RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


lovmuffin -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/5/2017 11:12:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


If it wasn't for the NRA, the only thing that would be legal are muzzle loaders.


You might want to check with the batf on that.
There was an article in the a.r. about that very thing. According to the batf any weapon that can be made to fire full auto is illegal even if that was not the original purpose. Browning showed that he could make a lever action and a bolt action fire full auto. He also sketched out a design to make a trap door springfield fire full auto.






So if it wasn't for the ATF, the only thing that would be legal are muzzle loaders?????




thompsonx -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/6/2017 2:26:44 AM)


ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


So if it wasn't for the ATF, the only thing that would be legal are muzzle loaders?????

Just the opposite. The batf by batf regulations can declare such. Whether that regulation would stand a challange in the courts is quite another matter.
You can see the legal justification of this with say an early uzi that some back=yard machinist has modified to full auto. But...the way the statute is written you can see how some zealous prosecutor could make the case against most any gun except a muzzle loader.
Similarly the california constitution recognizes the right of all california residents to fish (non comercially) without a license. The calilfornia dept. of fish and game, has by statute overridden the california constitution, says you need to buy a license ($50 per year). You get caught fishing without a license and they will write you a ticket and confiscate your gear...then you have to go to court to fight it and if convicted appeal to a higher court on statutory grounds to overthrow the conviction to get your stuff back.
Too much fun[:(]





InfoMan -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/6/2017 5:53:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Here is a s&w blog site. Note the dates of mid 2016 indicating prices as low as .05 cents a round up to .10 cents a round. It looks like you have been pedeling shit again.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/483181-price-22-ammo.html


That is not a Citable Source...
That is a Web Forum who's data cannot be researched or proven, instead it is a series of anecdotal evidence.

This however IS a citable source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx
And it cites the price ranges as provided via data aggregated through Wal-Mart sales data analytics.

Trying to use anecdote and hearsay as evidence is the literal definition of 'peddling shit'


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

A picture of an ammo box is not a citation, it is a picture of an ammo box.
Marine corps times is not a marine corps publication. It says that right on the cite you posted



That's cute - you don't know what a citation is.

Yes - a the writing on a Container is a citable source if the writing on the container denotes the contents of the container. This is similar to citing the ingredient list or nutritional facts on a Box of Cereal. Don't get upset because it proves you wrong.

Did i say it was a Marine Corps Publication?
No - i used it as a Citation because it directly quotes a Spokesperson from MARSOC.
What is the New York Times not a credible source when it quotes the President because the New York Times is Not the executive branch?

But i forgot how stupid you where...
Here let me simplify it for you:
http://www.marsoc.marines.mil/Portals/31/Documents/MMAC%20Individual%20Equipment%20List.pdf

This is the Individual Equipment List denoting the authorized and issued equipment for a MARSOF soldier during a training exercise.
This citation is provided by the United States Marine Corps, and is on their official military website.

note - it lacks a 'colt 1911' entry in it's list or .45 ammunition and magazines.
Meaning that the soldier is not Issued either of those items.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The cite I posted shows that the inflation rate was
4.1 for 2007
0.1 for 2008
2.7 for 2009
1.5 for 2010
3.0 for 2011
1.7 for 2012
Each years rate multiplies the previous year.
How much does this add to a .05 cent bullet?
What percentage of the total increase does that equal?
That was the question I asked you.
Now can you do the math or will you need to find a grown up to help you?
As the comments in the s&w blog indicate the price of .22 ammo in mid 2016 when obama was still president and it looked like bills wife was ahead in the polls, .22 ammo was readily available at .10 cents a round (not .12 as you claimed) and as cheap as .05 cents a round if one looked carefully.




You're a short bus kinda special arn't you?
First off - you didn't post that. I did.

Second off - when doing math which is calculating Year on Year growth - you do not calculate the 0 year... it's growth is already taken into consideration as the starting value is based in that year.

So inflation per year:
0.1 for 2008
2.7 for 2009
1.5 for 2010
3.0 for 2011
1.7 for 2012

Calculating with ONLY inflation and no other outside influence forces with a starting price of 5 cents in 2007.

