January Gun Sales Set Yet Another Record

[beevul]

January Gun Sales Set Yet Another Record

Ninth monthly record in a row

BY: Stephen Gutowski

February 3, 2016 1:15 pm

The FBI conducted more gun-related background checks this January than in any other January since the system was created.

With 2,545,802 checks processed through the National Instant Background Check System, January 2016 beat the previous record, set in January 2013, by 50,326 checks. Though January’s number represents a drop from the all-time single month record set in December 2015, it is also marks the ninth month in a row that has set a record. It is also the third month in a row with more than two million background checks.

The number of background checks conducted by the FBI is widely considered the most reliable estimate for gun sales in the country since all sales conducted through federally licensed gun dealers and some sales conducted by private parties are required by law to obtain a check.

“The Boston Globe reported last week that tens of thousands of new gun licenses were issued in Massachusetts last year,” Alan Gottlieb, the group’s founder, said in a statement. “In New Jersey, with tough gun laws, applications for gun purchases last year nearly tripled over what they were in 2005. One Missouri county reported a three-month back-up in processing permit applications. A county sheriff in North Carolina is so overwhelmed, he’s asking that citizens make appointments.”

“Add to this the fact that scores of sheriffs and police chiefs have encouraged citizens to arm themselves. Suddenly, gun ownership sounds like a very good idea to people concerned about personal safety,” Gottlieb said.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-sales-set-yet-another-record/

Just more people who already own guns buying these new guns?

Probably not.

[guillaumeb]

1. Fear can cause any herd to stampede.

And illusions die hard. One of the most persistent and ironic illusions is that possession equates with protection.


Study

after study seems to point to similar conclusion: More guns mean more unnatural death..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/

•Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.
•Among children, the majority of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.
•People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms
•Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.

https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.VrPJR4f2bcs

The citations are endless, and so is the denial by the gun advocates.

[beevul]

2. Yes, it causes all sorts of idiocy, like the desire to ban rifles...

And illusions die hard. One of the most persistent and ironic illusions is that possession equates with protection.

It CAN equate with protection. That's not debatable because that's a fact.

Study after study seems to point to similar conclusion: More guns mean more unnatural death.

And yet it just isn't so. In fact, the CDC says otherwise:

1. The hypothesis of "more guns = more deaths" is demonstrably false over the past 28 years of documented American history. The number of firearms in civilian circulation have been steadily increasing over that time period, and the number of firearm-related fatalities has not been equivalently increasing. However, again, since there seems to be some confusion on the concept, proving "more guns = more deaths" to be false does not prove "more guns = fewer deaths" to be true. Doing so would require accounting for far more variables than I did, and involve far more interesting math than I employed, and require controlling for far more variables than I care to.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/09/graphics-matter-year-the-third.html

[guillaumeb]

4. While we obviously disagree,

did you like my die hard reference?

[beevul]

5. Disagree all you like...

The facts speak for themselves.

did you like my die hard reference?

I actually hadn't noticed. I was too busy finding facts, I guess.

While we obviously disagree...

Disagree all you like just keep in mind, how disagreeing with proven facts makes one look.

[pablo_marmol]

11. "While we obviously disagree........."

Don't you just love the sleazy manner in which Controllers purposefully confuse 'disagreement' with honest disagreement?

Honest disagreement occurs when.........

1) Neither party has contempt for the verdict of empirical evidence. (Which is say, neither party to the debate is arguing from a faith-based footing)

2) Both parties have expended a fair amount of effort researching the issue at hand

3) Both parties have roughly equal amounts of knowledge regarding the issue at hand.

If conditions 1 - 3 are met, then honest disagreement can occur w/regard to how the facts relating to gun violence are interpreted. Of course, The Controllers (or True Believers, if you prefer) fail on points 1 - 3. Which demonstrates that they "disagree" on something much more profound than issues surrounding gun violence.

Controllers believe that they are entitled to their own set of facts, while RKBA supporting Dems believe that nobody is entitled to their own set of facts.

[guillaumeb]

14. But determining what the facts are is not easy.

That US citizens possess far more guns than any other nation is a fact.

30,000 needless gun deaths every year is a fact.

Does the first fact lead to the second?

That is where the two sides seem to mainly disagree.

The arguments over the real meaning of the Second Amendment, with correspondingly different interpretations of original intent, are another area of intense disagreement.

