Many fewer U.S. gun owners

[apple0154]

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

I'd say a possible exception to that would be if a woman came home and found her husband wearing her clothes.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

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

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Gun ownership in America is declining. This is the unavoidable conclusion from new, comprehensive, national data spanning nearly 40 years contained in the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The GSS started in 1972 and completed its 28th round in 2010. According to NORC, “Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.”





http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

 

[/MSG/]

Considering the possession/owning of a firearm is a Constitutional right and the inherent danger that can result from the misuse or lack of knowledge regarding them wouldn't mandatory courses on their proper use be a good idea in High Schools?

I wouldn't say mandatory, but I like the idea of it as an option.

 

[/MSG/]

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

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

 

[/MSG/]

Gun ownership in America is declining. This is the unavoidable conclusion from new, comprehensive, national data spanning nearly 40 years contained in the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The GSS started in 1972 and completed its 28th round in 2010. According to NORC, “Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.”





http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

Repeating the same study does not make it more reliable. And again, from a noted anti-freedom group.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Repeating the same study does not make it more reliable. And again, from a noted anti-freedom group.

Based on data from a long-running study which you are unable to refute....BTW, did you complain when Yurt the Trolltard posted the same info repeatedly? No, you didn't, because you thought it helped your argument. It didn't, BTW, and I doubt you even looked at it.

Don't you think the source of the data is more important than what it reveals? Sure seems that way.

From 1985 to 2010, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than 32 percent. During this period, personal gun ownership hit its peak in 1985, when 30.7 percent of Americans reported personally owning a gun. By 2010, this number had dropped nearly 10 percentage points to a low during this period of 20.8 percent. In 2010, slightly more than one out of five Americans reported personally owning a gun.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I wouldn't say mandatory, but I like the idea of it as an option.

The NRA has filled this need for many years, but not in schools, as far as I know.

Maybe the idea of training kids to shoot in high school is a good one.

Let me know how that works for you.

 

[/MSG/]

Based on data from a long-running study which you are unable to refute....BTW, did you complain when Yurt the Trolltard posted the same info repeatedly? No, you didn't, because you thought it helped your argument. It didn't, BTW, and I doubt you even looked at it.

No, I did look at the study Yurt posted, but I haven't chastised him as you because I actually like Yurt, you I don't.

Don't you think the source of the data is more important than what it reveals? Sure seems that way.

Not necessarily. The source of the data can be biased and as has been shown, when you receive funding from an anti-freedom group and the study 'just happens' to coincide with what the funding agent wants to perpetuated at true, everything about it must be questioned.

From 1985 to 2010, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than 32 percent. During this period, personal gun ownership hit its peak in 1985, when 30.7 percent of Americans reported personally owning a gun. By 2010, this number had dropped nearly 10 percentage points to a low during this period of 20.8 percent. In 2010, slightly more than one out of five Americans reported personally owning a gun.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

This contradicts the NORC study by a great deal, which from what I was able to discern, still holds gun ownership around 40%. So even if the study is completely without bias (and other segments of the study have been shown to be patently false with regard to guns) it still does not state that gun ownership is down from the area of 40%.

 

[/MSG/]

The NRA has filled this need for many years, but not in schools, as far as I know.

Maybe the idea of training kids to shoot in high school is a good one.

Let me know how that works for you.

The NRA program is a very nice one. And learning gun safety worked very well for me in high school, as well as marksmanship. I used those skills to shoot expert during bootcamp.

Also, Apple was talking about safe handling of guns, not shooting them.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, I did look at the study Yurt posted, but I haven't chastised him as you because I actually like Yurt, you I don't.

I'm crushed.

Not necessarily. The source of the data can be biased and as has been shown, when you receive funding from an anti-freedom group and the study 'just happens' to coincide with what the funding agent wants to perpetuated at true, everything about it must be questioned.

So if a study was funded by gun manufacturers, a gun advocacy group, or a political action committee among whose goals is promoting firearm ownership, those results would be equally suspect?

