that “[i]n my observation a well-regulated firearms registration process increases, the likelihood that law enforcement may successfully trace guns they recover”). Plaintiffs’ concerns about the conclusions these experts’ experience led them to, and the believability of those conclusions, go to the weight of the testimony and can be appropriately addressed through cross-examination. See U.S. v. H & R Block, Inc., 831 F.Supp.2d 27, 34 (D.D.C.2011) (noting that “technical deficiencies that can be adequately explored on cross-examination generally go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the evidence, unless the methodological deficiencies are so sweeping or fundamental as to render the survey wholly unreliable and therefore inadmissible”); see also Groobert, 219 F.Supp.2d at 9 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ambrosini, 101 F.3d at 141); Barnes
holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony recognizing that the dc circuit has stated that by attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of  competing studies the district court conflates the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a factfinder  holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony