Trigger Happy

[mvccd1000]

Nice editorial in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. Kind of debunks some of the myths the more vehement antis like to espouse here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html

OPINION

Trigger Happy
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
April 19, 2008; Page A10

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

--------------------------

Much more at the link.

[TPaine7]

1. Let the anti-gun spin begin...

People who have guns are statistically better adjusted, wealthier, more generous, more optimistic, . . .

I've read these types of statistics before.

This doesn't fit cherished stereotypes, however, so it must be dismissed. The only question is the cleverness of the spin.

[iverglas]

7. gee, I wonder

People who have guns are statistically better adjusted, wealthier, more generous, more optimistic, . . .


People who are wealthier are statistically more likely to have guns, be more generous, be more optimistic ...

[TPaine7]

8. Your point?

Both could be true. So what?

This still does not explain why anti-gun stereotypes are so (intentionally?) false.

[iverglas]

9. pretty obvious, I think

No cause and effect relationship has been established.

The fact could simply be (and quite obviously is) that people who are wealthier own more stuff, and are also on average happier, less resentful, etc.

I wouldn't generalize about people who own firearms, if I were you, any more than I would generalize about people who own motor vehicles or dogs. I know I don't. Without knowing what kind of firearms / vehicles / dogs they own, why they own them, what they do with them, etc. etc., I wouldn't even imagine any commonalities among them other than the fact that they own whatever it is.

A person who owns a vehicle in order to carry on a business hasn't much in common with a person who owns a vehicle in order to polish it and tinker with it and admire it, vehicle-wise, and a person who owns a dog for companionship hasn't much in common with a person who owns a dog to guard a junkyard, dog-wise. And a person who owns a firearm in order to hunt for food has pretty much nothing in common with a person who sees a need to promenade around in public with a firearm concealed about his/her person, firearm-wise. So I'm not seeing much of note in that study.

Lord knows what an "anti-gun stereogype" is, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. I'm glad you admitted the stereotypes were false.

[iverglas]

12. I'm glad you're enjoying your visit to planet earth.

[TPaine7]

13. Your obvious point

obviously had nothing to do with the post it was replying to. Hence the confusion.

I said nothing about cause and effect. (I did mention spin, however.)

I wouldn't generalize about people who own firearms, if I were you,. . .

1) You're not me.
2) I don't give personal advice to people I've just met.
3) If I need your advice I will request it.

Lord knows what an "anti-gun stereogype" is, eh?

I think we all know what anti-gun stereotypes are, however. They are often bandied about on this very site.

[Callisto32]

14. I have to disagree with your analogy

A person who owns a vehicle in order to carry on a business hasn't much in common with a person who owns a vehicle in order to polish it and tinker with it and admire it, vehicle-wise, and a person who owns a dog for companionship hasn't much in common with a person who owns a dog to guard a junkyard, dog-wise. And a person who owns a firearm in order to hunt for food has pretty much nothing in common with a person who sees a need to promenade around in public with a firearm concealed about his/her person, firearm-wise. So I'm not seeing much of note in that study.

-iverglas

This is how those categories seem to break down:

Cars:
Polisher/Admirer: vehicle=fancier catering to his particular tastes
Us a vehicle for work-er: vehicle=tool

Dogs:
Companionship: Dog=fancier catering to his particular tastes
Junk-yard-guarder: Dog=tool

Guns:
Hunter: Firearm=tool
CCW Permit Holder: Firearm=tool

In fact, I would say that in the last case, they have even MORE in common with one another than in the cars/dogs comparisons. The hunter uses a firearm to provide food, to preserve life. The legally-armed citizen carrying a firearm on or about his person is attempting to prepare to respond to a violent attack; also to preserve life.

Just for reference, most of the gun-owners I know do BOTH of those things. So I would venture that they have a lot in common.

Also, the rancor that seems to be in your tone when referring to those with a CCW/LTCF...permit seems misguided. When carrying a weapon concealed you are doing the OPPOSITE of "promenading" around. In fact, you are attempting to be as discreet about it as possible.

Pointing out a typo just seems tacky....

In the beginning of your post you suggest that no common traits can be assumed between owners of particular things. Certainly, but then it seems like you are suggesting that the dog/car people have more in common with one another than the two hypothetical categories of gun owners. It seems that there IS something in common between the gun groups. It may be a case of wording that I don't follow, but that is the source of this response.

[iverglas]

16. tool indeed ...

Guns:
Hunter: Firearm=tool
CCW Permit Holder: Firearm=tool fetish, body art, security blanket


A person who totes a firearm around on his/her person is not actually using it for something, so it is not a tool.

No more than the vehicle that someone else is tinkering with and polishing in his/her driveway.


In the beginning of your post you suggest that no common traits can be assumed between owners of particular things. Certainly, but then it seems like you are suggesting that the dog/car people have more in common with one another than the two hypothetical categories of gun owners.

It seeeeems that way to you, does it? Even though it is in fact the exact opposite of how it seeeeeems to you?

It seems to me that it should have been obvious to a blunt object that I was saying that the dog owners and vehicles had nothing in common apart from their ownership of the items in question. Hmm. I wonder whether that might be because I SAID that:

A person who owns a vehicle in order to carry on a business hasn't much in common with a person who owns a vehicle in order to polish it and tinker with it and admire it, vehicle-wise, and a person who owns a dog for companionship hasn't much in common with a person who owns a dog to guard a junkyard, dog-wise. And a person who owns a firearm in order to hunt for food has pretty much nothing in common with a person who sees a need to promenade around in public with a firearm concealed about his/her person, firearm-wise.

How's it seeming now?

Please don't tell me that you are attempting to read some significance into the use of "hasn't much in common with" and "has pretty much nothing in common with". That would really be grasping at straws. Especially given as how I'd said I wouldn't even imagine any commonalities among them other than the fact that they own whatever it is, and all.


