Gun ownership numbers in the United States, or lack thereof

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Hoosier8, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not? There is a general paranoia in the gun owner community that distrusts anyone knowing what they have. There is even a joke about telling someone you lost all of yours in a boating accident, referring to the catch found in a creek not long ago.

    What makes you think anyone will tell the truth on a survey?
     
  2. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most gun owners I know aren't paranoid. Hell, I own guns.

    Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong crowd.

    Further, while people may lie about how many guns they own, they're far less likely to lie about whether they are a gun owner. Even the paranoid ones I've heard about are generally proud to be gun owners.

    But again, there are ways to account for that. Try to determine the percentage of gun owners who are paranoid, then add in a "paranoid gun nut" factor that assumes gun owners are underreporting by some percentage on average.

    Most gold-standard studies that deal with subjects where uncertainty can be high often provide three or more data sets, based on different sets of assumptions. So in this case you might provide the "default" set, which assumes everyone is telling the truth; the "paranoid" data set, which assumes a higher percentage of paranoid gun owners; and a "middle" set that's somewhere in between.

    None of that should get in the way of coming up with a reasonable ballpark estimate of gun ownership.
     
  3. Bondo

    Bondo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ayuh,... Well it Does get in the way of Truth, 'n Honesty....

    Some, "Studies" presented here are obviously creations of leftwingnuts, 'n of course, they skew the numbers to acheived their Desired results....

    Other studies, usually done by a group from within the "gun owner community", tend to run with different numbers...
    And of course, Very Different results....

    Now,... I donno 'bout You,...
    But it seems to Me, that as tight lipped the "gun owner community" Is,....
    I trust the numbers generated from within that same "gun owner community"....
    Rather than the Obviously Skewed numbers used in the bullship posted by certain posters in this forum...

    You can try to pass it off with All kinds of fancy big words,...
    But if life says, 'n does Exactly the Opposite, it pretty much shoots reliver's "Studies", Right outa the water...
     
  4. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Speaking of the "law" and speaking of "studies" are two different things, and require different conversations.

    As to the burden of proof, this is precisely what this discussion has been about. The proof has been offered via studies that other members here have taken umbrage to. The OP here has gone so far as to throw the baby out with the bath water at the expense of studies that favor the anti-control side. By taking the stance that he has, and apparently yourself as well, you both have forfeited the right to agree with and use in arguments, literature that shows defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun uses. A large sacrifice, I'd say, but if you feel strongly as to the merits of this science, then principle requires you to be consistent (as I'm sure you will be).
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is correct. Any argument that say defensive use outnumbers criminal use cannot also be verified because most defensive use is not reported.

    Therein lies the problem with any of the studies so one falls back on philosophical arguments of control and anti-control, which is a legitimate argument and one without science but one with plenty of experience.

    Reductions in crime have so many variables that it is hard to distinguish the cause without any hard data. For instance, cultural differences, economic differences, differences in heritage (again cultural), for all we know, cycles of the moon, and that as some have said, cannot be relied on.

    One thing that is evident in America is that, as a young nation, we do not want to cave in to the past ideological framework that promises security by methods of totalitarianism. That leaves freedom paramount no matter how messy it can be.
     
  6. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    A fairly reasoned position, I'd have to say. You HAVE slightly misread the available literature as to public sentiment, however. We know that when the public is asked more specific questions, they tend to agree with most proposed stricter gun laws. The NORC at the University of Chicago has done great work in this regard.


    As to holding gun laws to a different standard than others, I find offensive. You simply set up an impossible task (which I assume is the intent).
     
  7. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Thank you for that.
     
  8. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Do you believe Gary Kleck's work should be discounted too, then?
     
  9. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    At least you're consistent. I'll give you that.




    Your alleged flaw in science is far overblown. It has already been pointed out to you that variables CAN be controlled for. It's what scientists do here. It can be amazingly accurate, in spite of your denials.




    Again, that's their job; to figure this stuff out. You or I might not be so good at it, but they are quite good at it, I assure you. And they are able to do in a manner that is able to be tested by their peers.




    Ah,,,,,, You have a "tell". You have inadvertently shown us the cause of your bias on this issue. It apparently stems from a misplaced fear of "totalitarianism". Even though we were only speaking of scientific review, you felt compelled to bring a fear of legislative action into this discussion that did not belong here.

    It's always interesting to see what fuels a blind refusal to accept science.
     
