-time gun owners into the
>market...."
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/07/news/gun-sales/

>
>"The gun grabbers will claim that gun sales were based on the 'corporate gun lobby' fear mongering
>and pandering to old gun owners who then stockpiled.
>
>"However, retailers report that one-quarter of gun sales were to first-time buyers who don’t fit
>that stereotype...."
>
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/gun-sales-2013-break-all-records-due-obamas-gun-co/?page=all
>

Once again..po widdle Wuddy shits in his hat..then puts it on. We all
laugh in disgust as the filth runs down his forehead....

[A less crunchy technique]

> Once again..I eat shit and bark at the moon

A given.

<VBG>

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mov87p$30l$1...@dont-email.me:

Nope, you moved your goalpost. You can't prove people won't lie then or now, but you can (and do)
lie about it.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:40:07 -0700, "max headroom"

June gun sales actually fell to the lowest level this year, a falloff
of 21% just since this past March.

Last year was the first year the NICS numbers declined, and this year
is running 4% behind last year's numbers.

It's interesting that you say you "keep up," when you first quote a
news item from two years ago, which everyone knows now just reflected
a spike that quickly reversed, and now you quote a CNN story that's
trying desperately to connect news events, while ignoring the trends
going on around it.

You clowns will stoop to anything.

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:41:43 -0700, Rudy Canoza

LOL Oh, were you being serious?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:40:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 7/24/2015 12:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:24:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>> On 7/24/2015 12:20 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:59:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:05:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:24 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:mor11p$2nb$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>>>> max headroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>> news:moq28j$mp7$2...@dont-email.me:

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One really has to wonder why the gun nut crowd is so exercised
>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>> this. They seem to take the declining percentage as a personal
>>>>>>>>>>> affront, and feel some bizarre need to "explain" it away by
>>>>>>>>>>> horseshit conjecture about survey respondents "lying" to the
>>>>>>>>>>> survey
>>>>>>>>>>> administrators.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The percentage of households that report gun ownership is
>>>>>>>>>>> declining,
>>>>>>>>>>> and it is not explained by fatuous and wholly unsupported claims
>>>>>>>>>>> that survey respondents have begun "lying" about gun ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that survey respondents have begun lying at
>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rates, which would have to be the case to explain away
>>>>>>>>>>> the fall *other* than by accepting that the fall is real.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> You got nothing but bluster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guns ? What guns ? We don't have any guns here . That ? Oh ,
>>>>>>>>> that's just
>>>>>>>>> a piece of wood carved into a gun shape . It's to scare off
>>>>>>>>> thieves and
>>>>>>>>> murderers .
>>>>>>>>> And remember , when seconds count the police are only minutes
>>>>>>>>> away .
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Snag
>>>>>>>>> If they respond at all ...
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Meanwhile
>>>>>>>> Gun sales break records for the 6th year in a row
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Wow. That's a stunning rebuttal. I guess I can only counter with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whale shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see you top that, motherfucker.

>>>>
>>>>> It's good enough. He made an unsupported assertion. He has no figures

>>>>> about gun sales. No one does. Even the irrational gun nuts concede
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Not nearly .
>>>
>>> More than good enough.
>>
>> Not ev
>
>Still more than good enough. He lied. Now you're supporting a liar.

Um, no, you lied. Now I'm making fun of Rudy the Liar.

[max headroom]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:gnn6rahco1o5afp0v...@4ax.com:

> of 21% just since this past March....

Normal for June/July.

> Last year was the first year the NICS numbers declined, and this year
> is running 4% behind last year's numbers.

Actually, they fell in 2000 and 2002 also.

> It's interesting that you say you "keep up," when you first quote a
> news item from two years ago, which everyone knows now just reflected

> a spike that quickly reversed,...

I didn't quote it for the sales numbers, but to illustrate to the Rudeman that first-time buyers
were a significant factor.

> ... and now you quote a CNN story that's

> trying desperately to connect news events, while ignoring the trends
> going on around it.

Are you saying that CNN is not a reputable news source?

> You clowns will stoop to anything.

I am not, and have never been, affiliated with CNN.

[Rudy Canoza]

Yep. You lose, maxipad. Crushing defeat.

[Rudy Canoza]

Yes, of course, and you weren't.