0.1 for 2008 - .05
2.7 for 2009 - .05005
1.5 for 2010 - .05140
3.0 for 2011 - .05217
1.7 for 2012 - .05305

so it starts at .05 cents in 2007 and sees an increase of .003 cents over the 5 year period.
Okay... so what if we take into account a simple growth gradient... where something else influences the price...
a 1 cent increase each year, so in 2007 it is 5 cents, in 2008, 6; 2009, 7; and so on.

0.1 for 2008 .05 + .01: .06
2.7 for 2009 .06006 + 1: .07006
1.5 for 2010 .07111 + 1: .08111
3.0 for 2011 .08354 + 1: .09354
1.7 for 2012 .09513 + 1: .10513

So the inflation even in that condition accounts for .005 cents over the course of the time measured.


So i have to ask In what universe does your math in any way seem correct?
a less then 2% year on year growth average of inflation accounting for 30% of it's price growth as you've claimed in post 153


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Now you are a mind reader...isn't that special?
The question is: out of a .07 cent increase how much was inflation. The figures I have posted indicate about .02 cents of the .07 was due to inflation.





BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/6/2017 3:57:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Here is a s&w blog site. Note the dates of mid 2016 indicating prices as low as .05 cents a round up to .10 cents a round. It looks like you have been pedeling shit again.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/483181-price-22-ammo.html


That is not a Citable Source...
That is a Web Forum who's data cannot be researched or proven, instead it is a series of anecdotal evidence.

This however IS a citable source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx
And it cites the price ranges as provided via data aggregated through Wal-Mart sales data analytics.

Trying to use anecdote and hearsay as evidence is the literal definition of 'peddling shit'


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

A picture of an ammo box is not a citation, it is a picture of an ammo box.
Marine corps times is not a marine corps publication. It says that right on the cite you posted



That's cute - you don't know what a citation is.

Yes - a the writing on a Container is a citable source if the writing on the container denotes the contents of the container. This is similar to citing the ingredient list or nutritional facts on a Box of Cereal. Don't get upset because it proves you wrong.

Did i say it was a Marine Corps Publication?
No - i used it as a Citation because it directly quotes a Spokesperson from MARSOC.
What is the New York Times not a credible source when it quotes the President because the New York Times is Not the executive branch?

But i forgot how stupid you where...
Here let me simplify it for you:
http://www.marsoc.marines.mil/Portals/31/Documents/MMAC%20Individual%20Equipment%20List.pdf

This is the Individual Equipment List denoting the authorized and issued equipment for a MARSOF soldier during a training exercise.
This citation is provided by the United States Marine Corps, and is on their official military website.

note - it lacks a 'colt 1911' entry in it's list or .45 ammunition and magazines.
Meaning that the soldier is not Issued either of those items.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The cite I posted shows that the inflation rate was
4.1 for 2007
0.1 for 2008
2.7 for 2009
1.5 for 2010
3.0 for 2011
1.7 for 2012
Each years rate multiplies the previous year.
How much does this add to a .05 cent bullet?
What percentage of the total increase does that equal?
That was the question I asked you.
Now can you do the math or will you need to find a grown up to help you?
As the comments in the s&w blog indicate the price of .22 ammo in mid 2016 when obama was still president and it looked like bills wife was ahead in the polls, .22 ammo was readily available at .10 cents a round (not .12 as you claimed) and as cheap as .05 cents a round if one looked carefully.




You're a short bus kinda special arn't you?
First off - you didn't post that. I did.

Second off - when doing math which is calculating Year on Year growth - you do not calculate the 0 year... it's growth is already taken into consideration as the starting value is based in that year.

So inflation per year:
0.1 for 2008
2.7 for 2009
1.5 for 2010
3.0 for 2011
1.7 for 2012

Calculating with ONLY inflation and no other outside influence forces with a starting price of 5 cents in 2007.