[beevul]

15. Changing the subject, and/or moving the goalposts...

Changing the subject, and/or moving the goalposts is what you're doing, in an effort to add ambiguity where none previously existed.

That US citizens possess far more guns than any other nation is a fact.

30,000 needless gun deaths every year is a fact.

Does the first fact lead to the second?

That is where the two sides seem to mainly disagree.

You don't just get to steer things away from discomforting facts, sorry.


This was the original point of contention in this subthread:

Study after study seems to point to similar conclusion: More guns mean more unnatural death.

I replied that the facts show that it just isn't so, which happens to be empirically true. Otherwise known as an unassailable fact.

You replied with:

While we obviously disagree...

And I replied by saying "Disagree all you like, the facts speak for themselves."

Then just two posts later, you assert that "But determining what the facts are is not easy."

If I saw you driving in the same manner as you're posting, I'd notify police, because you're that all over the place.

The arguments over the real meaning of the Second Amendment, with correspondingly different interpretations of original intent, are another area of intense disagreement.

You define 'intense' very differently than the rest of us, apparently. Just under 1 in 4 Americans agree with your interpretation, while just over 3 out of 4 agree that it protects an individual right.

If by 'intense' you mean that a tiny insignificant handful of extremist gun haters differ with the supermajority of Americans on what the second amendment actually means, then I grant you your point.

[guillaumeb]

16. You ignore my cites because the facts given do not support what you are determined

to believe. That is your right, but ignoring inconvenient studies does not refute the studies. This is called the "if I close my eyes I will not see the wall, therefore the wall is not there" style of debate.

And your constant repetition of

that a tiny insignificant handful of extremist gun haters differ with the supermajority of Americans on what the second amendment actually means,

might win you points among your fellow gun carriers, but it does not address the fact that Heller v. District of Columbia is an example of legislation by Court and judicial overreach.

[beevul]

18. No, I ignore your cites because you ignored mine.

That is your right, but ignoring inconvenient studies does not refute the studies.

Put your money where your mouth is:

1. The hypothesis of "more guns = more deaths" is demonstrably false over the past 28 years of documented American history. The number of firearms in civilian circulation have been steadily increasing over that time period, and the number of firearm-related fatalities has not been equivalently increasing. However, again, since there seems to be some confusion on the concept, proving "more guns = more deaths" to be false does not prove "more guns = fewer deaths" to be true. Doing so would require accounting for far more variables than I did, and involve far more interesting math than I employed, and require controlling for far more variables than I care to.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/09/graphics-matter-year-the-third.html

When I see you behave the way you seem to demand others behave, and address MY cite which was posted first, I'll address your cites. Don't come here demanding that others play by the rules when you can't be bothered to follow them yourself. QQing about it just makes you a hypocrite.

...the fact that Heller v. District of Columbia is an example of legislation by Court and judicial overreach.

That's not a fact. Its an unsupported assertion, an opinion, asserted by you without any evidence or substantiation of any kind.

If you want to debate Heller, start a new thread right here and right now, I'm game. No, I don't think you want to debate that at all. I think you just want to cast aspersions and assert without evidence your opinion, and label it as fact. The 90s are calling, they want their old dusty worn out tactics back.

[guillaumeb]

20. The Heller decision has been debated here ad nauseum.

Did the debate change any minds? Probably not.

Does the dueling citation tactic change minds? Probably not, except among the uncommitted.

Do guns in households make it more likely that a member of the household will be injured/killed by a gun? Yes. Access=opportunity.

[beevul]

23. Thats a fancy way of saying that you can not support your position or your assertions.

The Heller decision has been debated here ad nauseum.

Thats a fancy way of saying that you can not support your position or your assertions. Bravo.

Did the debate change any minds? Probably not.

Diversion.

Does the dueling citation tactic change minds? Probably not, except among the uncommitted.

Theres nothing "Dueling" about it. An assertion is either factually true, or factually false. There is no middle ground. I've provided evidence proving what I've asserted, which also disproves what you've asserted. You refuse to even comment on it. Everything you said after it amounts to "I'm a hypoctite, I'm a hypoctite, I'm a hypoctite, and I'm a hypoctite". Complaining that I wont address yours, after you refuse to address mine. I already said I'd address yours right after you address mine. Admit your assertion was factually incorrect. It wont draw blood. It wont even hurt, I promise. Then we can move forward to your cites.

