Thread: America's Gun Fantasy

Originally Posted by Tennyson

I suppose someone could construe facts and data as opinions if they do not like the facts and data.



I guess this is a rant, but I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that this is not my opinion regarding where the Guardian got their data and that the Harvard/Northeastern survey was a survey:

From the Guardian:

The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

Source: "The Stock and Flow of US Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearm Survey"

From their exclusive partner, the Tace:

It was conducted using the GfK Knowledge Panel, a nationally representative online panel used by researchers and marketing companies to poll Americans on a variety of issues. It is undergoing peer-review, and a summary will be published by the Russell Sage Foundation next year.

The only way these so-called researchers can push their partisan agenda is by claiming that firearm ownership is going down. That flies in the face of reality with the increase in firearm sales and carry permits, especially among women. They use biased surveys and ridiculous proxies like the number of print copies of Soldier of Fortune sold. They also use the entire population of the US instead of a meaningful statistic like ownership among those legally able to purchase firearms in the US.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

I suppose someone could construe facts and data as opinions if they do not like the facts and data.



I guess this is a rant, but I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that this is not my opinion regarding where the Guardian got their data and that the Harvard/Northeastern survey was a survey:

From the Guardian:

The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

Source: "The Stock and Flow of US Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearm Survey"

From their exclusive partner, the Tace:

It was conducted using the GfK Knowledge Panel, a nationally representative online panel used by researchers and marketing companies to poll Americans on a variety of issues. It is undergoing peer-review, and a summary will be published by the Russell Sage Foundation next year.

Ok well A) It clearly says survey - nothing about the internet. And your links don't show how the survey is "wrong" either. Again, your opinion.

B) I was referring the Guardian post about mass shootings that I made in another thread. You stated that their numbers were wrong with no supporting evidence. So it's a completely different topic.

Originally Posted by Libertine

The only way these so-called researchers can push their partisan agenda is by claiming that firearm ownership is going down. That flies in the face of reality with the increase in firearm sales and carry permits, especially among women. They use biased surveys and ridiculous proxies like the number of print copies of Soldier of Fortune sold. They also use the entire population of the US instead of a meaningful statistic like ownership among those legally able to purchase firearms in the US.

You do know that it's a minority of people in this country that own guns right?

But somehow we can't even get background checks passed.

Which is kinda of crazy.

Originally Posted by Spookycolt

Any proof of that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.931dcafd5b7e

Originally Posted by HayJenn

You do know that only about 40% of people in this country own a gun right?

Your cite is claiming 22% instead of 40%, it is required to make false claims.

Should kindergartners be included in that ratio, how about prohibited felons and domestic abusers?

Originally Posted by jet57

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.931dcafd5b7e

Money well spent protecting our civil rights.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System's data paints the opposite picture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.be2a5f99e128

Originally Posted by HayJenn

You do know that it's a minority of people in this country that own guns right?

But somehow we can't even get background checks passed.

Which is kinda of crazy.

If they have to lie to support their position, then they should be asking themselves why they are lying to support a position. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by NightSwimmer

If they have to lie to support their position, then they should be asking themselves why they are lying to support a position. Don't you think?

Background checks to purchase firearms has been the law for decades, why lie about it. It is illegal to transfer firearms to prohibited persons and has been for decades. I is illegal for a prohibited person to be in possession of a firearm and has been for decades, why lie about it.


The state with the greatest number of mass shootings has the strictest laws, as does the city with the highest number of mass shootings.

Originally Posted by HayJenn

Ok well A) It clearly says survey - nothing about the internet. And your links don't show how the survey is "wrong" either. Again, your opinion.

B) I was referring the Guardian post about mass shootings that I made in another thread. You stated that their numbers were wrong with no supporting evidence. So it's a completely different topic.

I do not have links. I explained what is wrong with the survey in detail. You are welcome to take each of my points and explain what is incorrect. If I searched the interwebs high and low in search of an opinion to support my statements, all I would find is someone's opinion.

The left's mass shootings misrepresentation deserves a thread of its own. The starting point would be the FBI's public retraction of the phony mass shooting report that their name was attached to.