Many fewer U.S. gun owners

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, I wouldn't. But I also know that you can manipulate your surveys to show almost anything.

So any survey you produce in rebuttal could be manipulated to suit your predetermined opinion? Now, can you demonstrate factually how the NORC/UOC GSS was "manipulated" in a way to render it inaccurate?

That is why the major studies try to use as large a group as they can.

Yes, and what is the typical sample group size in most surveys of this kind, Mr. Expert?

If there were corroborating evidence, I would be happy to concede. But I haven't seen any. In fact, I have seen more reputable evidence disputing the claim.

Then share that evidence with us.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then share that evidence with us.

Yurt shared at least one link. Someone also shared a link showing an increase in NICS background checks.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yurt shared at least one link. Someone also shared a link showing an increase in NICS background checks.

Explain how an increase in background checks (which I noticed you didn't manage to link to) means that fewer individuals and households own guns, will you?

 

[WinterBorn]

Explain how an increase in background checks (which I noticed you didn't manage to link to) means that fewer individuals and households own guns, will you?

I didn't think repeating a previously posted link would help.

You want me to explain why an increase in NICS checks means that fewer individuals and household own guns? I never claimed that an increase in NICS background checks meant anything other than an increase in gun sales. But a significant increase in gun sales points to more gun owners, not fewer.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I didn't think repeating a previously posted link would help.

You didn't think. We agree on that much.

You want me to explain why an increase in NICS checks means that fewer individuals and household own guns?.

Yes.

I never claimed that an increase in NICS background checks meant anything other than an increase in gun sales.

Why, then, when I asked you to share your evidence disproving the NORC/OUC survey, did you say this?

Someone also shared a link showing an increase in NICS background checks.

Which you then followed with a non-sequitur.

But a significant increase in gun sales points to more gun owners, not fewer.

 

[WinterBorn]

You didn't think. We agree on that much.



Yes.



Why, then, when I asked you to share your evidence disproving the NORC/OUC survey, did you say this?



Which you then followed with a non-sequitur.

The NORC survey showed a decrease in guns in households. You claimed that was accurate, I disagreed. The increase in NICS checks shows an increase in gun sales, which point to an increase in number of gun owners and gun owning households.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The NORC survey showed a decrease in guns in households. You claimed that was accurate, I disagreed. The increase in NICS checks shows an increase in gun sales, which point to an increase in number of gun owners and gun owning households.

Why do you think that repeating a non-sequitur magically changes the facts?


PM me when you have some evidence that an increase in background checks = an increase in gun-owning households.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you think that repeating a non-sequitur magically changes the facts?


PM me when you have some evidence that an increase in background checks = an increase in gun-owning households.

I didn't say it did. I said it points to more gun owning households. And that is valid. You want to assume that there are fewer households owning guns, which would mean fewer gun owners are buying far more guns per person.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I didn't say it did. I said it points to more gun owning households. And that is valid. You want to assume that there are fewer households owning guns, which would mean fewer gun owners are buying far more guns per person.

Why do you assume I want to assume?

What part of 'PM me when you have some evidence' is causing you trouble?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you assume I want to assume?

What part of 'PM me when you have some evidence' is causing you trouble?

I assume you want to asssume because there is no evidence either way, and you obviously disagree with me.

And no, I don't PM as part of a debate. Whatever we say can be said out here in the open.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I assume you want to asssume because there is no evidence either way, and you obviously disagree with me.

And no, I don't PM as part of a debate. Whatever we say can be said out here in the open.

There is evidence. You just don't want to believe it. Read the OP again.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is evidence. You just don't want to believe it. Read the OP again.

No, there are 1500 people with 60 to 90 minutes to spend doing an interview.

That is far to small a sample to make the assumptions you are making. It is limited in scope. Also, WHERE were the interviews done? By chance was it Chicago or someplace else in Illinois?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, there are 1500 people with 60 to 90 minutes to spend doing an interview.

That is far to small a sample to make the assumptions you are making. It is limited in scope. Also, WHERE were the interviews done? By chance was it Chicago or someplace else in Illinois?

LOL. So you're spent the last 2 days knocking a survey and you don't even know where it was conducted?

 

[Damocles]

LOL. So you're spent the last 2 days knocking a survey and you don't even know where it was conducted?

Actually many made a point of how scientific the survey is, basically asking what controls were put on it, etc. None of it was provided by your link.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL. So you're spent the last 2 days knocking a survey and you don't even know where it was conducted?

That was not the issue I was addressing.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

That was not the issue I was addressing.

So when you asked

WHERE were the interviews done? By chance was it Chicago or someplace else in Illinois?

You weren't asking where it was conducted?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Actually many made a point of how scientific the survey is, basically asking what controls were put on it, etc. None of it was provided by your link.

Actually none were able to refute the survey results, instead they posted statistics on NICs and complained the sample size was too small.

Knock yourself out: http://www.norc.org/projects/general+social+survey.htm

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually none were able to refute the survey results, instead they posted statistics on NICs and complained the sample size was too small.

Knock yourself out: http://www.norc.org/projects/general+social+survey.htm

A quick scan of several pages didn't show me any info on where the interviews were done.

Considering the way you have danced around and tried to push the topic one way and another, I am not surprised you keep harping on the opinions of 1500 and apply it to 310,000,000 people.

 

[Damocles]

Actually none were able to refute the survey results, instead they posted statistics on NICs and complained the sample size was too small.

Knock yourself out: http://www.norc.org/projects/general+social+survey.htm

Which again does not answer the questions posed to you. You make a claim based on a survey then will not back it up with information. Why do you believe this survey is an accurate representation of US Society? Because they say so on the link? When they did the survey what demographics did they use? What is the +/- of the statistical data?

None of this is provided in the link you gave. You made the assertions, it is up to you to back them up.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Another link to the same study with the same statistical flaws. And written by the head of an anti-freedom group, that has been listed as a hate group, no less.

Also fails to take into account that maybe, just maybe, a lot of the people that responded might just be of the opinion that it's no ones business if they have a weapon or not.