I was using the numbers your fingers typed. And fourth grade math.
This statement is still incorrect, all assumptions and arguments aside.
This statement is still incorrect, all assumptions and arguments aside.
If the reason for your statement of my statement being incorrect is because there isn't a percent sign behind the .0016, that may be true. However, the math is still correct. If you divide 58 (from the 14+44) by the 35962 you do get .0016. On the other hand, if you take 35962 times .16, you get just over 5753.
Unless you have another reason to to say the statement is incorrect, the math is correct.
Yes, it IS the percent sign that makes it incorrect. Since you were trying to correct something that was, in fact, already correct, it is an important distinction. .0016 = .16%, which means .16% would NOT be 5753. No big deal, just realize that in mathematics, especially when trying to disprove what another says, the symbols mean everything.
ETA: Numbers based on the OSBI Report.
ETA: Numbers based on the OSBI Report.
.......or everyone gets one to the hip!
Sorry......
I couldn't help myself.
Michael Brown
.......or everyone gets one to the hip!
Sorry......
I couldn't help myself.
Michael Brown
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
- Reaction score
- 1,565
.16% is correct. And as noted that is just using last years approval numbers.
Itis my understanding that the total number of active SDA permits is "unavailable". I suppose that if someone added up the number of approvals for the last 5 years than you might be close.
Either way the numbers show a good light on law abiding gun owners.
Itis my understanding that the total number of active SDA permits is "unavailable". I suppose that if someone added up the number of approvals for the last 5 years than you might be close.
Either way the numbers show a good light on law abiding gun owners.
Still great info as Larry said.
I'm guessing some of you are to young to remember all the stories of gun fights in the streets if this law passed.
If open carry ever makes it to a vote you'll hear the smae kind of BS again.
Nice having a little proof on our side for any new laws that might come down in the future.
Of course you don't know the breakdown of renewals, 1yr vs 5yr.
it appears that a strong majority of the applications denied were for making false or misleading statements on the application. I would like to know what the general area of those statements were.
I'm assuming it would probably be failing to disclose some arrest (not necessarily conviction or charge)? Also, I know that it can't be determined, but I wonder how many people were trying to cover things up, and how many people either legitimately forgot something or simply did not explain it adequately
I'm assuming it would probably be failing to disclose some arrest (not necessarily conviction or charge)? Also, I know that it can't be determined, but I wonder how many people were trying to cover things up, and how many people either legitimately forgot something or simply did not explain it adequately
Similar threads