[Rudy Canoza]

Nope, he lied, and you're supporting his lying.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Then you're dumber than I thought.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

'Fraid not. Put down that glue-filled sock and let your head clear a
bit, son.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/25/2015 7:41 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:36:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>> On 7/25/2015 4:35 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:40:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 12:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:24:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 12:20 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:59:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> Um, no, you lied.
>>
>> Nope, he lied, and you're supporting his lying.
>
> 'Fraid not.

Yep - 'fraid so.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Greg Smith]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:t2t6ra194q24gd823...@4ax.com...

####
I now believe that Rudy is getting jealous because Deep Dudu has a web page
devoted to all of his stupidity, lies and misconceptions, and he doesn't!

[Greg Smith]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message

news:kv87rapmdqqj3jt1h...@4ax.com...

###
Uh, Rudy's glue filled argyle socks are actually super-glued on to his
snout! He used the accelerator.

He looks stylish in his circle of jerks.

[Greg Smith]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message

news:1v77ratidjhnfgtgn...@4ax.com...

####
I and thought you believed he was really dumb before.

[Just Wondering]

Got it, this is what "civic discourse means to you.

[Just Wondering]

Another example of Rudy's "civic discourse".

[Just Wondering]

So you think manufacturers simply manufacture millions of guns and
stockpile them in inventory? Please how a gunmaker who manufactures
500,000 guns, sells 200,000 and is stuck with an unsold inventory of
300,000 stays in business.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp06nu$bv$2...@dont-email.me:

Strut away, little man, pulling your broken wagon of lies, gloating in your "victory."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/25/2015 7:41 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:36:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>> On 7/25/2015 4:35 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:40:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 12:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:24:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 12:20 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:59:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 5:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> Um, no, you lied.
>>
>> Nope, he lied, and you're supporting his lying.
>
> 'Fraid not.

Yep - 'fraid so.

[Rudy Canoza]

You don't get it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/25/2015 12:18 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Look: maxipad isn't interested in civic discourse. Little klauschen
isn't, either.

[Rudy Canoza]

Quite a lot are sold to the military and police. Quite a lot are
exported. Quite a lot *do* sit in inventory for an undetermined amount
of time.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, I'll just stroll calmly as I always do in victory.

[max headroom]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mp10g9$t9o$9...@dont-email.me:

>> Strut away, little man, pulling your broken wagon of lies, gloating in your "victory."

> No, I'll just stroll calmly as I always do in victory.

... whilst we giggle at you.

[max headroom]

Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in news:55b3e11c$0$4739$882e...@usenet-news.net:

The really funny part is that he doesn't realize that, by quoting you and RD, he disproved his own
position that gun owners just wouldn't lie to a surveyor.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. You're American. Americans don't say "whilst", except when they're
pretentious do-nothing fat fucks.

[Rudy Canoza]

The really funny part is, you fucks don't realize that by lying to the
polling organizations, you're fucking your pro-gun position right up the
ass.

[Just Wondering]

Another example of what Rudy considers civil discourse.

[Just Wondering]

Restoring what you clipped: Please how a gunmaker who manufactures

500,000 guns, sells 200,000 and is stuck with an unsold inventory of
300,000 stays in business.

> Quite a lot are sold to the military and police.
>

What is "quite a lot"? How many firearms do the military purchase every
year? More than 100,000? The police? More than 100,000?

Most of what the military buys are M4 rifles. Aside from the M4, how
many firearms do the military buy each year? More than 20,000?

The military and police don't buy hardly anything from Ruger, or Kahr,
or Springfield, or a whole slew of other manufacturers. There are whole
categories of firearms that the military and police don't buy. There
are whole categories of calibers they don't buy.

> Quite a lot are exported. Quite a lot *do* sit in inventory for an undetermined amount
> of time.
>

https://www.atf.gov/file/89561/download
2013 (most recent figures available)
10,884,792 total firearms were manufactured, 393,121 were exported. I
suppose quite a lot are exported - if you consider 3.6% to be "quite a
lot." While you're at it, explain why 2013 firearm imports were
5,539,539 - 14 times as many imports as exports. One possible partial
explanation is that domestic manufacturers were unable to keep up with
demand.

