American's Views on Guns & Gun Ownership

[Dale00]

A new PEW Research study has just been released.

IMO it is a good example of how social science research can skew the true picture: two thirds of the respondents in the study were not gun owners. To draw an analogy, how valuable are the opinions of non-drivers about automobiles? ("I watch movies about car chases and racing so I have an "informed" opinion about cars and car ownership").

The ability of non-gun owners to accurately understand the issues and the terms used (e.g. background check) is highly questionable.

Thank goodness the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right and not subject to what some social scientist wrongly discerns or what the majority "feels". What uninformed people feel can change from day to day depending on the latest media propaganda.

I fail to see the value of this study - but feel obliged to raise the alarm about it and similar efforts. They show more than a little wrong-headedness.

Given all those reservations, here is a sample of the findings:

 

[Glocktogo]

The "value" is to anti-gun propagandists who want to control people.

 

[YukonGlocker]

This is a descriptive project, and I don't see anything skewed in the descriptive statistics, given they are interpreted in the context of the samples. One of the main research questions is how the attitudes of gun-owners differ from those of non-gun-owners, and they have a representative sample of both of those groups (i.e., in this case, it doesn't matter that the group sizes differ). Of course, all the stats need to be interpreted with that in mind (gun-owner in comparison to non-gun-owner), and the report does that. Also, we're looking at gun-owners and non-gun-owners who are willing to complete a survey about gun-related issues (i.e., the attitudes of people, from both groups, who won't complete surveys could be different).

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Just my thoughts, but I do not believe that most "non-gun" people want to control anyone. Their opinions are based on what they see and read. We have to greatly improve our communications and public relations. There is far too much of the "by gawd, it's my right", and that is usually portrayed by someone that goes to Dollar General because they don't want to get dressed up to go to Walmart.

We (all of us) need to work harder on PR or we could see more change in the future that will not be pleasant.

 

[YukonGlocker]

I'm going to dig into this report later, but if there is some stat/interpretation that is skewed in an anti/pro gun direction, please point it out. I'm not saying there isn't, but if you see something suspicious then I'm curious what you find.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

This is a descriptive project, and I don't see anything skewed in the descriptive statistics, given they are interpreted in the context of the samples. One of the main research questions is how the attitudes of gun-owners differ from those of non-gun-owners, and they have a representative sample of both of those groups (i.e., in this case, it doesn't matter that the group sizes differ). Of course, all the stats need to be interpreted with that in mind (gun-owner in comparison to non-gun-owner), and the report does that. Also, we're looking at gun-owners and non-gun-owners who are willing to complete a survey about gun-related issues (i.e., the attitudes of people, from both groups, who won't complete surveys could be different).

I'm not sure what you said, but I think I agree!

 

[YukonGlocker]

We (all of us) need to work harder on PR or we could see more change in the future that will not be pleasant.

I totally agree. Like it, or not, non-gun-owners will be voting on these issues; so it's up to us (i.e., gun-owners) to spread information, talk to others about the issues (i.e., the people we disagree with), and "police" ourselves as best possible. Otherwise, all the "rights" claims won't matter. If a majority of the country disagrees with that right, we could easily lose it.

 

[Glocktogo]

Just my thoughts, but I do not believe that most "non-gun" people want to control anyone. Their opinions are based on what they see and read. We have to greatly improve our communications and public relations. There is far too much of the "by gawd, it's my right", and that is usually portrayed by someone that goes to Dollar General because they don't want to get dressed up to go to Walmart.

We (all of us) need to work harder on PR or we could see more change in the future that will not be pleasant.

So what you're saying is that we need to make the useful idiots, less useful, right?

 

[D. Hargrove]

Fear is a motivator of the highest degree. Non gun folks that fear guns are the one's that must be assimilated into the culture. Once that is complete we are well on our way to total bliss. So get out there and bring a friend of the non gun type to the range, teach him/her to shoot and later to reload. Let the smell of gunpowder speak for itself, the adrenaline rush of blowing up fanta cans at 74.3' is a powerful aphrodisiac and finally blow a fridge filled with Tannerite to top it all off. Then there will be no fear, no angst and no misunderstandings.

 

[Dale00]

Some further criticism of this study:

Section 4 - "Do you see gun violence as a problem?"
This perpetuates a false perception. There is no such thing as gun violence but the anti's harp on this term.It is a propaganda term designed to color the perception of the public. Totally unprofessional for the researchers to use it.

"Do you think ease of access to illegal guns is a problem?"
Another boneheaded question based on the false premise that new laws can make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. As long as large numbers of law abiding citizens own guns, a sizable number will be stolen and sold to criminals. You cannot pass a law to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and have it be effective unless you create a restrictive police state.

Section 5 - "Should gun laws be strengthened?"
The majority of people responding have no accurate knowledge about existing gun laws. The question goads them to answer "yes." Perhaps we should ask the public if they think NASA should add extra fuel on the next space mission to insure a greater safety margin.....similarly absurd question. ...Elsewhere in the study: "Should mentally ill people be allowed to have guns?"

I could rant on at more length but it would be too much for one post.