Do you feel products like this can cast a negative or violent image of gun owners?
- Thread starter Zaydok Allen
- Start date
- Status
Ed Ames
Member
And have you attempted to bring your work up to date using currently accepted standards?
weird college kids aside, it seems highly likely that opinions would vary over time. just off the top of my head, i would think all of the following would affect tx juries' opinions in the years since your data was collected.
the fact that AR15s dominate gun store inventories and magazine covers for past 5 years
the expiration of clinton gun ban
sandyhook
the obama craze buying spree
several years of horror stories about criminal illegal immigrants, drug wars on the border and gang activity
the open carry tx movement
the recent ISIS attack on the draw mohammad event
which is not to say people would be shocked about it either way. i wouldn't expect surprise either. and certainly not to say a lawyer shouldn't be prepared.
the fact that AR15s dominate gun store inventories and magazine covers for past 5 years
the expiration of clinton gun ban
sandyhook
the obama craze buying spree
several years of horror stories about criminal illegal immigrants, drug wars on the border and gang activity
the open carry tx movement
the recent ISIS attack on the draw mohammad event
which is not to say people would be shocked about it either way. i wouldn't expect surprise either. and certainly not to say a lawyer shouldn't be prepared.
Anyone is happy to redo the study. We have found recently in the context of some other studies that results are similar. Breaking down folks into gun and antigun attitudes. Strongly antigun folks dislike the ARs strongly. For strongly progun - the type of gun isn't that strong an influence.
I think over time, existing attitudes are being exaggerated into group polarization. Not liking ARs is becoming not gun PC as seen with Zumbo and Metcalf. The attacks on the guns are pushing anti AR gun folks into wanting to defend ARs. Antigun folk in general see the incidents mentioned as making the guns more horrific. Some stuff we played with in 2014 suggests it.
Now if one wants demand me do more studies:
1. I will give you my salary demands
2. I will give you my funding demands
There is a large literature on juries, to conclude. You and your lawyer can decide what is relevant to worry about before trial or when you are on trial. Take it or leave it as in all things.
I think over time, existing attitudes are being exaggerated into group polarization. Not liking ARs is becoming not gun PC as seen with Zumbo and Metcalf. The attacks on the guns are pushing anti AR gun folks into wanting to defend ARs. Antigun folk in general see the incidents mentioned as making the guns more horrific. Some stuff we played with in 2014 suggests it.
Now if one wants demand me do more studies:
1. I will give you my salary demands
2. I will give you my funding demands
There is a large literature on juries, to conclude. You and your lawyer can decide what is relevant to worry about before trial or when you are on trial. Take it or leave it as in all things.
good grief, dude. nobody is demanding you do more studies. I was just asking your opinion on if you thought the results might have changed in the DECADE since you did the work.
if you don't want to comment, fine. but your work was held up as scientific and subject to peer review and you're actively participating in a thread on it. obliquely dismissing and ignoring questions affects the opinions of the readers on the relevance of your work. much like a skull on an AR might affect the opinions of juries
if you don't want to comment, fine. but your work was held up as scientific and subject to peer review and you're actively participating in a thread on it. obliquely dismissing and ignoring questions affects the opinions of the readers on the relevance of your work. much like a skull on an AR might affect the opinions of juries
Good grief dude, you did not. You did not ask anything. You made an assertion "off the top of your head."
Post 90 isn't asking that question either. And see post 103.
In any case, the way to test whether attitudes have changed is to redo the study.
In any case, the way to test whether attitudes have changed is to redo the study.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
The data is no doubt dated, especially given how fluid the topic is. taliv has pointed out a few very relevant points and we are at what may be the most divisive time in history between the government and the governed with regards to the 2A.
There has been a great deal of change in the popular view of firearms in the last 20 years.
The media will continue to pick what they wish for us to fear so the Black Rifle or distinctive shape of the AK will continue to be promoted by them as evil incarnate. The Glock pistol has taken the place of the Saturday Night Special. I suppose adorning any with skulls will allow them to be portrayed as doubly evil.
There has been a great deal of change in the popular view of firearms in the last 20 years.
