Scientific American article on Gun Ownership

[Ura-Ki]

Let' see here, a study by a foreiner on Americans who he despises, yup, that's going to be accurately reported. Picking and choosing data only to support his ideas and to further the message, yup, let' all hug it out and embrace the horrors, were all a bunch of deplorables, and damn proud of it!

 

[Ranger90]

You don't need to conduct a study to know that most gun owners are respectful & law abiding citizens. This study is agenda driven, and designed to obfuscate the truth.

 

[dogface2000]

I don't know about the "statistics" but that doesn't describe me. Most people I know who fit that description don't have the patience or the means to "stockpile" let alone take the time to be accurate with a rifle. JMO.
People sure are interested in spouting BS about tools that we could use to defend ourselves from a threat. Doesn't seem logical to me. Almost seems as if there is a social engineering project in the works.
Young people begging men with guns to remove guns from others. Seems dangerous and naive.

 

[3MTA3]

Sortakindascientificish Antiwhitemale magazine, huh? When did Bloomberg buy them?

 

[Mark W.]

Stockpiling thats an interesting thing to think about. I am 60 years old. I have owned firearms since I was 14. That's 46 years. I will not say how many but I own well less then one firearm pre year I have been an owner. And 4 of those firearms came about as a result of gift or inheritance. I have bought and sold a bunch of firearms over the years from Muzzle loaders to a really bad nasty looking TECH-9 (biggest POS I have ever owned). I own no firearms I would consider to be stockpiled. I tend to buy what I enjoy most of them have at least by this point in time a bit of a Historical slant to them. OK I own 4 Winchester model 1894's but they are all different and range from 1925 to 1968.

Now ammo and reloading supplies OK you got me there.

 

[3MTA3]

Political spin: collect becomes stockpile; a box of 22LR becomes hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

 

[P7M13]

Let' see here, a study by a foreiner on Americans who he despises, yup, that's going to be accurately reported. Picking and choosing data only to support his ideas and to further the message, yup, let' all hug it out and embrace the horrors, were all a bunch of deplorables, and damn proud of it!

Yup. And the Northland College study of CHL holders in TX, which determined racism was a contributing factor in gun purchases, consisted of interviews of 20 - yes, you read that right, twenty - men. That's a significant study group!

 

[mkwerx]

I have more Native 'Injun' blood in me than Poca-Haunt-Us Warren's last 5 generations of ancestry

I dropped out of college to work full time and take care of a family, but I educate myself be reading and intaking data - so while my highest ranking piece of paper is my HS diploma, I'd consider myself at least as educated as the average college drone working at Starbucks or Wal Mart

Disempowered - no, I don't think so. Not yet anyway. I am one of three owners of a small successful business that has seen revenue growth every year and that operates in the black. While I do not feel well represented or respected by my state government, I still have my voice, my vote, and my rifle.

Scared - yes, but not in the way the article paints. I am scared for the future of this nation and especially how it will be as my son grows up. I want to leave it better for him than I got it - with more freedom, better treatment by the government, less intrusion into his life. I am scared that we face balkanization and civil strife, and scared that our economy is just a house of cards that can come down any time. I am also worried about an out of control government that wants to disarm and abuse the citizens it is supposed to work for.

Spiritual - yes. And no one ever asked me to take any survey.

 

[TeacherSmurf]

This reminds me of the old adage... " There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics"

As the one math teacher at school that actually likes playing with statistics, I get quoted this every year. My principal is learning not to give me raw data and some bigwig's conclusions because I tend to tear it apart.

Haven't read the data it is based on yet, but my first question is always does the money source make it bias. Second question is sample size and validity. Third question is how did they gather their data. Fourth question, do they recognize and identify their own bias within the write-up.

And no, this doesn't describe either myself or @CountryGent.

 

[3MTA3]

As the one math teacher at school that actually likes playing with statistics, I get quoted this every year. My principal is learning not to give me raw data and some bigwig's conclusions because I tend to tear it apart.

Haven't read the data it is based on yet, but my first question is always does the money source make it bias. Second question is sample size and validity. Third question is how did they gather their data. Fourth question, do they recognize and identify their own bias within the write-up.

And no, this doesn't describe either myself or @CountryGent.

Well, there you go, getting all objective on us....

 

[Koda]

Haven't read the data it is based on yet, but my first question is always does the money source make it bias.

one of the sources cited in the article is University of Chicago. They did a "gun violence" study few years ago thats been used by anti-gun media before.

Im not certain how to fact check who funds such a study from a university to find out if they or the study was funded by anti-gun organizations?

 

[TeacherSmurf]

Well, there you go, getting all objective on us....

Sorry,

one of the sources cited in the article is University of Chicago. They did a "gun violence" study few years ago thats been used by anti-gun media before.

Im not certain how to fact check who funds such a study from a university to find out if they or the study was funded by anti-gun organizations?

Hum... not sure on the money part, but that would definitely make me question validity in the sample. Unless they went out of the Chicago/Illinois area. After all, their gun laws are so restrictive, it would skew the data. And I could see those living in or around Chicago being more "dis-empowered, and generally scared" than your average gun owner.

 

[Koda]

Hum... not sure on the money part, but that would definitely make me question validity in the sample.

I could see someone like Bloomberg funding such a university study.

another thing that I believe contributes to these anti-gun statistics is that most are conducted by individuals that are not gun owners or full anti-gun. What percentage, cant say... but there are a lot of anti-gun studies out there (by comparison) and if the study team wasn't evenly split politically then its biased. and what are the odds any of these studies are evenly split?

 

[EPS]

Mmmmm well not that educated but white had a SAMOAN GIRL AND HALF WHITE HALF SAMOAN DAUGHTER have many friends that are black Mexican SAMOAN SO ON AND SO i MAKE HIGH 5 FIGURE OR 6 FIGURE INCOME AND DONT REALLY CARE WHAT ANYONE THINKS ABOUT ME so not really what they are talking about .lol but I DO HAVE LOTS OF GUNS

 

[TeacherSmurf]

I could see someone like Bloomberg funding such a university study.

another thing that I believe contributes to these anti-gun statistics is that most are conducted by individuals that are not gun owners or full anti-gun. What percentage, cant say... but there are a lot of anti-gun studies out there (by comparison) and if the study team wasn't evenly split politically then its biased. and what are the odds any of these studies are evenly split?

When we were talking about bias and un-bias questions and data gathering I had a student bring this up. He asked if there was a non-bias way to ask questions about gun control. @CountryGent and I were also just discussing the wish for security within the gun community. If some random person called to ask about gun ownership, I don't know how many would answer truthfully.

If you were looking for information on gun owners themselves, asking at gun ranges, gun stores, and gun shows would be non-bias as the population, in general, was gun owners. The sample was those individuals data was gathered from. That would be more valid data than a phone call.

If you were looking for information on something like gun control from a personal perspective, the population would be everyone and I am not sure there would be valid pro-gun data unless it was gathered by a known individual within the gun community. Even here, people are reluctant to give an exact count.

 

[EPS]

I always wanted to know HOW COME NOBODY EVER ASK ME ANYTHING WHEN THEY DO THESE STUDY'S .MMMMM WHO ARE THEY TALKING TOO .NOT ME .NOT YOU WHO IS TALKING TO THEM ? Mmmmmmmmmmm maybe we will never know

 

[Ura-Ki]

Hard to convince folks, especially gun owners to give unbiased and factual info for any study! How do you expect to get honest answers when you load the questions with a certain slant. Might be a fun thread to run, see whay kind of responded we get!

 

[Koda]

When we were talking about bias and un-bias questions and data gathering I had a student bring this up. He asked if there was a non-bias way to ask questions about gun control. @CountryGent and I were also just discussing the wish for security within the gun community. If some random person called to ask about gun ownership, I don't know how many would answer truthfully.

If you were looking for information on gun owners themselves, asking at gun ranges, gun stores, and gun shows would be non-bias as the population, in general, was gun owners. The sample was those individuals data was gathered from. That would be more valid data than a phone call.

If you were looking for information on something like gun control from a personal perspective, the population would be everyone and I am not sure there would be valid pro-gun data unless it was gathered by a known individual within the gun community. Even here, people are reluctant to give an exact count.

from what I understand they usually do a phone call with a sample of some number like only 2000 people. The individuals may or may not be from the same community, or area or region or might be all over the country. The questions are picked by the study team... and if the team doesn't have an equal representation of both sides of the debate then its biased right out of the gate.

There are pro-gun studies but they are largely refuted as biased by any anti-gun debater. How ironic.

Gary Kleck from the University of Florida did a study on lawful defensive gun use and found them in the millions annually. Other studies put the low end estimate at least 55000 (minimum) annually... still refuted by anti-gunners. (by comparison, gun controllers argue that 66000 people die from guns each year including suicide).

so you can see, I dont trust any gun control study as being partisan.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Don't judge me. I am picking up a few items on Dianne Feinstein's list this year. My wife asked "What about getting central air this year?" I told her that Kate Brown won't have air conditioning banned in 2019.

 

[Flopsweat]

I always wanted to know HOW COME NOBODY EVER ASK ME ANYTHING WHEN THEY DO THESE STUDY'S .MMMMM WHO ARE THEY TALKING TOO .NOT ME .NOT YOU WHO IS TALKING TO THEM ? Mmmmmmmmmmm maybe we will never know

Statistically, you are not likely to ever be a part of their statistics.