Now, tell us how many firearms sit in manufacturers' inventories for
more than, say, six months at a time - while manufacturers continue to
crank out 10 million more guns a year. Provide a citation to support
your position.

According to official BATFE figures, in 2013 domestic gunmakers produced
nearly 11 million guns, and another 5.5 million were imported. If the
military bought 300,000 new guns and the police bought another 300,000,
and 400,000 were exported, and a full 25% of all new guns both domestic
and imports sat unsold in inventory, that would still leave 11,300,000
new gun sales to civilians in 2013. That doesn't include resale of
existing guns, or sales of unsold inventory from previous years. So
while it may be true that no one "knows" how many gun sales there are
each year, it's safe to say that in 2013 alone over 11 million new guns
found their way into U.S. homes.

[max headroom]

Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in news:55b49017$0$28504$882e...@usenet-news.net:

Prepare for the Rudester to delete your figures and repeat that there are no sales numbers.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 01:45:27 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>According to official BATFE figures, in 2013 domestic gunmakers produced
>nearly 11 million guns, and another 5.5 million were imported. If the
>military bought 300,000 new guns and the police bought another 300,000,
>and 400,000 were exported, and a full 25% of all new guns both domestic
>and imports sat unsold in inventory, that would still leave 11,300,000
>new gun sales to civilians in 2013. That doesn't include resale of
>existing guns, or sales of unsold inventory from previous years. So
>while it may be true that no one "knows" how many gun sales there are
>each year, it's safe to say that in 2013 alone over 11 million new guns
>found their way into U.S. homes.

According to friends in the industry..almost 15 million firearms were
purchased by civilians in 2013. At least 60% were self loading
semi-automatics such as AR-15s and H&Ks etc etc.

Those of you who are "gun friendly" will certainly recall long long
lines and high high prices at all the gun stores back in 2013 AND
2014. As well as the inavailability of ammunition for said firearms.
Gunshows were well noted for people coming in to buy "a couple boxes
of ammo" and leaving with an entire pallet load.

In fact..ammo is still somewhat rare in most calibers..while 22lr is
still on the Very Hard To Find listing in most locations...a full 24
months after the buying spree was in full headway.

I should mention that USED firearms changed hands in incredible
numbers back in those years..as people were selling 2-4 deer rifles
and using the money to buy one high dollar semi-automatic. I picked
up a couple hunting rifles for little money..as they were not what the
people wanting.

Seems the poor bastard simply doesnt have a clue about how many
firearms are in civilian hands AT THIS MOMENT...and doesnt know how
buffoonish he appears as he spews.

2013-2015 were noted for first time buyers buying both "battle rifle"
clones and handguns, right along with the other 12 million people
buying additions to their personal armories.

(VBG)...its going to be facscinating to watch the Lefties trying to
put more obsticles in gun owners paths..and the gun owners telling
them to piss off.

We have already had some impressive civil disobedience to such
buffoonery....<VBG>

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/citizens-revolt-refuse-to-register-guns/

http://www.infowars.com/revolt-millions-of-n-y-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-firearms/

From 2013.....

"The Resistance Begins: New York Gun Owners Refuse to Register

“Largest Act of Civil Disobedience in State History”

by Mac Slavo

With emotions running high in the aftermath of the Newtown Sandy Hook
shooting, politicians on the State and Federal level have begun
introducing legislative actions to curtail access to firearms
protected by the Second Amendment. In Missouri, parents may soon be
forced to register firearms with their child’s school under threat of
criminal penalties. In Massachusetts, another proposal would require
storage of semi-automatic rifles at government approved storage
depots. And, in the State of New York, congressional representatives
have already passed legislation that requires registration of every
semi-automatic rifle and reduces maximum magazine capacity to 7 rounds
of ammunition, and Governor Cuomo has floated the idea of gun
confiscation.

Now, in what is sure to be a growing trend across the entire country,
New York gun owners are organizing a resistance against what many
believe to be the most, “brazen infringement on the right to keep and
bear arms anywhere in the nation,” according toThe New American:

Preparations are already being made for mass resistance.
“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the
law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens
of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said President
Brian Olesen with American Shooters Supply, among the biggest gun
dealers in the state, in an interview with the New York Post.