The media will continue to pick what they wish for us to fear so the Black Rifle or distinctive shape of the AK will continue to be promoted by them as evil incarnate. The Glock pistol has taken the place of the Saturday Night Special. I suppose adorning any with skulls will allow them to be portrayed as doubly evil.
Certainly a lot has happened in the last 20 years that could affect public attitude towards guns. Some events, like Viginia Tech and Sandy Hook, might well have had a negative effect on public attitudes.
The only way to know if the events of the last 20 years affected public attitudes in ways that would affect the results of the jury studies, and what effect those events have had, would be to redo the study. Anything else would just be conjecture.
The only way to know if the events of the last 20 years affected public attitudes in ways that would affect the results of the jury studies, and what effect those events have had, would be to redo the study. Anything else would just be conjecture.
Ed Ames
Member
Agreed, ideally someone would re-do the study. In a perfect world it would be redone at regular intervals so we could assess trending. This isn't a disparagement of Glenn's work. As the WEIRD issue has demonstrated, psychology doesn't study timeless absolutes, it looks at specific contexts. In this time and place, and time at least keeps changing.
As for anything else, one hopes the opinion of subject matter experts is something other than complete conjecture...but it certainly lacks the weight of a properly conducted and peer reviewed study.
As for anything else, one hopes the opinion of subject matter experts is something other than complete conjecture...but it certainly lacks the weight of a properly conducted and peer reviewed study.
are you trying to convince me to ask him to retest?
you know in the absence of data, most people live their lives and make most of their decisions on conjecture and opinions. it's a practical reality.
however, as we often state, all opinions are not equal, so someone who is regularly involved in a topic may have a more informed opinion, even in the absence of data. it remains reasonable to ask experts for their opinion, or better yet, a couple of experts and hope for consensus. it's often just as useful and far faster than a formal study.
in any case, both the old and any new test would only be a guess anyway as applied to any specific jury in any specific location regarding any specific set of facts in a case. so while interesting, it's pretty academic
you know in the absence of data, most people live their lives and make most of their decisions on conjecture and opinions. it's a practical reality.
however, as we often state, all opinions are not equal, so someone who is regularly involved in a topic may have a more informed opinion, even in the absence of data. it remains reasonable to ask experts for their opinion, or better yet, a couple of experts and hope for consensus. it's often just as useful and far faster than a formal study.
in any case, both the old and any new test would only be a guess anyway as applied to any specific jury in any specific location regarding any specific set of facts in a case. so while interesting, it's pretty academic
Perhaps, and many of them probably wind up making bad decisions based an bad information. The successful people I know investigate, study and research matters, and make important decisions based on good evidence.taliv said:
Nope, an informed opinion is, by definition, not made in the absence of data. Someone with significant education, experience, and expertise might be able to draw reasonable conclusions about certain things with what appears to be minimal data; but that's because his education, experience, and expertise provides certain foundational data. Informed opinions aren't pulled out of the air.taliv said:
And that itself is conjecture. Maybe at times someone with enough savvy, when addressing some issues, can come up with a useful "back-of-the-envelop" hypothesis. How useful that will be can be difficult to assess, but it certainly won't be as useful as a properly designed and executed study.taliv said:
How useful any test is, and what the test can be understood to predict, depends on the design and execution of the test. That's why papers being published in good academic journals are subject to peer review before being publishes in order to validate that, based on methodology and data, the study can reasonably be understood to show what it purports to show.taliv said:
The WEIRD model relates to this issue:Ed Ames said:
Those studies are not making broad claims about human psychology, nor are the goals of those studies to draw species-generalized claims, nor do they address broad questions of human nature. They are concerned strictly with the behavior of people in the United States serving on juries in United States Courts.
As Glenn points out in post 97:
GEM said:
And in post 99:
GEM said:
gbw
Member
True. However, stupid and immature are not a great combination to deliberately associate with guns or gun owners, but we seem to keep finding imaginative ways to do it.
As usual, Mr. Ettin nailed it, sadly too many refuse to see his point. It's perfectly legal. It ain't very smart.
