Rutgers Study On Gun Ownership Goes Nationwide

[45Doll 5,877]

Who wants to admit owning firearms?

Boom: Up to 60% of Americans could own guns, twice estimate | Washington Examiner

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Pork roll?

[1LtCAP 4,264]

is anyone really surprised?

[father-of-three 243]

A speculative article about speculation of firearms ownership.  So-called gun violence government money at work to educate the people. Sigh.

[124gr9mm 859]

20 hours ago, father-of-three said:

A speculative article about speculation of firearms ownership.  So-called gun violence government money at work to educate the people. Sigh.

But they used computers to help with their speculation, so that makes it valid, right?

More pseudo science from agenda driven university programs that are funded by agenda driven billionaires. 

[raz-0 1,259]

On 8/2/2023 at 6:49 AM, 124gr9mm said:

But they used computers to help with their speculation, so that makes it valid, right?

More pseudo science from agenda driven university programs that are funded by agenda driven billionaires. 

You are missing the point I think. Namely that the RU gun violence research program has been going on for years with almost nothing to show for it. I suspect that is because they went into it with a couple key differences from most gun control research. First is that it was formed via a bureaucratic process to figure out how to spend grant money that could be grabbed easily. This means it isn't some academic's pet project, but a team of researchers that have to worry about being stabbed in the back by their fellow academics. Second is that it was formed with one of the goals being scientific rigor. Which makes that a tool for stabbing your fellow academic in the back. 

They aren't our friends, but I do think they thought they would storm in and rapidly get some very strong and convincing numbers that satisfied academic rigor. I don't think they are getting them because this is the first article of real significance they have produced and it's also virtually treason to the current gun grabbers unless there is a strategy shift coming. Because the line that was to be toed currently is that there are WAY less gun owners than you think and that it just looks like more because half of them are super gun nuts that own a bajillion guns and also guns are disposable goods duh. Their current premise is that there are less guns out there, and most of them are in the hands of "super owners". 

If you actually care about data driven research, it's very easy to show that even the larger common number for guns in circulation is pessimistic. For it to be true, gun manufacturers would have to be sitting on warehouses of guns, and we know from panic buying shortages, that they just aren't. They insist that the NSSF numbers are overly optimistic because guns leave circulation. I think they imagine they are disposable. Some have tried to argue numbers as low as 285 million guns owned. Realistically, NSSF numbers are missing a lot and represent home builds and pre-68 guns poorly.  Then you have the grabbers cherry picking owner rates and household ownership rates and seeing them not match up with less agenda driven polling or historic trend lines. They REALLY don't jibe with minting 8-10 million new gun owners. 

This paper is basically confirming that not only do the straight forward numbers not add up and contradict the official position that gun ownership is dying out, but that all the statistical math you can do to try to verify your sample is a good sample and can be extrapolated with the population just doesn't jibe and that the simplest answer is that gun owners know you aren't their friend and will lie to you to keep you from knowing they are gun owners. And there really isn't an alternative theory that works. You can't, for example, say southern, rural, country fans that own trucks (lets call them type A owners) used to report an ownership rate of X and now it is X minus a lot and claim all those massive amounts of newly manufactured guns aren't owned by a different demographic that just isn't showing up in the data. If you can't show the loss of ownership by type A owners was offset by an increase in type B owners,  your only theory is that those owners must be destroying their guns. The problem with that is we are selling record numbers of guns. Which means that either type A owners are lying to you or type B owners are lying to you or you are just totally missing some population,  or demolition ranch sized collections are becoming the norm. 

ATF numbers tell us we've been making a hell of a lot of guns because most gun manufacturers report each gun made and have for a while and it adds up to a really big number that does not account for 1) the increasing number of smaller manufacturers that don't participate in the voluntary reporting 2) self made guns which have been exploding in volume 3) a shit ton of pre-68 guns. 

This paper basically says that the standard bloomberg position to explain away these numbers has to be wrong and that the real reason is that the target population is self selecting out of being surveyed. The RU researchers I'm sure see this as an article saying "we have to figure out how to reach these people so we can finally prove they are wrong and explain it to them that they are wrong and thus end gun ownership".  What they really wound up saying is "gun control researchers are a bunch of liars and we can prove they have to be lying about something."

 

 

 

[CMJeepster 2,778]

The answer is pork roll.

[45Doll 5,877]

I'll put this here.

It looks like more NJ women than ever own guns. Here’s why (nj1015.com)

[JohnnyB 4,326]

54 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

I'll put this here.

It looks like more NJ women than ever own guns. Here’s why (nj1015.com)

The article goes on to give outdated information on where we can now carry! That is dangerous to those who don't know about the last ruling by the 3rd circuit panel!

[45Doll 5,877]

7 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

The article goes on to give outdated information on where we can now carry! That is dangerous to those who don't know about the last ruling by the 3rd circuit panel!

I have advised NJ101.5 about this. Thanks for the scrutiny.