A breakdown from gun owners on reasons for ownership. You can download the pdf for a deep dive.
Broken down by various demographics. SD in various domains is a crucial factor and different aspects of SD - crime, political threats, etc. FYI.
Reasons for gun ownership
- Thread starter GEM
- Start date
A breakdown from gun owners on reasons for ownership. You can download the pdf for a deep dive.
Broken down by various demographics. SD in various domains is a crucial factor and different aspects of SD - crime, political threats, etc. FYI.
pharmer
Member
So, all that "research" suggests that it might be prudent to have a firearm handy "just in case." Hmmmm, brilliant. Joe
General Geoff
Member
The study, as usual, aims to find effective ways to modify the behavior of the masses to something more palatable and controllable. From the PDF:
Guns are dangerous, we simply must find more effective means to convince people of this so we can pass more gun control!
Guns are dangerous, we simply must find more effective means to convince people of this so we can pass more gun control!
230RN
Actually, violence causes guns. And atomic bombs.
Quoting a quote without going through the agony...
-------------------
Majorities of gun owners from all demographic groups cited at-home protection, out-of-home protection, and hunting or recreation as “very” or “extremely” important. At least 10% of every demographic group endorsed at least one ideologic reason as “extremely important.” Newer gun owners more frequently endorsed multiple important reasons.
Broken down by various demographics. SD in various domains is a crucial factor and different aspects of SD - crime, political threats, etc.
-------------------
I would offer the suggestion that anybody should be able to obtain (or be issued) a firearm of their choice and let the long-term operation of Darwinian Theory do its work.
I suggest that while a certain unavoidable number of innocent casualties will occur, sooner or later the army of law-abiding sensible citizens will achieve victory over the smaller army of the stupid, the criminal, the careless, the drunks, etc. and we shall have peace on the streets. I also posit that the number of innocent casualties will be less than that number at present.
"Hey, that 230RN guy is serious."
Yes, yes I am. I separated the realistic aspects of the problem from the emotional aspects... a process to be recommended in many instances.
Terry, 230RN
-------------------
Majorities of gun owners from all demographic groups cited at-home protection, out-of-home protection, and hunting or recreation as “very” or “extremely” important. At least 10% of every demographic group endorsed at least one ideologic reason as “extremely important.” Newer gun owners more frequently endorsed multiple important reasons.
Broken down by various demographics. SD in various domains is a crucial factor and different aspects of SD - crime, political threats, etc.
-------------------
I would offer the suggestion that anybody should be able to obtain (or be issued) a firearm of their choice and let the long-term operation of Darwinian Theory do its work.
I suggest that while a certain unavoidable number of innocent casualties will occur, sooner or later the army of law-abiding sensible citizens will achieve victory over the smaller army of the stupid, the criminal, the careless, the drunks, etc. and we shall have peace on the streets. I also posit that the number of innocent casualties will be less than that number at present.
"Hey, that 230RN guy is serious."
Yes, yes I am. I separated the realistic aspects of the problem from the emotional aspects... a process to be recommended in many instances.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
A conclusion from the article:
"Permissive firearm policies may compound behavioral ambivalence, exacerbating conditions that threaten collective safety and civic expression."
Yes--we MUST rein in those permissive firearm policies. I'm not psychic, but before even reading the article I knew that a call for gun control was coming. And what on earth is "civic expression"?
Tim
"Permissive firearm policies may compound behavioral ambivalence, exacerbating conditions that threaten collective safety and civic expression."
Yes--we MUST rein in those permissive firearm policies. I'm not psychic, but before even reading the article I knew that a call for gun control was coming. And what on earth is "civic expression"?
Tim
Old Dog
Member
AKA "mostly peaceful protests" - we certainly don't want firearms introduced into that mix - witness Kenosha ... or Seattle... or DC.
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
A nice theory, but the continued, ongoing, documented history of the human race proves no effort is spared in producing more.... people.
theotherwaldo
Member
Lessee.
