American's Views on Guns & Gun Ownership

[YukonGlocker]

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.

I don't think "gun violence" is a problematic term, and I do think there is gun violence. It's generally understood as violence in which a gun is involved. If this were a problem, there would likely be more difference between gun-owners and non-gun-owners on this question, and actually I'm surprised there isn't more difference.

"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.

The question doesn't assume or premise anything about how new laws would affect illegal guns. It asks how access of illegal guns affects gun violence...interestingly, non-gun-owners agree with gun-owners on this question (which means non-gun-owners aren't making the assumptions you mention any different than gun-owners are).

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?"

Where is the evidence that demonstrates that "the majority of people responding have no accurate knowledge about existing gun laws"?...did they assess this in the study? Do you mean "stricter" (instead of strengthened)?...if yes, it doesn't goad them to answer yes...quite the contrary given that only one of three responses is "more strict", the other two being "about right" or "less strict". Droves of psychometrics studies dig into leading questions (which is what you're getting at). Another way to ask the question would be "What do you think about gun laws?", with 'they should be more strict', 'they are about right', and 'they should be less strict'. This seems like it's less leading, but in fact it isn't...you'd get very close to the same answer.

The "mentally ill" question is fine if anyone was curious if gun-owners might disagree with non-gun-owners about the issue...turns out they totally agree on the issue.

 

[Dale00]

I don't think "gun violence" is a problematic term, and I do think there is gun violence. It's generally understood as violence in which a gun is involved. If this were a problem, there would likely be more difference between gun-owners and non-gun-owners on this question, and actually I'm surprised there isn't more difference.


The question doesn't assume or premise anything about how new laws would affect illegal guns. It asks how access of illegal guns affects gun violence...interestingly, non-gun-owners agree with gun-owners on this question (which means non-gun-owners aren't making the assumptions you mention any different than gun-owners are).


Where is the evidence that demonstrates that "the majority of people responding have no accurate knowledge about existing gun laws"?...did they assess this in the study? Do you mean "stricter" (instead of strengthened)?...if yes, it doesn't goad them to answer yes...quite the contrary given that only one of three responses is "more strict", the other two being "about right" or "less strict". Droves of psychometrics studies dig into leading questions (which is what you're getting at). Another way to ask the question would be "What do you think about gun laws?", with 'they should be more strict', 'they are about right', and 'they should be less strict'. This seems like it's less leading, but in fact it isn't...you'd get very close to the same answer.

The "mentally ill" question is fine if anyone was curious if gun-owners might disagree with non-gun-owners about the issue...turns out they totally agree on the issue.

The answers to your questions would lead us in a myopic direction, rather that shedding much light.

Clearly our opinions differ. Likewise you and I would likewise disagree about the desirability of "social engineering." Under the imprimatur of "science" biased points of view can be promulgated.

I do not doubt that the researchers who conducted the study believe themselves to be be unbiased but basis is a subtle thing. They credit a number of academics for help in devising the survey instrument, specifically naming a professor of women's studies and a sociologist. I think the social sciences are rife with bias and you would be hard pressed to point to any conservatives who contribute to these fields - diversity of opinion is not tolerated. Or am I incorrect? - are there any politically conservative women's studies or sociology professors or PEW researchers?

 

[YukonGlocker]

If you have further comments about how this study is "skewing the true picture" or other methodological/psychometric issues, let's see them.

 

[Dale00]

I cannot see how you have addressed any of the points I have already raised except from a very narrow point of view. Others have gone unaddressed. It seems that implicit in your outlook and that of the researchers is the idea that current gun ownership patterns and attitudes should be molded by laws, propaganda (PSA's, top down education?) and so forth and for the benefit of society. This is the skewed picture with which I disagree in addition to the points I have already raised.

Gun ownership and the right to self defense are basic human rights. As such they are not amenable to infringements. Certainly there is a need for better gun safety (voluntary efforts are an excellent approach in this area) but you cannot impose such things without infringing rights. While the study does not advocate infringements it provides tools for Anti's to better attempt to impose new infringements.

 

[YukonGlocker]

I cannot see how you have addressed any of the points I have already raised except from a very narrow point of view. Others have gone unaddressed.

Yes, I addressed your points from a methodology/psychometrics framing, which are the issues you're attempting to address. If you have rebuttals to those points, I'll certainly continue the discussion about them. Which points were unaddressed?

It seems that implicit in your outlook and that of the researchers is the idea that current gun ownership patterns and attitudes should be molded by laws, propaganda (PSA's, top down education?) and so forth and for the benefit of society. This is the skewed picture with which I disagree in addition to the points I have already raised.

No, that isn't implicit in my outlook, nor is it implicit in the researchers'. You have failed to provide evidence as such.

Gun ownership and the right to self defense are basic human rights. As such they are not amenable to infringements.

That is your opinion, one in which many people disagree with; and this study demonstrates that (along with many other studies).

Certainly there is a need for better gun safety (voluntary efforts are an excellent approach in this area) but you cannot impose such things without infringing rights.

Again, your opinion; but one that many disagree with. Their opinions are just legitimate as your's is, and their votes count just as much as your's does. This study was an attempt to get a sense of what those opinions are. If anything, it's information that is valuable to pro-gun efforts because we can better understand those opinions.