0.1 for 2008 - .05
2.7 for 2009 - .05005
1.5 for 2010 - .05140
3.0 for 2011 - .05217
1.7 for 2012 - .05305

so it starts at .05 cents in 2007 and sees an increase of .003 cents over the 5 year period.
Okay... so what if we take into account a simple growth gradient... where something else influences the price...
a 1 cent increase each year, so in 2007 it is 5 cents, in 2008, 6; 2009, 7; and so on.

0.1 for 2008 .05 + .01: .06
2.7 for 2009 .06006 + 1: .07006
1.5 for 2010 .07111 + 1: .08111
3.0 for 2011 .08354 + 1: .09354
1.7 for 2012 .09513 + 1: .10513

So the inflation even in that condition accounts for .005 cents over the course of the time measured.


So i have to ask In what universe does your math in any way seem correct?
a less then 2% year on year growth average of inflation accounting for 30% of it's price growth as you've claimed in post 153


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Now you are a mind reader...isn't that special?
The question is: out of a .07 cent increase how much was inflation. The figures I have posted indicate about .02 cents of the .07 was due to inflation.



The peak price of .22s was not in 2016, in 2014 it hit something like $ .20 per round here.




mnottertail -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/6/2017 3:59:44 PM)

22s like EOs that were antigun or?





thompsonx -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/6/2017 7:01:56 PM)

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Here is a s&w blog site. Note the dates of mid 2016 indicating prices as low as .05 cents a round up to .10 cents a round. It looks like you have been pedeling shit again.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/483181-price-22-ammo.html


That is not a Citable Source...

Perhaps you might get a grown up to read what I posted. It starts off with "here is a s&w blog site" Most of us know that blogs are opinions of the poster.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



That is a Web Forum who's data cannot be researched or proven, instead it is a series of anecdotal evidence.

This however IS a citable source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx
And it cites the price ranges as provided via data aggregated through Wal-Mart sales data analytics.

Yet when we read it we find that it says exactly what the blogers anectdotal evidence shows.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.





A picture of an ammo box is not a citation, it is a picture of an ammo box.
Marine corps times is not a marine corps publication. It says that right on the cite you posted





Yes - a the writing on a Container is a citable source if the writing on the container denotes the contents of the container. This is similar to citing the ingredient list or nutritional facts on a Box of Cereal. Don't get upset because it proves you wrong.

No it does not. It shows what is in the box. It does not show that is the only box of ammo used by the military.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.






Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 4:47:26 AM)

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.




InfoMan -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 5:43:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/483181-price-22-ammo.html

Perhaps you might get a grown up to read what I posted. It starts off with "here is a s&w blog site" Most of us know that blogs are opinions of the poster.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


Maybe if you read the actual sight... you would notice it is called smith-wessonFORUM.com...

i know you don't know the difference between the two... but:
http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-forum-and-blog

which goes back to my original statement:

quote:

This however IS a citable source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx
And it cites the price ranges as provided via data aggregated through Wal-Mart sales data analytics.

Yet when we read it we find that it says exactly what the blogers anectdotal evidence shows.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


If you had reading comprehension at all - which you've proven time and again that you don't - then the Article which was Written in 2014 observing Trends between 2007 and 2012 echos absolutely NOTHING in the Forum which was talking about prices in 2016... I mean - aside from misdirection - i don't see the point of you even linking the forum page because it isn't talking about the time frame in question and thus contributes nothing.






quote:


No it does not. It shows what is in the box. It does not show that is the only box of ammo used by the military.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



... That isn't the point of the citation idiot.
the point of the citation is to show that the standard Ball round is the Modern M33 Ball round - not the Pre-WW2 M2 Ball round.

yes there are multiple types of .50 BMG cans - some with M8:M20 AP cans, M9 linked Blanks, and SRTA m858:M860... to name a few.
but none of those are Ball rounds, and whats more - none of them where produced BEFORE world war 2, which is your original claim.

going back to the point -
What ammo do we use that was 'Made before world war 2'?
provide a citation.




InfoMan -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 5:50:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.


nah, it is going down and probably will stay down. Winchester and Remington opened up new factories to compensate for the ammunition shortage - and well... now that demand is down, supply will be higher because of those factories unless if they suddenly decide to abandon their brand new multi-million dollar factory.