Ed Ames
Member
Hmm... Re-reading this thread it appears to me that Glenn was replying to me at the same time I was replying to you, and in the interleave of messages I didn't read post 97. I believe he then took my post 98, started before he wrote 97 and written without reference to 97, as a response to post 97, taking the whole conversation off the rails.
For that I apologize. A lot of unnecessary heat could have been avoided had I skipped backwards to read that post, and then edited mine.
That said, you display a narrow view of "broad claims". Claiming that juries in the united States are likely to behave a certain way is a broad claim, though admittedly not so broad as claims about humans as a species. Broad claims are not automatically invalid, they just require sound methodology. The paper you cited did not make it clear that the sample was sufficiently representative.
Actually, that point was made in this thread long before Frank joined in, and there hasn't been much disagreement. In fact the very first reply said pretty much exactly what Frank did. However, the jury answer isn't actually germane. The question the OP asked was " Do you feel products like this can cast a negative or violent image of gun owners?" Not, "Will using this in a self defense shooting negatively influence jurors?"
Last edited:
I think I said that we found similar results in a 2014 study. It wasn't identical as it had a different purpose but our student sample (because that's what I had to work with) found that antigun folk had very strong negative views of the AR and strongly progun folks didn't. I suggested that it might have been a sign of evolving attitudes.
The antigun vs. progun views are interesting. We've investigated how that influences our mock juror student sample on gender and training. If you don't understand academic publishing - you do the study which takes a year or two - then you analyze it. Then you send it to a journal - so you are a couple of years at least after the data collection.
As far as replication - that's always a good thing to do. However, I'm not in a position to do that anymore. Attitudes do change.
Pragmatically to work on a replication - I would have to have a position again (retired!!!).
To the general jury issue - there is a tremendous amount of work on jury dynamics and attitudes. It is foolish to think gun attitudes won't come into play for you.
To the OP - will such a product cast a negative image? One might have to research that directly. Given Qualtrics, Mechanical Turk and Survey Monkey - anyone can do that now.
If you want a reasoned estimate - yes.
Why:
1. In the gun world, anecdotally the hunter types have in the recent past denounced the AR platform - Zumbo, Metcalf. Progun (haha) conservative candidates in 2008 denounced the platform as only good for killing. This parallels an earlier study I mentioned that hunters had negative attitudes toward 'assault weapons' - 2005 vintage.
2. There was a strong reaction (granted it was anecdotally) to the OC types parading around with ARs and AKs from the very, very progun Internet world and strong progun activists. It occurred here as well as other places.
Thus, a reasoned estimate is that the skull receiver will be seen as something not supportive of the intelligence and personality structure of the user.
The antigun vs. progun views are interesting. We've investigated how that influences our mock juror student sample on gender and training. If you don't understand academic publishing - you do the study which takes a year or two - then you analyze it. Then you send it to a journal - so you are a couple of years at least after the data collection.
As far as replication - that's always a good thing to do. However, I'm not in a position to do that anymore. Attitudes do change.
Pragmatically to work on a replication - I would have to have a position again (retired!!!).
To the general jury issue - there is a tremendous amount of work on jury dynamics and attitudes. It is foolish to think gun attitudes won't come into play for you.
To the OP - will such a product cast a negative image? One might have to research that directly. Given Qualtrics, Mechanical Turk and Survey Monkey - anyone can do that now.
If you want a reasoned estimate - yes.
Why:
1. In the gun world, anecdotally the hunter types have in the recent past denounced the AR platform - Zumbo, Metcalf. Progun (haha) conservative candidates in 2008 denounced the platform as only good for killing. This parallels an earlier study I mentioned that hunters had negative attitudes toward 'assault weapons' - 2005 vintage.
2. There was a strong reaction (granted it was anecdotally) to the OC types parading around with ARs and AKs from the very, very progun Internet world and strong progun activists. It occurred here as well as other places.
Thus, a reasoned estimate is that the skull receiver will be seen as something not supportive of the intelligence and personality structure of the user.