  11. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All studies look for something specific. I agree with most as far as what they have found but I disagree with the people who use the studies to prove a point that is really not related to the study.
     
  12. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My only contention has been that a "supported hypothesis" or "can not be rejected". Is not the same as "proof" by my understanding.

    I appreciate the vote of confidence. Yet it is not a sacrifice to me. I have never
    used that in a conversation. I will use the same standards on all studies. The critical review I posted was I believe presented to congress in 2005. The only conclusion reached on defensive gun use was "used many times a day". I will not be dishonest to win a debate. I do not feel as if I have to win. A draw will serve my purposes just as well.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science based on incomplete data or bad data is just bad science, no matter how much you want to enshrine the word as if it is some kind of talisman to protect you from your own preconceived notions.
     
  14. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I did not mean to offend. I feel as if firearms have as much protection as other constitutionally protected rights. They can be limited but not in the same way as non-protected issues. Would that be a error on my part?
     
  15. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    What kind of double talk is this?

    I asked you a simple question and you talked all the way around it. Take a stand, friend. If you agree with your friend 'Hoosier' as to the importance of gun ownership data, then you must also discount Kleck's work.

    Be honest. Are you discounting Kleck's work?
     
  16. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    As you become more familiar with the research you'll come to understand that Kleck's work is held in high regard by the anti-control crowd and the results are often used in discussions concerning gun control. In fact his work is regarded above most, if not all other pro-gun works. To deny the science of Cook, and others based on some silly gun ownership charge only denies you the ability to use valid research for your own cause.
     
  17. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can agree with what is found in a study but the fact is no study fully does the job. I accept what studies reveal but I try to stick with the numbers. If a study agrees with raw data and shows causation and defines all potential contributory factors while not making assumptions about relevant variables that are not available in any real form I do consider them but I do not attempt to misapply them as is done so often.
     
  18. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Sorry but I wasn't the one who brought fearful qualms about "totalitarianism" and gun legislation when we were only talking about scientific research. Talk about "preconceived notions"! Kettle black?
     
  19. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    It is impossible to pass a law that is already proven to be effective. It's a chicken and egg dilemma. How do you know it to be effective until it is passed?

    This standard you espouse is unrealistic and not used in any other laws that I am aware of.
     
  20. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0





    So, in other words you dismiss Kleck's work. You really could have saved yourself some typing with the double talk.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    One is science, one is philosophy and government.

    You appear to assume that science is unassailable. Science itself is a process but that does not mean anything that comes of it is accurate or correct and that is what we have been talking about for a couple of threads relating to guns and crime, something in the political realm since the studies are pursued for the benefit of affecting law, so no, we are not just talking about scientific research, we are talking about what the results of bogus science studies can affect.
     
  22. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why would restricting the second amendment be any different than any of the other amendments? My understanding was a need had to be proven and the restiction had to meet that need. I am no expert by any means I am just going off my impression of what I have read.
     
  23. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Danct,
    I believe a more direct way of asking previous question. Would a fundamental right have more protection than a right not considered fundamental? If so what would you consider sufficient evidence?
     
  24. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think your confused Danct.

    What I am saying is almost all studies, because of their nature, can be discounted. I go with the raw data only because, though you discount it, there are no distortions or assumptions. All an opponent can do is say I am making spurious relationships. In fact I am looking at the data many times and wondering what is wrong with the math in those studies because they do not match the facts.
     
  25. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am far from proficient in the studies of discussion. I understand the summarys or conclusions of the ones I have read. Yet the math that is used in some of the studies I have read is beyond my comprehension. That is one reason why I have been concentrating on critical reviews. The one I posted was by 15 experts in their respective fields. My research has indicated 14 of the 15 favor gun control. D. Hemenway, Director of the Harvard School of Public Health, reviewed the review. He had only one major issue of
    disagreement as well as wishing a injury prevention professional had been included. The critical review itself reviewed a significant amount of the studies in question including Cook as well as Kleck. I do not dismiss the studies. My education is not sufficient for me to make that determination. To make up for that I check every possible aspect, I can imagine to see how people with higher intellects view the studies as well as the field of econometrics. Any reservations I express are related to professional opinions, not necessarily mine. The opinions of others on this forum I use for additional research as it presents a different point of view. I must prove facts to myself I can not blindly follow others. That is my purpose for engaging in debate it pushes me outside my comfort zone and forces me to research to find answers.

    May I ask if you have read this critical review? If so, what was your opinion?
    http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#description
     

Share This Page