Many fewer U.S. gun owners

[Topspin]

Warrior times. Lofl

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Always? Did I say "always"?

But the answer to your question is yes I did look for the sources of the data in his linked article.

Any time someone quotes a survey, I look to see the details of the survey...

I guess "any time" doesn't mean the same as "always" on your planet.

Since your'e so diligent and stuff, shoot (pun intended) an email to thompson-john@norc.org. I'm sure he'll be glad to allay your fears.

 

[WinterBorn]

I guess "any time" doesn't mean the same as "always" on your planet.

Since your'e so diligent and stuff, shoot (pun intended) an email to thompson-john@norc.org. I'm sure he'll be glad to allay your fears.

When you post an article, you might want to make sure the facts are in order. Especially when posting on a topic that has such knowledgeable people involved in it.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

When you post an article, you might want to make sure the facts are in order. Especially when posting on a topic that has such knowledgeable people involved in it.

Is that relevant to this thread, somehow?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

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.

What statistical flaws would those be?

A few minutes ago you were whining you couldn't find the study.

And, do, please tell us who the "hate group" is and who "listed" them. With links, of course.

 

[WinterBorn]

Is that relevant to this thread, somehow?

Are the facts relevant? lol Apparently you think so.

 

[/MSG/]

What statistical flaws would those be?

A few minutes ago you were whining you couldn't find the study.

And, do, please tell us who the "hate group" is and who "listed" them. With links, of course.

The hate group is the Brady Campaign, and they fall within the guidelines as their stated objective is to prevent and abolish a fundamental right. But that's irrelevant.
The statistical flaw is in the statement. There are fewer gun owning households. This does not translate into fewer gun owners. A simple example would be my wife and I. Were we to get divorced, we would constitute two households instead of one, yet the number of guns I own, or gun owners in general, would not have changed. This is also noted in the original article you posted.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Are the facts relevant? lol Apparently you don't think so.

Have you presented any?

Other than pretending you didn't mean "always" when you said "any time", that is?

Which of the statistics cited in the OP are you disputing, and on what basis?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The hate group is the Brady Campaign, and they fall within the guidelines as their stated objective is to prevent and abolish a fundamental right. But that's irrelevant.
The statistical flaw is in the statement. There are fewer gun owning households. This does not translate into fewer gun owners. A simple example would be my wife and I. Were we to get divorced, we would constitute two households instead of one, yet the number of guns I own, or gun owners in general, would not have changed. This is also noted in the original article you posted.

Little early to be drinking, isn't it?

So the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence is a "hate group" because you say so?

Have another beer. You can post your review in the morning.

 

[/MSG/]

Little early to be drinking, isn't it?

So the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence is a "hate group" because you say so?

Have another beer. You can post your review in the morning.

As I stated, whether or not it is a hate group is irrelevant. Its stated goal of restricting and/or abolishing a fundamental right however is relevant when viewing the latest 'article' you presented. That you would focus on what I said is of little importance and totally ignore the actual substance is telling, as it is indicative of someone without the intellectual capacity to debate, as further evidenced by your ad hom attacks.

Also:

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

As I stated, whether or not it is a hate group is irrelevant. Its stated goal of restricting and/or abolishing a fundamental right however is relevant when viewing the latest 'article' you presented. That you would focus on what I said is of little importance and totally ignore the actual substance is telling, as it is indicative of someone without the intellectual capacity to debate, as further evidenced by your ad hom attacks.

Also:

If it's irrelevant, I guess that explains why you made the claim. Cheers!

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you presented any?

Other than pretending you didn't mean "always" when you said "any time", that is?

Which of the statistics cited in the OP are you disputing, and on what basis?

I am disputing the accuracy of the "study". I am also calling out the attempt, by the author, to portray gun ownership as dying or even dropping.

 

[/MSG/]

If it's irrelevant, I guess that explains why you made the claim. Cheers!

It wasn't the chief argument, merely an accessory to add additional weight into my statement. But if you want to continue arguing irrelevancies with everyone, by all means go for it. It shows everyone your intellectual failings and the weakness of your positions.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I am disputing the accuracy of the "study". I am also calling out the attempt, by the author, to portray gun ownership as dying or even dropping.

On what basis? Exactly?

Other than "wishing" the survey is wrong, that is.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It wasn't the chief argument, merely an accessory to add additional weight into my statement. But if you want to continue arguing irrelevancies with everyone, by all means go for it. It shows everyone your intellectual failings and the weakness of your positions.

Hmm. You must have ingested more alcohol than I thought, if you believe that. Have you considered AA?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

What our diligent guntards couldn't find:

http://www.norc.org/projects/General+Social+Survey.htm

Took me all of 2.5 minutes.

 

[/MSG/]

Hmm. You must have ingested more alcohol than I thought, if you believe that. Have you considered AA?

Ahhh wonderful argument. Clearly indicative of the intellectual superiority of your position. Please, continue to enlighten us with your brilliance.

 

[WinterBorn]

On what basis? Exactly?

Other than "wishing" the survey is wrong, that is.

One basis is the article posted by Yurt showed the exact opposite and showing the source of the data.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hmm. You must have ingested more alcohol than I thought, if you believe that. Have you considered AA?

I see you have, once again, resorted to insults instead of actual debate using facts. Not surprising.

 

[/MSG/]

From the study:
http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/Subject+Index/

Hmmm that's a 12% difference then what your previous articles stated.