I watched the Watts riots alone in our apartment at eight years old, I've had a black bear in the kitchen and a cougar on the roof, I've had my house shot up by a meth head, I've had to run off one of my uncle's angry, armed girlfriends, I've had to shoot at armed home invaders and face down some would-be car jackers.
-And I don't trust my government to protect me.
Oh - and I've had to hunt to feed my family.
I watched the Watts riots alone in our apartment at eight years old, I've had a black bear in the kitchen and a cougar on the roof, I've had my house shot up by a meth head, I've had to run off one of my uncle's angry, armed girlfriends, I've had to shoot at armed home invaders and face down some would-be car jackers.
-And I don't trust my government to protect me.
Oh - and I've had to hunt to feed my family.
AJC1
Member
Where is the section for fighting a tyrannical government 
230RN
Actually, violence causes guns. And atomic bombs.
I fail to see how that matters. "We" (humans) have been using selective breeding for thousands of years, except it wasn't yet called Darwinian Theory.
The process is simple: remove undesired outliers from each generation and sooner or later you have offspring without outliers. Or Pekinese versus St. Bernards.
Consistently preventing ne'er do wells (or big puppies) from breeding by removal from society and.... You have Pekinese instead of St. Bernards, regardless of the total number. The allegory pertains to human breeding as well. (NOTE that I am not advocating breeding programs for humans, which is usually the first misunderstanding of my ideas, but that the natural "selection" will occur by encounters between given armed citizens and given armed crooks. The crux of the theory relies on the adage that "Colt made them equal," as opposed to "unwilling victims.")
The Colt "Equalizer," AKA the "Peacemaker"
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
The older I get (I'm 79), the less practical use I have for my guns. (For example, my body can no longer endure extended trips to the range. Not without a ton of pain.) The guns themselves, though, are neat to have, along with all my other collectibles.
Paradoxically, I would be safer without any guns, because their presence is about the only reason anyone would try to break in and rob me.
Paradoxically, I would be safer without any guns, because their presence is about the only reason anyone would try to break in and rob me.
theotherwaldo
Member
Now, for the other reasons to have firearms, it's because I like them.
I like their history, their feel, the skills that I have developed in learning to care for them, to use them, to build or repair them, to reload their ammo, and to accessorize them with different scopes and sights.
I like how they tend to keep their value compared to most other consumer goods - as long as you didn't buy them new... .
I just don't care what pollsters and statisticians have to say about them, I like guns.
I like their history, their feel, the skills that I have developed in learning to care for them, to use them, to build or repair them, to reload their ammo, and to accessorize them with different scopes and sights.
I like how they tend to keep their value compared to most other consumer goods - as long as you didn't buy them new... .
I just don't care what pollsters and statisticians have to say about them, I like guns.
230RN
Actually, violence causes guns. And atomic bombs.
Realistically, I could point out that all the restrictions on firearms ownership have boosted their value (especially to crooks) and therefore the motivation to steal them as well, but I won't.
Exempli gratia, note what happened to machinegun prices --even for law-abiding citizens --when they closed the machinegun registry. Realistically.
Your statement is probably factually true, but please don't let it color anyone's thinking about any need for increased firearms regulation. Not that you would, of course.
Clear thinking shows that it really illustrates the need for less regulation.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
The gods of science are like the gods of Rome, never quite all they should be. Our drive to defend our way of life and our ability to do so is one of the distinguishing aspects of the American culture. It should not be surprising that this will always be uncomfortable for those who value uniformity and control.
because every tyrant, petty or large, criminal or political, at every time in history, says i shouldn’t go about my humble life peaceably armed.
because of america’s first taste of gun control on april 19, 1775.
because ours is the only nation on earth that constitutionally affirms our inalienable, god-given right to keep and bear arms.
because i enjoy firearms.
because of america’s first taste of gun control on april 19, 1775.
because ours is the only nation on earth that constitutionally affirms our inalienable, god-given right to keep and bear arms.
because i enjoy firearms.