While the study does not advocate infringements it provides tools for Anti's to better attempt to impose new infringements.

You have yet to provide any evidence that this study provides tools for anti- or pro-gun purposes. Both anti- and pro-gun people could incorrectly interpret the data to support their side; but I didn't see the authors of this study do that. I haven't read every word of it yet, so it could be there; but you haven't highlighted anything of that nature yet.

 

[Dale00]

I am attempting to respectfully broaden your world view beyond that of a social scientist. It is painful to consider that something we believe in and that forms much of our self-identity might be wrong or misguided in some or many respects.

I am a major skeptic when it comes to the social sciences and psychology. I have already pointed out the supression of conservative points of view in these disciplines as evidenced by the paucity of conservative social scientists. I do not automatically defer to the judgements of social science - mental health professionals supressed political dissidents in the former Soviet Union by declaring them mentally ill. And today the psychology community consensus is that there are many more than two genders. Your discipline is fallible.

Yes, I addressed your points from a methodology/psychometrics framing, which are the issues you're attempting to address. If you have rebuttals to those points, I'll certainly continue the discussion about them. Which points were unaddressed?

These two were addressed - ok, but superficially
Gun violence - This term demonizes guns. Connotation matters in the propaganda game. Criminal behavior is all that matters, not the tool. Surely you know this.

Illegal guns - Guns are fungible. How can some be illegal? It sets up a false dicotomy to promote public buy-in for the infrigement of gun rights. Guns are guns.

By using the terminology of the anti's, the bias of the researchers is revealed.


No, that [the desireability of legal manipulation of gun rights] isn't implicit in my outlook, nor is it implicit in the researchers'. You have failed to provide evidence as such.
An example - The researchers (and you) do believe that "mentally ill" people should not have access to firearms. That is why the question was worded in the way it was worded: so that 90% would agree. The researchers should have taken a broader approach - "Which of the following mental states or disorders or conditions should disquality an individual from access to firearms - the stress of a divorce? suspected domestic violence? past history of suicide attempts?, inability to handle one's own finances...... As always the details matter and they were entirely and misleadingly glossed over.

As a mental health professional, you have confidence in your ability to discern but where are the checks to prevent the next Soviet Union scenario?



That is your opinion [gun ownership and the right to self defense are basic human rights], one in which many people disagree with; and this study demonstrates that (along with many other studies).
What is your basis for saying that rights are opinions? Do you believe in any rights? Once again my mind goes back to the Soviet Union example (which I am sure you find repulsive and unjust - but why? It was because of a lack of respect for the rights of the individual) I fear you may not have a sound basis for understanding the inherient nature of human rights. What the Soviets did was logical and they claimed science was on their side.

Again, your opinion [gun control infringes a human right]; but one that many disagree with. Their opinions are just legitimate as your's is, and their votes count just as much as your's does. This study was an attempt to get a sense of what those opinions are. If anything, it's information that is valuable to pro-gun efforts because we can better understand those opinions.
All opinions are of equal legitimacy? What is the basis for making decisions then?


You have yet to provide any evidence that this study provides tools for anti- or pro-gun purposes. Both anti- and pro-gun people could incorrectly interpret the data to support their side; but I didn't see the authors of this study do that. I haven't read every word of it yet, so it could be there; but you haven't highlighted anything of that nature yet.

Do you demand rigorous legal or scientific evidence on the battlefield before deciding where and how to attack?
Detailed knowledge about public opinion and which sectors or points can most profitably be attacked is powerful. This is the age of data mining: custom-tailored propaganda is looming. Gun control is a war of sorts.

Big Brother wants you to be safe. Big Brother knows best who should and should not have guns. Big Brother knows what worries you and is here to help!

 

[YukonGlocker]

I am attempting to respectfully broaden your world view beyond that of a social scientist. It is painful to consider that something we believe in and that forms much of our self-identity might be wrong or misguided in some or many respects.

I am a major skeptic when it comes to the social sciences and psychology. I have already pointed out the supression of conservative points of view in these disciplines as evidenced by the paucity of conservative social scientists. I do not automatically defer to the judgements of social science - mental health professionals supressed political dissidents in the former Soviet Union by declaring them mentally ill. And today the psychology community consensus is that there are many more than two genders. Your discipline is fallible.



Big Brother wants you to be safe. Big Brother knows best who should and should not have guns. Big Brother knows what worries you and is here to help!

I'll take the multiple attempts at AD HOMing entire disciplines as you don't have further evidence to back up your claims about this study. If there are methodological, psychometric, or interpretation flaws in this descriptive attitudinal study, you have not shown any.

 

[Dale00]

Likewise your Romulan cloaking tactic was not unexpected!

 

[dennishoddy]

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. .

This tells me everything I need to know.
The term descriptive proves this is not research, merely a description of the question for those selected to respond which then becomes a "study"?

 

[YukonGlocker]

This tells me everything I need to know.
The term descriptive proves this is not research, merely a description of the question for those selected to respond which then becomes a "study"?

You're showing your ignorance of science, again. The three main types of research are (a) descriptive, (b) predictive, and (c) experimental...and all are valuable and important. Thanks for playing...better luck next time.