Even government officials admit that forcing New Yorkers to register
their guns will be a tough sell, and they are apparently aware that
massive non-compliance will be the order of the day. “Many of these
assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that,’’ a
source in the Cuomo administration told the Post, adding that
officials expect “widespread violations” of the new statute.

Threats of imprisoning gun owners for up to a year and confiscating
their weapons are already being issued by governor’s office, headed by
a rabid anti-Second Amendment extremist who suggested before the bill
passed that “confiscation” of all semi-automatic rifles was being
considered. If tens or even hundreds of thousands of otherwise
law-abiding citizens refuse to comply, however, analysts say New York
would either have to start raising taxes and building a lot more
prisons, or give up on the scheme that experts say will do nothing to
reduce violence and that lawmakers say is aimed at eventual
confiscation.

Activists involved in the state-wide boycott against the
unconstitutional statute who spoke to the Post almost taunted
authorities, saying gun owners would essentially dare authorities to
“come and take it away.”

According to the paper, leaders of some of the state’s hundreds of gun
clubs, dealers, and non-profit organizations, citing the New York
Constitution’s guarantee that gun rights “cannot be infringed,” are
currently involved in organizing the resistance. Among the primary
concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to
go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo
himself.

“They’re saying, ‘F— the governor! F— Cuomo! We’re not going to
register our guns,’ and I think they’re serious. People are not going
to do it. People are going to resist,” explained State Rifle and
Pistol Association President Tom King, who also serves on the National
Rifle Association board of directors. “They’re taking one of our
guaranteed civil rights, and they’re taking it away.”

Opponents of the right to bear arms, take heed. The American people
know what you’re up to and they will not stand for it.
The resistance has begun."

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/fulton_county_sheriff_asks_gun_owners_to_throw_out_safe_act_pistol_permit_re-cer.html

And of course...its not working for the anti-gun crowd...the blowback
against them continues to rise....

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/23/17433482-bloomberg-mayor-group-behind-12-million-gun-control-campaign

Etc etc.

And in other news...states continue to remove gun control laws in an
amazing flood of restriction cutting riveling a slaughterhouse
trimming away the garbage from a pig....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?_r=0

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:45:55 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oh..recent estimates claim that there are OVER 400 MILLION firearms in
civilian hands in the US at this moment. More than enough to give at
least a rifle and a handgun to everyone over the age of 14...more than
enough..

[Just Wondering]

On 7/26/2015 3:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 01:45:27 -0600, Just Wondering
> <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> According to official BATFE figures, in 2013 domestic gunmakers produced
>> nearly 11 million guns, and another 5.5 million were imported. If the
>> military bought 300,000 new guns and the police bought another 300,000,
>> and 400,000 were exported, and a full 25% of all new guns both domestic
>> and imports sat unsold in inventory, that would still leave 11,300,000
>> new gun sales to civilians in 2013. That doesn't include resale of
>> existing guns, or sales of unsold inventory from previous years. So
>> while it may be true that no one "knows" how many gun sales there are
>> each year, it's safe to say that in 2013 alone over 11 million new guns
>> found their way into U.S. homes.
>
> According to friends in the industry..almost 15 million firearms were
> purchased by civilians in 2013. At least 60% were self loading
> semi-automatics such as AR-15s and H&Ks etc etc.
>

I was trying to be super-conservative. It was Rooty-Toot Rudy who
claimed that a whole bunch of guns were in the hands of the military or
police or stored in inventory. I don't think that anywhere near 25% of
all new guns and imports sat unsold in inventory. The 15M figure sounds
about right to me, maybe even a little low.

> Those of you who are "gun friendly" will certainly recall long long
> lines and high high prices at all the gun stores back in 2013 AND
> 2014.
<

Not to mention many FFL dealers who had low inventory of guns because
despite record levels of manufacturing and imports, the wholesalers
couldn't deliver guns fast enough.

[One Party System]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2rjarapsnd87njv22...@4ax.com:

Ya know how they claim it's only people that already own guns that are
buying them? Not that I'll admit to owning any guns ever, but I can say for
myself that I haven't bought anything in several years. Pries have gotten
wierd and if I had any guns I would probably have all that I thought I
might need for now.

I mean there are a few "restricted" firearms that I find appealing. But I
iagine I'll be taking one or two off of corpses before to long.

--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.

Booker T. Washington