Study complains gun owners are secretive about ownership

[Allen65]

I do solemnly swear that guns are icky.

That's how they can tell you actually are a gun owner. A real Progressive would have said "Gun owners are icky." "And deplorable."

 

[Doctor_M]

Will have to continue work on my camouflage.

 

[Allen65]

Will have to continue work on my camouflage.

Start driving a Volvo with a "Hillary 2016" bumper sticker. Would probably even get a bunch of "WTF?"s if seen in the AGC parking lot. Extra credit if you leave reusable shopping bags with an organic grocery store logo on the back seat.

 

[JohnnyE]

We have a long tradition of that. In 1776 when asked about arms, patriots told loyalists to go fvck themselves.

 

[gtodave]

 

[mpollan1]

They didn't. See my post above. The 11th quote.

I see. Falsifying false denials. Stone 'em.

 

[AssMan]

The best part is that they assume these gun-toting heathens are in danger because some big-brained lefty from the University didn’t get to tell them how to store their firearms.

 

[Bob A]

I apologize that the quotes below all appear to come from Bob A when in fact they are the material he quoted. This is just some consequence of the forum software that adds his name each time the quoted material is split and I can't delete it.


Cool research. Respondents respond negatively to a question and researchers say they are liars. Science! Science! Science!

I'm shocked! shocked!


Wait, accusing women and minorities of lying? Those racist and misogynistic researchers!

[I wipe away a tear]


No, such self preservation is the inevitable consequence of lying and disingenuous assurances of @sshole politicians.


"Falsely denying" isn't that the same as acknowledging? What's the problem?


Oh, here's the issue, you need to question these violent guns.

Oh, so this isn't "research" about firearm ownership, it's trying to provide information about safe storage "for the children".

If that's the case, why not just provide it to all of those contacted? Problem solved.


Dishonestly, like couching making a database of firearms owners, as spreading the word about firearms safety? That kind of dishonesty?

"Experts" meaning those who speak about "the thing that goes up". And ATF bigwigs who when questioned say they are not firearm experts, those experts?


So, all this talk of "researchers" claiming respondents are "falsely denying" is a bunch of horseshit. Who could have known?

Wow, just wow. They admit they have not one confirmed instance of someone "falsely denying" but yet they can come up with a percentage to apply to others. Great. so I think 50% of people I questioned are secretly alien lizard people because some few number when asked, said they are alien lizard people. Look, I'm doing science!

More claims of dishonesty about women and people of color. Next, these bigots will accuse trans people of being liars.

So, where did these medicos get their numbers? From questions on medical intake forms? Thanks for sharing my personal information doc. Oh, and don't expect any support when you whine that you can't do medicine.

Blah, blah, blah, we say we don't have the numbers but we have the non-numbers and state trends based on the non-numbers.

You pretty much eviscerated the poor wittle PhD candidate.

Bet she gets her degree anyway, because guns bad.

 

[Lafayette]

They didn't. See my post above. The 11th quote.

I also loved the part about building profiles of gun owners that the study referenced. How can they build a profile if they don’t know who really has guns?

It’s like if I only arrest 23 year old males robbing a store but never arrest any 45 year old women (because maybe they are smarter and don’t get caught) I can then assume all store robber are 23?

This study is so shoddy as to be unpublishable by anyone other than a “social scientist” aka someone who couldn’t get a real job.

 

[K31]

It’s like if I only arrest 23 year old males robbing a store but never arrest any 45 year old women (because maybe they are smarter and don’t get caught) I can then assume all store robber are 23?

It's worse than that. It's like saying you only found 23 year old males robbing but thought that the police were lying so you statistically added a number (that you pulled from your ass) of 45 year old females.

 

[gamer_jim]

It sounds like this "study" might be grounds for a national registry. It will be used as support in congressional debates and on the media to convince sheeple to agree to this. Some gun owners won't comply and the ATF will enforce by anonymous tips by your neighbors.

 

[TI-tick]

This is along the same lines as that Wintermute (sp) cockbreath from UC Davis.

Trying to use statistics to show that firearms are a public health issue so state policy needs to address this issue.

This bitch hit a roadblock of disinformation; good!

 

[MaxVO2]

It's worse than that. It's like saying you only found 23 year old males robbing but thought that the police were lying so you statistically added a number (that you pulled from your ass) of 45 year old females.

****Yea this. I don't see the data described, nor the methodology, or the somewhat ad hominen thoughts on gun owners as PhD material. That candidate should be able to defend that data, and I don't see how that is possible due to so many assumptions made on the subjects she is studying and just flat out saying they are lying regarding information critical to defend her thesis, but with no real evidence or hard data supporting that argument.

Must be a "social" science candidate going for her PhD. That data and methodology would get laughed out of a STEM dissertation committee.

Total garbage.

 

[mpollan1]

Yup, anyone capable of critical thinking will laugh at this. Libs/MSM however will take this torch (if this "study" gains any traction) and rum amok, because well, they are incapable of critical thinking.

 

[Troublesbrewin]

Maybe we should have a study conducted on ‘People who conduct Studies Tend to Misrepresent Facts’ to prove their financiers‘ predisposed conclusions.

 

[JohnnyE]

I also loved the part about building profiles of gun owners that the study referenced. How can they build a profile if they don’t know who really has guns?

It’s like if I only arrest 23 year old males robbing a store but never arrest any 45 year old women (because maybe they are smarter and don’t get caught) I can then assume all store robber are 23?

This study is so shoddy as to be unpublishable by anyone other than a “social scientist” aka someone who couldn’t get a real job.

They built a profile alright, concluding that gun owners are liars!

 

[Bob A]

They built a profile alright, concluding that gun owners are liars!

There we are; anyone who says they have no guns is probably a gun owner. Unless they have Clinton, Obama or Biden stickers on their cars.

Quick, George, pull up the CCTV/License plate reader images. Use the registered voter lists and run the Republicans.

We'll nail the stinking fascists! DOT SWAT Teams on full alert!

(The above used to be edgy satire. Check back next summer.)

 

[Blacksmith101]

It seems like they are admitting their "polls" are bogus and the "data" they are reporting in the MSM about gun owners is incorrect!

Well if they looked at the NICS checks as reported by the FBI and the Firearms Commerce Data also collected by the Federal Government they would know they aren't getting correct answers. All those guns are going somewhere???

NICS Data

NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statistics represent the number of firearms background checks initiated through the NICS from November 1998 to July 31, 2023.

www.fbi.gov

Firearms Commerce In The United States

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/2021-firearms-commerce-report/download

 

[K31]

It seems like they are admitting their "polls" are bogus and the "data" they are reporting in the MSM about gun owners is incorrect!

Well if they looked at the NICS checks as reported by the FBI and the Firearms Commerce Data also collected by the Federal Government they would know they aren't getting correct answers. All those guns are going somewhere???

The big lie they cling to when purchases go up is that it's not new firearm owners or groups that don't traditionally own firearms, it's individuals who already have several buying more.