Last edited:
justice06rr
Member
Things of that design just don't do it for me. Too loud for my personal taste, as I like to keep my personal weapons covert and purposeful.
I'm sure some others would think these are cool. If you rode around in a motorcycle with skulls everywhere (i.e. Ghost Rider), or a car with similar designs, how you think people will think of you??
I'm sure some others would think these are cool. If you rode around in a motorcycle with skulls everywhere (i.e. Ghost Rider), or a car with similar designs, how you think people will think of you??
Hypnogator
Member
They might think you were cool, or they might think you were a jerk. That's not the point. The point is, if you use your firearm in self-defense, one of the things that the prosecutor will try to prove (and may believe himself and thus influence his decision to prosecute) is that you were "looking for trouble." If he can create the impression that you were partially responsible for the incident that resulted in the other guy's death, then the jury may readily buy your culpability in the incident. Under those circumstances I definitely would NOT want to have used a firearm with some juvenile-appearing death-related symbol on it.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:USAF_Vet
Member
If you had flames or racing stripes or a aftermarket exhaust or body kit or some other modification to your car or motorcycle that makes it appear as if it may effect performance, should that be used against you? No, but it does. I know personally of folks with fast cars and bikes with aftermarket accessories who've been charged with reckless driving for doing 10 over the limit. Another who was charged with evasion during a traffic stop because he turned off down a side road to pull away from traffic.
Both times, these guys beat the rap, but neither of them beat the ride. Meanwhile, my last speeding ticket in my beater car (which happens to have a performance V8) I was cited for 1-10 over when I was actually doing 19 at the time.
Appearances can sometimes work against you, sometimes work for you. I wouldn't buy that lower for their asking price, but I wouldn't turn it down if I got a deal on it, or got it as a gift. Same goes for a 'Vette. Won't spend the money on one unless I got a once in a lifetime deal for one, or got one as a gift.
Also, I probably wouldn't use the Skull AR for HD, just as I wouldn't use a Corvette as a daily driver.
Both times, these guys beat the rap, but neither of them beat the ride. Meanwhile, my last speeding ticket in my beater car (which happens to have a performance V8) I was cited for 1-10 over when I was actually doing 19 at the time.
Appearances can sometimes work against you, sometimes work for you. I wouldn't buy that lower for their asking price, but I wouldn't turn it down if I got a deal on it, or got it as a gift. Same goes for a 'Vette. Won't spend the money on one unless I got a once in a lifetime deal for one, or got one as a gift.
Also, I probably wouldn't use the Skull AR for HD, just as I wouldn't use a Corvette as a daily driver.
Ed Ames
Member
Actually, that's an off-topic diversion, not the point, and not relevant in this thread which is about whether you feel, "products like this can cast a negative or violent image of gun owners?"
Not "amongst jurors", but in general.
Nom de Forum
Member
Yes.
Interesting, there are studies of implied speed in static pictures. Speed cues - such as lines, streaks, etc. give greater estimates of speed. I would think it would work on a moving object with such speed cues.
Also, words count - if folks watch an accident clip and have to estimate speed and are asked how fast the car was going when it smashed into the other, vs. how fast was it going when it contacted the other - the former gives about a 10 to 15 mph greater estimate.
So how violent to you think the guy is with a skull receiver would be vs. a plain jane rifle? I dunno! He's a great guy!
USAF_Vet
Member
GEM, that's why I'm split on the receiver.
For ordinary use, I'll take a plain jane AR, but for S&Gs at the range, something flashy and eye catching would be more... well, not appropriate, but I guess 'fitting'.
Same as the Corvette. Saturday evenings cruising the strip in the summer, or at the race track, is more fitting than driving to work in a Tuesday in the rain.
I can live without either, personally. But I find both of them appealing on some level.
For ordinary use, I'll take a plain jane AR, but for S&Gs at the range, something flashy and eye catching would be more... well, not appropriate, but I guess 'fitting'.
Same as the Corvette. Saturday evenings cruising the strip in the summer, or at the race track, is more fitting than driving to work in a Tuesday in the rain.
I can live without either, personally. But I find both of them appealing on some level.
- Status
