yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
There's no reason that the results could not be perfectly legitimate and scientific.
I wonder if there's more of a correlation to wealth instead of gun ownership. I mean, guns are fairly pricey possessions. Maybe someone should do a household income check amongst those same people.
Voluntary response bias pretty much shits on the legitimacy of the findings, at least as applied to the general population.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Isn't the American General Social Survey administered more scientifically than that?
Statistics Canada does one as well and AFAIK, it's the basis of a hell of a lot of respected papers.Okay... Took a minute to look around and your GSS seems to be similarly trustworthy: General Social Survey FAQ
That is completely accounted for in the studies, (note that it's plural - there have been dozens) just read them.
There is no real opposition to these numbers, based on anything supportable. BATF estimates are the same as these percentages. BJS agrees with these numbers. In other words: gun supports agree, gun opponents agree, the government agrees, researchers agree, private experiences seem to agree at least as often as not...I mean Jesus Christ there is no one involved in it that doesn't agree. How much more do you need?
What you think doesn't account for what is true. Take Washington for example. It's about as liberal a state as you'll ever find. Staunchly blue. However, we were the first state to implement concealed carry, have the highest number of carriers, and among the loosest gun laws in the nation. Just because you don't expect something doesn't mean it isn't so.
As to the defensive gun uses, again even the government agrees with these numbers. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary I'm sure all the people who spend their lives doing it will be overjoyed to receive it. Otherwise you're an ignorant internet troll without a clue, and your opinion means exactly shit.
Quite frankly, none of that even matters. What exactly are we supposed to do with these numbers and theorized conclusions which is actually productive? Debate about them?
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,929
- 142
- 106
Nice find. It shows that not 51,000 people were interviewed (as wiki said), but only 4,510 for the year 2006. Wiki must have meant the TOTAL of ALL YEARS.Originally posted by: yllus
Isn't the American General Social Survey administered more scientifically than that?
Okay... Took a minute to look around and your GSS seems to be similarly trustworthy: General Social Survey FAQ
Also, I couldn't find if it was completely random sampling. Either way, not a huge sample size.
Originally posted by: yllus
Isn't the American General Social Survey administered more scientifically than that?
Okay... Took a minute to look around and your GSS seems to be similarly trustworthy: General Social Survey FAQ
You know what, I should have read the OP more closely. I was thinking this was a survey of gun owners. This was just one aspect of the larger GSS survey and so there's no reason to believe that people would have answered solely on their gun ownership affiliation. So.. yeah I guess I'm wrong.
Voluntary response bias IS a huge problem in a lot of surveys however. If you just mail out a questionnaire on say... gun control, you tend to only get the responses of people who are very interested in gun rights one way or the other, and your sample is not indicative of the population as a whole.
Anyways, that isn't the case here... so yeah.
.. you do realize you are in the AT P&N forum, right? It's nothing but unproductive discussions/flame wars involving theorized conclusions and debate based on questionable sources of information.
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
.. you do realize you are in the AT P&N forum, right? It's nothing but unproductive discussions/flame wars involving theorized conclusions and debate based on questionable sources of information.
Ya...I know. This particular bit of collected info is sub par on the useful scale though even for AT P&N.
*shrug* I personally find the whole 'smarter, better paid, happier' thing to be a load of crap...but that doesn't mean that some of the underlying numbers aren't accurate.
again, I'll say that if 4000 people were called, it matters greatly where those people live in terms of the outcome of the survey.
And prince of wands, can you stop defending 'studies' that showed a range of results between 150k and 2.5M? That's such a huge gap in results that it's impossible to defend.
And prince of wands, can you stop defending 'studies' that showed a range of results between 150k and 2.5M? That's such a huge gap in results that it's impossible to defend.
Assuming this study was conducted in a scientific manner, I think there is a more interesting point for discussion besides the one the OP brought up. If gun owners really are the well adjusted, happy, good neighbor types...why do they seem to have such a hard time getting the message out to so many people? There are a ton of gun owners in America, if their awesomeness was really as self evident as the OP claims it is, why does it even need to be discussed? It's sort of like being cool...if you're ACTUALLY cool, you don't have to go around telling everyone all the time.
No, it really isn't at all. The studies had different thresholds for 'defensive gun use', different polling methods, and so on. Having read a majority of them it's quite easy to see where the differences come in. Until you get off your lazy ignorant ass and actually do some research I'm not inclined to be very accepting of your off-hand dismissals.
Instead of discounting out of principle you need to provide support for your position of opposition: either refute the specific study or provide evidence to the contrary. Those are your only two options. Anything else means your an ignorant internet troll with nothing but a worthless opinion, and I'll keep calling you on it every time.
Where's your proof? Show it. Give me some support for your refutation.
lets do some more name calling to show how tough we are.
I don't need to refute anything - the numbers speak for themselves. The idea that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year is so ludicris it's beyond comprehension.