Miami_JBT
Member
I have a response to the doctors.
"The government couldn't even protect Trump, who'll protect you or I if we give up our guns?"
"The government couldn't even protect Trump, who'll protect you or I if we give up our guns?"
Shanvanvocht
Member
Not to mention Reagan or JFK
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I like to look at a variety of things when it comes to research papers.
Where it was published (American Journal of Preventive Medicine).
Who wrote the paper. (In this case, four women: Julie, Rebecca, Vanya, Cassandra.)
What their qualifications are. (PhD, MN, RN, MPH, MSPH)
The subject (Titled "Reasons for gun ownership among demographically diverse new and prior gun owners".)
The methods employed (A "National Survey of Gun Policy" which included 3,096 individuals, of which 1,002 were gun owners. 2,094 were non-gun owners. However, while looking for the actual survey, all I could find amounted to the "results" and not the actual survey contents itself. Link below. This does not mean that the actual survey is not available, it just means I couldn't find it while researching for this post.)
publichealth.jhu.edu
MY TAKE AWAY:
It's obviously a biased paper which attempts to cloak its conclusions with legitimacy through the use of poor survey techniques and results.
The "survey" information at the Johns Hopkins Center link starts out "A 2023 national representative public opinion survey from the researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions found broad agreement among Americans for gun violence prevention policies - regardless of their political affiliation or whether or not they own guns."
What's interesting about the survey itself is that it purports to be a NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY on the subject and yet only includes 3,096 people in total, 1/3 of which being actual gun owners. This statistically weighs the outcome towards non-gun owners' opinions on the subject, for one. For another, there are just over 265 million people over the age of 18 in the United States, which means their "representative" sample of 3,096 accounts for 0.00001167 of the adults, or 0.001167%.
To put this into perspective, I'm from Lafayette, Indiana originally. Lafayette and West Lafayette together have a total population of about 225,000. If I were to sample the same fraction of the population of these two cities together as part of a survey, that would be THREE PEOPLE. And of those three people, only ONE would be personally acquainted with the topic of the survey itself.
3,096 people might be representative of a small town, but it sure is NOT representative of an entire nation as diverse as the United States is, politically, economically, racially, etc.
Toss in the fact that the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions is located in Baltimore, Md, a state known to be very much antithetical to gun ownership, and you have to wonder about WHERE these 3,096 people came from which are supposed to be representative of an entire nation of some 340 million people.
And the organization itself, being both medical and decidedly pro-gun control, does not lend itself towards an unbiased mindset.
SO...the survey itself is strongly suspect as being "representative" of anything at all, much less an entire nation of a third of a billion people.
Then there's the matter of the research paper itself, which appears to be nothing more than cherry picking the data/information from another organization's survey. The people doing so are of an organization (medical) typically seen as pro-gun control, are all of a gender (female) which is by and large seen as pro-gun control, all having degrees in fields historically seen as pro-gun control (PhD, MN, RN, MPH, MSPH), published in a journal likewise seen as pro-gun control.
Then there's the conclusion of this paper which openly proclaims that the information gathered should be used to effect changes to public opinion AWAY from gun ownership and TOWARDS additional gun control measures.
The only polite word I can use to describe this published paper is "sham".
Where it was published (American Journal of Preventive Medicine).
Who wrote the paper. (In this case, four women: Julie, Rebecca, Vanya, Cassandra.)
What their qualifications are. (PhD, MN, RN, MPH, MSPH)
The subject (Titled "Reasons for gun ownership among demographically diverse new and prior gun owners".)
The methods employed (A "National Survey of Gun Policy" which included 3,096 individuals, of which 1,002 were gun owners. 2,094 were non-gun owners. However, while looking for the actual survey, all I could find amounted to the "results" and not the actual survey contents itself. Link below. This does not mean that the actual survey is not available, it just means I couldn't find it while researching for this post.)