And dedicated gun owners actually welcome it.
Ammo is the most expensive part of shooting for most people, unless if you're one of those a tacticool-mod-nuts, dropping 2000 bucks on a x12 variable zoom illuminated high powered scope to use in a 100 foot always lit indoor range...




mnottertail -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 8:39:42 AM)

actually, they will lay off people and not run those factories, more Il Douchovitch job losses.

And we return you to the OP.




BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 1:11:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.

In some places it has, for example CA.




mnottertail -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 2:08:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.

In some places it has, for example CA.

Because of those 22 anti-gun EOs. Thank god for obama instead of a nutsucker, hah?




Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 2:35:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.

In some places it has, for example CA.

You may not be aware that the US is 50 states, of which California is just one.




bounty44 -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 3:16:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.

In some places it has, for example CA.


I didn't watch it but earlier today when I was on redstate.com, I saw a video by a gun store owner as to what their business will look like under a trump administration. its probably still there.




BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 4:31:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~~FR~~

So, now that the gun defenders have descended to swarm around their circled wagons against a thread that isn't attacking them....have gun sales magicallly gone up again?

Because that's the topic.

In some places it has, for example CA.

You may not be aware that the US is 50 states, of which California is just one.

You failed to notice that I said "in some places".
For those with reading problems that means not everywhere.




mnottertail -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 5:28:42 PM)

I didnt fail to notice you felchgobbled 22 anti-gun EOs in 2013, and cant show one, for you with no comprehension at all welfare patient.




Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 5:39:28 PM)

In a thread about a national economic trend, in some places is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, back at the actual point...




MercTech -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/7/2017 10:22:53 PM)

Anecdotal observations from the gun show I went to last weekend.

A> Prices seem to be saner. Especially for ammunition with the exception of .22 LR. With only two plants in the U.S. making .22 caliber brass; it makes sense for the supply to still be short after the panic runs of the last few years. A good cheap round for target practice and being rim-fire, cannot be re-used.


B> Found a dynamite price on a .380 pocket pistol. (Ruger LCP) Now my girl doesn't have to keep bringing up that she thinks the 45 ACP is too big for her.

C> Bought an interesting alpenstock. Barrel contains a fishing pole complete with line and hooks. The butt can be swapped around to make a fish spear. And the head contains a 12 inch dagger with a compartment with fire starting equipment. The non-slip part of the handle is made of 50 ft of 550 paracord. I just couldn't resist the multi-purpose tech. And, it is hand made by a local woodworker. An oddball among his collection of custom made walking canes and sword canes.

D> Crossing my fingers.. <snort> - the Shriners were doing a charity raffle for an ATV.

E> Ran across a couple of memorabilia dealers I hadn't seen in decades. Guys from way back before my military days when I managed a cutlery store in a mall.

F> The aftermarket stock manufacturers have all gone bling insane. The amount of accessories you can hang on an assault stock for a rifle has hit the whacko point. Flashlights and laser sights I can see. But, a bluetooth enabled camera that will send a picture of every round hitting to a social media site via your cellphone along with a GPS telling exactly where you took your shot?

G> The "Second Amendment Sisters" had a booth selling baked goods that were to die for.

H> I still have this gut feeling that there is something inherently "off" about clothing in pink woodland camouflage pattern.

Interesting to see what is available and shake the head over how much prices for everything have been inflated over the last decade.

Trump's election seems to have removed a lot of the panic attitude that the previous president fostered by giving nut jobs like Feinstein and Claybrook so much of a voice.




lovmuffin -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 1:27:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

In a thread about a national economic trend, in some places is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, back at the actual point...


What is irrelevant is who gives a crap that gun sales are down because of Trump except that prices are going down, ammo is more available and no has to freak out so much when liberals start bellering about gun control.

What exactly is your point?




mnottertail -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 3:32:37 AM)

there is no evidence of more ammo available, and there is no evidence of prices going down. so that kinds flushes that.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625