For the record, I'm not for banning guns - my main point about guns in this country is that way too many people have access to guns - gun dealers should be under much tighter controls than they are - gun buyback programs should only be used in exchange for items that can't be turned into even newer guns, and the penalty for people committing crimes with guns should be much tougher than they currently are. I don't have a real problem with concealed carry laws - again, as long as the people that have guns have been properly screened. Finally - I'm appalled at the lack of caring by gun activists about the rate of gun crime in this country - it literally makes me sick.
I've done quite a bit of reading and studying on the issue of guns, I'd be happy to discuss it with you - and unlike you, I can cite non NRA funded studies and talking points.
However, since we're at it - the 2.5 million figure comes from a 1994 study by Florida St. criminologists - among them the infamous Gary Kleck - in other words, one every 13 seconds.....There are a few interesting facts in the study, that don't get much publicity, but I find them interesting, as well as facts from studies of that study.
Prior to this study, the NRA stated each year that gun ownership was around 50% of all households - this study calculated closer to 35% (still high IMO).
Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged,
college- educated people of rural small-town
America. - not sure how that comes out to 35%, but oh well.
About 60
percent of gun acquisitions involved federally
licensed dealers. THIS SHOULD BE A MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE!
About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were
stolen in noncommercial thefts in 1994. Stolen from homes or gun stores? Here is your primary source of the guns-at-the-corner purchases in most cities in America. One study showed that 32% of felons said their most recent gun was acquired by stealing it - why are guns so easy to steal?
People who had been arrested for non-traffic violations had a higher ownership percentage than the rest of the population, 37% to 25%.
Tradition plays a large role - 80% of gun owners reported that their parent's kept a gun in the home when they were children.
Also, in the study, of those responding "yes" to the question "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?"
Almost half of those people reported multiple instances of defensive gun uses - one woman's answer was 52.
The real, basic problem with the 2.5 million figure is simple - Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
million incidents of violent crime in 1994 - so this study would have us believe that guns were more successful in preventing crimes then they were in committing them, by more than a 2 to 1 ratio?
The numbers get even more wacky - the estimate of successful prevention of rapes is higher than the number of committed rapes (from the NSPOF follow-up study) ("So if we believe the K-G results, women (the vast majority of whom do not own guns) defend themselves with guns in almost 40% of all sexual assaults. ", and the Defensive gun success rate for armed robberies foiled would be around 36% - which, if it were true, would be a great deterrent to potential criminals - but that number is obviously skewed.
Conflicting follow-up answers were not discounted - people who said they used a gun defensively against an attempted robbery, attack, or rape later said "no" when asked "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?" How is that?
A MUCH better study are the NCVS studies - which didn't randomly call people and hear their stories of heroism - but actually surveyed people who reported being involved in a crime or an attempted crime. This study, by the way, is the low-end of the DGU number - at just under 110,000 per year. Oh, by the way, this study interviewed 90,000 adults.
There are other holes in the Kleck study - they asked to speak to the male head of the household - they only called 5000 people, they got 66 positives - including the "52 times" responder. These heroic 66 - and their brethren all over this country, if you believe the Kleck study - would be saving approximately 400,000 thousand people a year - yet there were only 27,000 gun homicides in 1992..........
Another survey from 1994 asked 1500 people if they had seen a UFO in the past year, or had contact with Aliens. This survey was conducted by ABC news w/the Washington post. 10% answered yes - and of those 150 people, 6% also answered yes about having had contact with Aliens. Extrapolating that survey - done by a very credible group - would give you 20 Million Americans seeing UFO's each year, with a million having contact with Aliens.
Finally, this statistical oddity about sums it up:
"Finally, the 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to K- G, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.
The explanation K-G offer for this finding is nonsensical. That defensive gun use is substantially more common than criminal gun use, they write, "should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders." [61] In fact, criminals are more rather than less likely than victims to possess guns. The statistics in question are the number of times criminals and victims use guns, not how many different individuals use guns. If a single criminal uses a gun in 20 robberies and in four of these cases a victim uses a gun in self-defense, the usage rates are 5- 1 in favor of criminals, not 4-1 in favor of victims."
Are you still going to call me an ignorant internet troll with worthless opinions, or are you going to keep spouting the same BS statistics?
"It's quite easy to see where the differences come in" - you said that. I would refute that with "it's quite easy to see where people with an agenda would take the KG study and stand by it, despite it's obviously flawed methods and conclusions. The NCVS studies are so obviously superior - and it's not like their results are 'bad news' for pro-gun advocates - it's just that they are a much less sensational number, but clearly more realistic - that citing the KG numbers makes people look like over-zealous idiots"
Call me more names to build yourself up - ignorant, lazy, worthless - do whatever it takes to make yourself feel better.