This contradicts the NORC study by a great deal, which from what I was able to discern, still holds gun ownership around 40%. So even if the study is completely without bias (and other segments of the study have been shown to be patently false with regard to guns) it still does not state that gun ownership is down from the area of 40%.

Odd, since the data was from the General Social Survey (GSS). Gun ownership data contained in this study was obtained in March 2011 from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) by the Violence Policy Center.

The VPC also states:

Key factors contributing to the continuing decline in household and personal gun ownership in America include the following:

The aging of the current-gun owning population—primarily white males—and a lack of interest in guns by youth.
The end of military conscription.
The decreasing popularity of hunting.
Land-use issues that limit hunting and other shooting activities.
Environmental and zoning issues that force shooting ranges to close and limit new range construction.
The increase in single-parent homes headed by women.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, I did look at the study Yurt posted, but I haven't chastised him as you because I actually like Yurt, you I don't.

Not necessarily. The source of the data can be biased and as has been shown, when you receive funding from an anti-freedom group and the study 'just happens' to coincide with what the funding agent wants to perpetuated at true, everything about it must be questioned.


This contradicts the NORC study by a great deal, which from what I was able to discern, still holds gun ownership around 40%. So even if the study is completely without bias (and other segments of the study have been shown to be patently false with regard to guns) it still does not state that gun ownership is down from the area of 40%.

exactly....my source data is biased, just as epic's source data is biased. but he only whines about data that doesn't support his view.

i thought he would say something about the bias of my source, but he didn't.....likely because he knew his source is a biased pile of meadow muffins.

 

[/MSG/]

I'm crushed.

Were that only so.

So if a study was funded by gun manufacturers, a gun advocacy group, or a political action committee among whose goals is promoting firearm ownership, those results would be equally suspect?

Yes, it should be.

Odd, since the data was from the General Social Survey (GSS). Gun ownership data contained in this study was obtained in March 2011 from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) by the Violence Policy Center.

Odd indeed.

The VPC also states:

Key factors contributing to the continuing decline in household and personal gun ownership in America include the following:

The aging of the current-gun owning population—primarily white males—and a lack of interest in guns by youth.
The end of military conscription.
The decreasing popularity of hunting.
Land-use issues that limit hunting and other shooting activities.
Environmental and zoning issues that force shooting ranges to close and limit new range construction.
The increase in single-parent homes headed by women.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

All of their reasoning is speculative, however certain aspects are true. Also note what I said about single parent households. An increase in households does not mean a decrease in gun owners. I can certainly see a dramatic rise in youth interest in guns, and the whole idea about military conscription might be valid if we haven't had such a dramatic increase in enlistment since 2001.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

you ignored the data....because it didn't fit your world view. does your mom still change your diapers? or have you moved on to 'depends'?

and i didn't "re-post" legion....i simply 'quoted' the post...unlike you who deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts, deletes, re-posts........until you get the attention you so desperately need.

it is hilarious how you think me quoting my post 3 times means i need a hug or a diaper change, when you repeatedly, (far more than 3 times), delete and re-post your same tired posts until you get the attention you feel you need.

you are the quintessential attention whore and your mimic of me calling you one doesn't really help your case legion.

of course epic ignored this....he can't handle actual discussion.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

and still no discussion of any source that epic troll doesn't like. ask your mom about objectivity.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

there is no such thing as scientifically controlled statistical data when done by an organization that has an anti gun core.

Your evidence for that claim is....where?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

epic troll just pissed himself

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Considering the possession/owning of a firearm is a Constitutional right and the inherent danger that can result from the misuse or lack of knowledge regarding them wouldn't mandatory courses on their proper use be a good idea in High Schools?

wouldn't that be better suited to a parents teaching?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Your evidence for that claim is....where?

in every single 'survey' where a group screams to the media 'see, we told you so'.

 

[/MSG/]

epic troll just pissed himself

I would too. That grenade could blow at any moment.