Gun ownership numbers in the United States, or lack thereof

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
This link has even more questions asked.

 

The other links I wanted to post address was to long to read from my I-phone.(this little screen makes research hard) some of the info is on the above link. It was used in a USA Today headline that Americans favor gun control in response to the Tuson shootings. 24% of Americans picked stricter gun control as first choice in dealing with mass shootings. If you read the poll however 23% picked either nothing or no opinion. Another question mental Health services was listed as the main problem by most. The other poll I wanted to post showed huge increase in gun ownership on the east coast as well as democrats in the last year. The other gallup poll title was ironically "self-reported gun ownership"( I said it was ironic)if you wanted to look for yourself.
The only negative point of view on the polls I found was media matters.( Thats about like heartland disputing global warming.) I intend to look for other polls from different sources to back it up. I will look for newer versions of the one you posted as well.

 

If similar laws have been passed elsewhere, you can look at the consequences in those other areas and get a good idea of the consequences for passing similar laws in a new area.

 

Yes, exactly. We were talking about science and you brought ideology into this. Hardly staying on topic, I'd say.

No, I never said it was "unassailable". I HAVE said it deserves the respect it deserves when it can pass through the peer review process unscathed though. What I DO object to, however is the inevitable knee-jerk reactions such science will receive from you and your ilk here. This position is in the realm of dismissing valid science for the sake of ideology. I object to this mindset. Yes.

You see, there's your "tell" again. We can see from your response above that your irrational fear of legislation has overwhelmed your logical thinking. THIS is why you brought your reference of "totalitarianism" into this discussion, because your greatest fear is that a study will have definitive proof that guns are a detriment to society which will then effect gun policy. A wild and irrational fear, yes, but a fear nonetheless. The shame of it is that you are willing to turn a blind eye to science over mantra.

 

No, the work of Cook and others actually HAVE shown a positive effect of gun laws.

It isn't. We write laws all the time that effect free speech or freedom of religion. They don't ever have to be shown to be effective before passage. At times we have expanded rights with laws (such as 'stand your ground laws' or 'concealed carry laws' etc.), and nobody asks for proof of efficacy before passage. This is only applied by zealots when confronted with new legislation that they view to be against their agendas. That's it.

No, you're wrong. We have always had gun control laws in this country of one form or another. Just as we have always had limits on our free speech rights. That is simply the nature of the beast. We don't live in a world of absolutes where everything is black and white, and we must accept that we have limits to our rights. This is the only way that we can function as a society. There are always situations that inevitably come up that call for an interpretation of a particular Right and laws will be made or rescinded on that basis, but NOWHERE do we need to first show efficacy of a law before passage. It would be a ridiculous parameter.

 

Interesting spin. You claim that a study's results must agree with raw data in order to be deemed valid..............And you claim I'M confused. My my.

What you have laid out above is the very definition of spurious relationship. Congratulations. Your naivete is secure.

 

What I meant wasn't that you literally "misread" the material, but that you have misinterpreted the results. My point is that when asked general questions, we give general answers. Many times influenced by general concepts. It isn't until asked of specific gun laws or proposed gun laws that we see the more interesting data, in my opinion. Your survey is better than most in that it attempts to get into some more specific areas. Unfortunately, they only ask about one proposed gun law and even then they misphrased the question. They mistakenly merged two terms that are at odds with each other when they asked about "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles". I'm not trying to knock this survey, because there is interesting information in it, but I still prefer the NORC survey in spite of its age.

 

Only provided the proposed law is indeed "similar" as you alleged AND that the researched data on the other law is accurate.

Of course all gun laws are NOT the same, even though many claim them to be.

 

No. It is what it is. If a study predicts that rain will fall next tuesday and it does not there is a flaw with the study. I hear this (*)(*)(*)(*) all the time and economists are usually wrong when doing anything other than studying economic effects (past tense). Economists are part of the reason we (the US) are in the mess we are in today. When economists speak common sense goes out the window.

 

So the fundamental protections are in courts not congress? I would have thought congress members oath to uphold
constitution would place some extra consideration to those issues.

I would like to know your opinion on Don B Kates Jr.? He seems to be a independent thinker on this issue. What he says makes sense and laws he
suggest do not seem intrusive.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html

 

Since I will be going out of the area and will have very limited access to a computer for the next 4 to 9 months let me say this in parting, Argue all you want as to whether we should have an armed populace or not but DON'T come into my home (where ever it may be at the moment) uninvited. They WILL carry you out. Now, go ahead, argue whether that would be right or not, it doesn't matter, the end results will be the same. Oh, you say you wouldn't come in uninvited?? That's the whole point, others will it, happens every day to people. So, weapons are for protection first, hunting and recreation second. End of argument.

 

Lipstick on a pig. Nobody is saying anything about weather forecasting. Guess you missed it.

The fact remains that you claim that a study's results must agree with certain raw data to the exclusion of other raw data in order to be deemed valid..............And you claim I'M confused. My my.

Your position is the very definition of spurious relationship. It's the same anti-science stance we saw during the eight years of Bush "W".

I see you still hang onto using poison the well fallacies. Too bad.

 

Actually, typically they do. There are some very narrow issues, however that only a court can decide when it comes to Constitutional issues that were written fairly broadly. All one need do is read some Supreme Court Opinions including their dissenting Opinions to see this. There is much to consider which is contrary to what you hear from many black/white thinking absolutists.

I'm not that familiar with his articles. Perusing your link though, I would have to say that he does make some sense. He states here:

"Rejection of specious or unproven anti-gun views does not entail accepting equally specious or unproven pro-gun propaganda. By the same token, realistically acknowledging that gun laws cannot overcome basic socio-economic and cultural causes of violence does not at all justify the gun lobby's myopic rejection of the very concept of control. ...a myth ... that what "control" really means is reducing -- eventually banning -- guns to all but the military and the police. ... But that is not what "control" means, either literally or to the majority of Americans who support it (a majority that includes, surveys show, most gun owners). The literal meaning of "control" is regulation, not prohibition."
​

Many here still don't get this.

 

We will certainly miss your narrow views here.

Ironically, I don't recall anyone here speaking about whether we should enter your house or not, and I don't recall anyone here offering to ban guns in relation to getting at gun ownership rates (you know,... the topic of this thread?).

Thanks for your input though.

 

Not really.

The conclusions that one draws from studies many times are counter to the evidence (raw data). It is only when evidence (raw data) is manipulated in studies to find a predetermined result for the purpose of creating new evidence (BS) that is counter to the real evidence (raw data) that we run into issues. You have issues

No - raw numbers do not lie, because they have had no filters applied to them. No assumption or manipulation is used to reach a predetermined conclusion.

 

When someone points out flaws of both sides it gives them more credibility in my mind of searching for solutions. This issue like all controversial issues both sides demonize the opposing view. The most extreme views on both sides are branded as the goal of the movement. The fear to give in even slightly to the "enemy" will be taken advantage and seen as weakness. There are however people who will not be satisfied till guns are banned. As well as people who will see the 2nd being violated if they can not have a Abrams tank. Most people are in the grey area here as well. I do have concerns with the in my mind undue emphasis on just gun-control. Other things have a tremendous effect on crime I believe those issues are ignored in favor of the easy out. If we really want to make society safer there has to be a comprehensive effort. My understanding is we do not even take full advantage of gun control already in place. The people who attempt to buy weapons and fail background checks are not prosecuted vigorously. Gun charges are routinely plea-bargained instead of making an example of the offenders. Now I agree that is my perception and I am no expert but I feel if we do not utilize the measure in place due to a overburdened legal system. Then new laws will have little effect and more controls would still be wanted. The positive effect of any control is dependent on enforcement. I will seek to continue to understand this issue but I am beginning to see that it is extremely complicated for even highly educated individual to find answers. Then even harder to try a share that knowledge.

 

I see you STILL don't understand how spurious relationships work. A little bit of homework could fix that. I'm surprised this didn't occur to you.

The raw data shows that while drunk driving fatalities have gone down in this country, alcohol sales have actually gone up. Should we conclude that there is no fatal relationship between drinking and driving? What you have missed with your naive approach is that some variables need to be controlled for in order to make a valid conclusion from raw data.

You are free to stick with your flat earth approach to science, but you will never be the wiser.

Valid scientific research will go through the peer review process where the research can be tested and confirmed. If there are the sort of manipulations that you alleged, this is where they will be found out and exposed. I notice that you haven't referred to any of these in your retorts. I assume they don't exist, then.

Major fail.

 

True. These are the extreme minority. The rest are fairly evenly divided between those who would like to see some new stricter gun laws and those who feel we should not have any new gun laws. The error I see made here often is inflating both the importance AND the numbers of those who would like to see a total gun ban put into place (an insignificant number by any poll I've seen). It fuels (this false perception) an irrational fear that is helpful to the gun lobby and it also fuels a slippery slope fallacy.

 

I agree the gun lobby has become very adept at manipulating gun owners. That is why they are far more powerful than any other lobby. I can see good and bad from that power. The good is that gun owners are heard from and represented very well. The bad being they must keep motivation high in its ranks to maintain that power. They benefit from the actions of the other Anglo-Saxon countries that controls have been used as steps to firearm bans. While I feel the vast majority of individuals actually only want common sense regulations. I do not have the same confidence in the leadership of the control organizations. Just as I do not feel the NRA will ever be satisfied an just say we will disband we are no longer needed. This has become very profitable on both sides to continue the struggle. I wish the quest for truth would be embraced by both sides. Yet as in every other controversial issue the truth is blinded by the extreme ideology of a few on both sides. I will try to seek the truth on all issues I do not have much confidence that our leaders will use the same approach.

 

Something like the NRA will always be around because there is a strong organized effort to work toward incremental gun control. Since it is said that California is 5 years ahead of the nation, you can look to California for the direction this effort will take us. They have some of the most stringent controls to the effect that many guns available in almost all the other States are banned and most FFL's will not ship anything to CA just to avoid the hassle.

 

Nope you just like that word because you think it makes you sound smart. When the facts don't fit the study it must be that big word.

 

I have no problem with the mission statement of the NRA. I believe they do provide a voice for most gun owners. Yet I do see some faults as well, that being said I think they use the system how it must be used. I consider myself in agreement with them most of the time. I do agree with Danct that to paint all people who do not share our opinion as having a goal to ban firearms is not productive or accurate. Almost all gun owners believe in some form of gun control. That means we as much as we hate to admit it we favor restrictions on the 2nd amendment. The NRA favors restrictions as well that is why some other groups have formed that have a more extreme view. My opinion is we must enforce all current controls that can help make society safer. As well as address the other causes of crime that have a larger bearing on the activity than firearms. My goal is to protect the rights we still have but in doing that we must prevent misuse of firearms as much as possible. I do not believe the nation will keep following California the problems that state has experienced will discourage others I hope from making same mistakes. I hope I am correct but we do have problems learning from our mistakes in this country.