I don't need to refute anything - the numbers speak for themselves. The idea that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year is so ludicris it's beyond comprehension.
For the record, I'm not for banning guns - my main point about guns in this country is that way too many people have access to guns - gun dealers should be under much tighter controls than they are - gun buyback programs should only be used in exchange for items that can't be turned into even newer guns, and the penalty for people committing crimes with guns should be much tougher than they currently are. I don't have a real problem with concealed carry laws - again, as long as the people that have guns have been properly screened. Finally - I'm appalled at the lack of caring by gun activists about the rate of gun crime in this country - it literally makes me sick.
I've done quite a bit of reading and studying on the issue of guns, I'd be happy to discuss it with you - and unlike you, I can cite non NRA funded studies and talking points.
However, since we're at it - the 2.5 million figure comes from a 1994 study by Florida St. criminologists - among them the infamous Gary Kleck - in other words, one every 13 seconds.....There are a few interesting facts in the study, that don't get much publicity, but I find them interesting, as well as facts from studies of that study.
Prior to this study, the NRA stated each year that gun ownership was around 50% of all households - this study calculated closer to 35% (still high IMO).
Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged,
college- educated people of rural small-town
America. - not sure how that comes out to 35%, but oh well.
About 60
percent of gun acquisitions involved federally
licensed dealers. THIS SHOULD BE A MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE!
About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were
stolen in noncommercial thefts in 1994. Stolen from homes or gun stores? Here is your primary source of the guns-at-the-corner purchases in most cities in America. One study showed that 32% of felons said their most recent gun was acquired by stealing it - why are guns so easy to steal?
People who had been arrested for non-traffic violations had a higher ownership percentage than the rest of the population, 37% to 25%.
Tradition plays a large role - 80% of gun owners reported that their parent's kept a gun in the home when they were children.
Also, in the study, of those responding "yes" to the question "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?"
Almost half of those people reported multiple instances of defensive gun uses - one woman's answer was 52.
The real, basic problem with the 2.5 million figure is simple - Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
million incidents of violent crime in 1994 - so this study would have us believe that guns were more successful in preventing crimes then they were in committing them, by more than a 2 to 1 ratio?
The numbers get even more wacky - the estimate of successful prevention of rapes is higher than the number of committed rapes (from the NSPOF follow-up study) ("So if we believe the K-G results, women (the vast majority of whom do not own guns) defend themselves with guns in almost 40% of all sexual assaults. ", and the Defensive gun success rate for armed robberies foiled would be around 36% - which, if it were true, would be a great deterrent to potential criminals - but that number is obviously skewed.
Conflicting follow-up answers were not discounted - people who said they used a gun defensively against an attempted robbery, attack, or rape later said "no" when asked "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?" How is that?
A MUCH better study are the NCVS studies - which didn't randomly call people and hear their stories of heroism - but actually surveyed people who reported being involved in a crime or an attempted crime. This study, by the way, is the low-end of the DGU number - at just under 110,000 per year. Oh, by the way, this study interviewed 90,000 adults.
There are other holes in the Kleck study - they asked to speak to the male head of the household - they only called 5000 people, they got 66 positives - including the "52 times" responder. These heroic 66 - and their brethren all over this country, if you believe the Kleck study - would be saving approximately 400,000 thousand people a year - yet there were only 27,000 gun homicides in 1992..........
Another survey from 1994 asked 1500 people if they had seen a UFO in the past year, or had contact with Aliens. This survey was conducted by ABC news w/the Washington post. 10% answered yes - and of those 150 people, 6% also answered yes about having had contact with Aliens. Extrapolating that survey - done by a very credible group - would give you 20 Million Americans seeing UFO's each year, with a million having contact with Aliens.
Finally, this statistical oddity about sums it up:
"Finally, the 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to K- G, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.
The explanation K-G offer for this finding is nonsensical. That defensive gun use is substantially more common than criminal gun use, they write, "should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders." [61] In fact, criminals are more rather than less likely than victims to possess guns. The statistics in question are the number of times criminals and victims use guns, not how many different individuals use guns. If a single criminal uses a gun in 20 robberies and in four of these cases a victim uses a gun in self-defense, the usage rates are 5- 1 in favor of criminals, not 4-1 in favor of victims."
Are you still going to call me an ignorant internet troll with worthless opinions, or are you going to keep spouting the same BS statistics?
"It's quite easy to see where the differences come in" - you said that. I would refute that with "it's quite easy to see where people with an agenda would take the KG study and stand by it, despite it's obviously flawed methods and conclusions. The NCVS studies are so obviously superior - and it's not like their results are 'bad news' for pro-gun advocates - it's just that they are a much less sensational number, but clearly more realistic - that citing the KG numbers makes people look like over-zealous idiots"
Call me more names to build yourself up - ignorant, lazy, worthless - do whatever it takes to make yourself feel better.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter