Two Pinocchio's for the 40%

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html?tid=pm_pop

The claim was that 40% of gun purchases occur without background checks. The Washington Post fact checked this after the claim was challenged by many including John Lott. The original author was contacted and data analyzed.

They conclude

In other words, rather than being 30 to 40 percent (the original estimate of the range) or “up to 40 percent” (Obama’s words), gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent. And since the survey sample is so small, that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points.

Moreover, as we noted before, the survey was taken in late 1994, eight months after the Brady law went into effect, and the questions were asked about gun purchases in the previous two years. So some of the answers concerned gun purchases that took place in a pre-Brady environment.

They conclude the President was incorrect to use those figures and thus gets two Pinoke's.

 

[sigcurious]

Sadly, it may be too late now, and the correct information and truth about the statistic may never reach the ears of those who spout it.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Good for the WP to check up on it...I had a strong feeling for a while now that the stat was off, but didnt know how much.

This is where the 40% stat came from:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

and as I said before, in a thread on the same topic

This survey was done using Data collected by telephone survey, so I would take the results with a grain of salt....Just my opinion.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=511454

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks we need to be polite. Just a hint. I know we are upset but let's not get carried away.

 

[BarryLee]

So, Mr. Obama said 40% and the actual number could be as low as 8%?

To paraphrase a classic line from the film Casablanca - I’m shocked, shocked to find that lying is going on in here.