National Survey of Gun Policy | Center for Gun Violence Solutions
Americans broadly agree on numerous gun violence prevention policies—regardless of their political affiliation or whether or not they own guns—according to a new national public opinion survey from researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
MY TAKE AWAY:
It's obviously a biased paper which attempts to cloak its conclusions with legitimacy through the use of poor survey techniques and results.
The "survey" information at the Johns Hopkins Center link starts out "A 2023 national representative public opinion survey from the researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions found broad agreement among Americans for gun violence prevention policies - regardless of their political affiliation or whether or not they own guns."
What's interesting about the survey itself is that it purports to be a NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY on the subject and yet only includes 3,096 people in total, 1/3 of which being actual gun owners. This statistically weighs the outcome towards non-gun owners' opinions on the subject, for one. For another, there are just over 265 million people over the age of 18 in the United States, which means their "representative" sample of 3,096 accounts for 0.00001167 of the adults, or 0.001167%.
To put this into perspective, I'm from Lafayette, Indiana originally. Lafayette and West Lafayette together have a total population of about 225,000. If I were to sample the same fraction of the population of these two cities together as part of a survey, that would be THREE PEOPLE. And of those three people, only ONE would be personally acquainted with the topic of the survey itself.
3,096 people might be representative of a small town, but it sure is NOT representative of an entire nation as diverse as the United States is, politically, economically, racially, etc.
Toss in the fact that the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions is located in Baltimore, Md, a state known to be very much antithetical to gun ownership, and you have to wonder about WHERE these 3,096 people came from which are supposed to be representative of an entire nation of some 340 million people.
And the organization itself, being both medical and decidedly pro-gun control, does not lend itself towards an unbiased mindset.
SO...the survey itself is strongly suspect as being "representative" of anything at all, much less an entire nation of a third of a billion people.
Then there's the matter of the research paper itself, which appears to be nothing more than cherry picking the data/information from another organization's survey. The people doing so are of an organization (medical) typically seen as pro-gun control, are all of a gender (female) which is by and large seen as pro-gun control, all having degrees in fields historically seen as pro-gun control (PhD, MN, RN, MPH, MSPH), published in a journal likewise seen as pro-gun control.
Then there's the conclusion of this paper which openly proclaims that the information gathered should be used to effect changes to public opinion AWAY from gun ownership and TOWARDS additional gun control measures.
The only polite word I can use to describe this published paper is "sham".
Choctaw
Member
Probably rioting and looting. That sort of thing.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 27,207
I disagree, they could have. Law enforcement had more time to act than most would have.
AlexanderA
Member
There's a logical problem with this. If the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable and god-given, then the Deity would step in and protect it. No human activism required. A perfect excuse for us to do nothing.
No, all rights, historically, have been wrested by people from their reluctant rulers.
And, BTW, if the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable and god-given, then why is the U.S. the only advanced country to recognize it in its constitution? (The reason is history and human activism, not God.)
We need to stay away from this glib formulation.
ETA: We have a Bill of Rights in our constitution precisely because these rights are not inherent or god-given. (If they were, a Bill of Rights would not be necessary.) Indeed, in times past, these rights were all controversial and disputed.
Last edited:
Miami_JBT
Member
I've worked protective operations as a cop. The goal is to mitigate threats. But nothing is foolproof.
Again, the government ain't gonna save you
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I always wonder what the same study would have concluded a few decades back. I guess I wonder how, or if, things have changed. How would my parents and grandparents have answered the same questions, that would be interesting to me.
A study like this one, have to say I just really don’t care about it. Everyone has their own reasons and I don’t care what they are. It’s just not my business and my reasons aren’t anyone else’s. I just don’t care who does what, much less why.
A study like this one, have to say I just really don’t care about it. Everyone has their own reasons and I don’t care what they are. It’s just not my business and my reasons aren’t anyone else’s. I just don’t care who does what, much less why.
Similar threads
- Locked