The fact of the matter, is that MY assertion can be proven, while yours can't, which is why you are taking the 'hypocrite' route, because you know it as well as I and every other reader here do.

Do guns in households make it more likely that a member of the household will be injured/killed by a gun? Yes. Access=opportunity.

The same could be said of owning a car, possessing prescription drugs, and drain cleaner. So what.

[pablo_marmol]

19. "But determining what the facts are is not easy."

Perhaps......but neither are they as difficult to obtain than True Believers would want the public to believe. It is very telling the degree to which Controllers ignore what James Wright, Peter Rossi, Gary Kleck and other liberals have to say on the issue.

Does the first fact lead to the second?

Highly unlikely, since......

1) Take away 100% of the gun violence in the U.S., and we still kill each other at a higher rate than other 'developed' nations, and

2) Hard to ignore the inverse correlation between escalating gun purchases and the decline of gun violence since '93

Don't believe for a moment that a large percentage of the population doesn't recognize the manner in which you cherry-pick your "facts".

The arguments over the real meaning of the Second Amendment, with correspondingly different interpretations of original intent, are another area of intense disagreement.

Only because The Controllers ignore the FACT that the vast majority of constitutional scholars and historians see the 2nd as an individual right rather than a collective right. And we all know how right-leaning academia is now, don't we?

[guillaumeb]

21. inverse correlation between escalating gun purchases and the decline of gun violence since '93

If gun deaths and violence are declining, why do you feel that more guns are needed? Are you defending against a declining threat with ever more guns? Explain that logic.


And this:

Only because The Controllers ignore the FACT that the vast majority of constitutional scholars and historians see the 2nd as an individual right rather than a collective right. And we all know how right-leaning academia is now, don't we?

is your opinion. Unsupported by the SCOTUS prior to Heller, and a restricted right after Heller.

[pablo_marmol]

22. Never claimed that more guns are *needed* - so no need to defend that "logic".

I simply refuse to bow to your tactic of shifting the burden of proof.

is your opinion. Unsupported by the SCOTUS prior to Heller, and a restricted right after Heller.

Actually no -- it is a fact......but I've got better things to do as I prepare to go out for music tonight to track down the citation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. facts: yes/no/maybe some

That US citizens possess far more guns than any other nation is a fact.

Absolutely, no other country comes close. Half or more of all privately held small arms worldwide are in the US.

30,000 needless gun deaths every year is a fact.

Some maybe but not all. The term "needless" means: Not needed or wished for; unnecessary and perhaps unnecessary fits but not wished for when two thirds of those deaths are suicides is a mischaracterization. I would say not wished for fits if you're the observer but not if you're the actor.

Does the first fact lead to the second?

Since the second isn't really a fact, no. However, I don't see how it's reasonable to say that 30,000 deaths could be avoided if there were no guns.

[ileus]

10. Imagine if you will the illusion that bans equal safety...

[Eleanors38]

12. "More guns mean more unnatural death." Thundering error. The data points the other way.

...then again, I don't have access to the Plenty-O-Studies® data bank.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. For shame!

Statistics are only to be used when they support a pro-control POV.

[guillaumeb]

17. An interesting way of saying "I don't have facts to back me up, but...."

[beevul]

24. Here are those facts you were asking for.

The hypothesis of "more guns = more deaths" is demonstrably false over the past 28 years of documented American history. The number of firearms in civilian circulation have been steadily increasing over that time period, and the number of firearm-related fatalities has not been equivalently increasing.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/09/graphics-matter-year-the-third.html

Will you continue to ignore them?

[DonP]

3. DEAR GOD! Won't somebody stop that guy?

[Duckhunter935]

6. I saw him the other day

He spent 21 hours straight buying weapons and doing background checks. Did not even do bathroom breaks.

[branford]

7. No bathroom breaks?

I hope he had some high-capacity magazines...

[Duckhunter935]

8. lots of red bull too

[ileus]

9. For the first time in many years I only have one or two guns on my list.

Both guns for my son...


Unless of course I manage to find a great deal on one of my new BST groups (not on facebook) LOL.....goofy turds cleansed facebook, so every group owner moved over to another "social network"