Just for reference, most of the gun-owners I know do BOTH of those things.

Yes, the acquaintances of one gun-lovin' undergraduate student are generally an excellent basis for drawing inferences about a population.


It seems that there IS something in common between the gun groups.

No, actually, it doesn't. It doesn't seem that there is or seem that there isn't. For one thing, you have no idea which "gun group" any of those owners fall into. Rich, handgun-owning, body-decorating gun owners may be ecstatically happy, while poor, shotgun-owning, food-hunting gun owners may be miserable. I should probably look at the study and see whether it says, but I can't be bothered just now.

Aren't you all the people who are always saying that we can't compare "x" and "y" because they aren't alike? We can't compare firearms homicide rates in the US and firearms homicide rates in the rest of the advanced industrial world, because the US just isn't like those other places, and we'd have to factor out all kinds o' shit before we could compare and infer any causal relationships from what's left.

Well, there ya go. Start factoring out.

[Callisto32]

18. Okay...

I have a hammer in my toolbox right now. It is currently not being used for any specific purpose. It is a tool that I have around since, someday, I may need it to pound a nail back into a door jamb, or whatever. Does that cause it to cease being a tool whenever it is not being used in an attempt to complete a specific task. I don't think it does.

Yes, it "seeeemed" that way. That is why I chose the word "Seems" and indicated that I could be reading it wrong. Apparently, I was.

I know my comment about my personal acquaintances is not scientific evidence of anything. It is what it is, just a statement of personal experience.

You don't have to insult me based on my level of education. I am where I am in my life. Besides, even if I came back with an alphabet's worth of letters in front of, behind, in between, wherever in my name would that matter?

When I referred to the "gun groups" (a sloppy choice of words, to be sure) I was not referring to those in the study, but rather your classifications of "hunters" and "promenaders" (which I addressed as doing the opposite of promenading). What I meant was that these two groups (based on the assumption that both are using firearms as tools) do, actually, have something in common that does not exist between the two dog groups and two car groups. If you choose not to view preparation for armed response to a violent attack as a legitimate criterion for classifying a personal firearm as a tool, as you have indicated you do, I can see how you would disagree.


Zane

[iverglas]

25. sighhh

You don't have to insult me based on my level of education.

Nothing to do with level of education.

I guess where you are, the adjective derived from "sophomore" would convey the meaning.

[Callisto32]

26. Please respond to my points in the post,

don't just call me sophomoric.

I agree that I acted foolishly in the past. You can see my other post for that. I looked back on my posts to this thread, and I don't see anything particularly intellectually immature or conceited in them. As I wrote before, I am attempting to turn over a new, more civil leaf here on DU's boards. My posts in this thread should reflect that, if I am not mistaken. If I am mistaken, please point out exactly what you find in this thread to be so immature or foolish.

Sincerely,

Zane

[iverglas]

28. you cite your experience

and I'm sorry to tell you, but your experience is not authority for anything. The firearms owners you know are representative only of the firearms owners you know.

I've known two firearms owners well, i.e. as close friend / intimate partner. Different as night and day. One owned long arms for hunting (the intended purpose not being that his 13-yr-old son would kill himself with one of them, but he did anyway), in a small Ontario town. The other owned a handgun for god knows what reason, but I'd say it had to do with creating a persona: an ex-navy guy with a degree in Soviet history who ran an eco-friendly construction firm in a large city, and owned a handgun that he didn't do anything with.

I'm sure I know other people who own firearms, just not well enough to know that they own firearms.

What shall I infer from my experience that I can generalize to the general firearm-owning Canadian public?

Not much, I'd say.

[Callisto32]

30. Agreed

You will note that I gave you that point. As it stands, I would say we can neither confirm, nor deny anything based on our (I am referring specifically to you and me, iverglas) personal experience beyond something like: "here are our own personal experiences." Agreed?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Wow you know 2 gun owners.

I can't believe you would allow yourself to be around people so insecure as to need the constant assurance of firearms to reinforce their masculinity.

David

[iverglas]

48. wowwowowow! Yes I do!

Actually, I haven't seen one of them in about 30 years, and the other moved to Vancouver and we keep in touch a little. So I wouldn't really want to say I know two gun owners. I used to know two gun owners.


I can't believe you would allow yourself to be around people so insecure as to need the constant assurance of firearms to reinforce their masculinity.

Well that's a damned good thing!

We wouldn't want you believing too many absurd things before breakfast, would we?!?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Forgot to tell you.

The pride of Quebec George St. Pierre beat Matt Sera much to my delight. MMA looks like quite the popular sport in Canada.

David

[iverglas]

29. you did it for me, btw

If you choose not to view preparation for armed response to a violent attack as a legitimate criterion for classifying a personal firearm as a tool, as you have indicated you do, I can see how you would disagree.

Almost.

I choose not to view festooning one's self with firearms while one promenades about in public as a reasonable thing to do.

And I most certainly do not view it as "preparation for armed response to a violent attack" any more than I view installing a concrete pad in one's back yard as preparation for welcoming little green people from Mars.

[Callisto32]

31. This made me laugh.

In a good way, honest! But I do think that one has a better chance of being the victim of a violent attack than being the chosen landing site for Marvin.

Unfortunately, you carry an otherwise valid point (that being a victim of a violent crime holds a pretty low probability) to a hyperbolic conclusion by comparing it to being the receiving line for extraterrestrials.

You said yourself, when I referred to my own experience as a victim of violent attack: "Unfortunately, your experiences are all too common -- particularly in those tranquil rural areas where firearms "crime" just isn't a problem like in the big bad cities, but everybody needs guns within reach in case a big bad burglar busts in." I would hope that you understand that, to me, the chances of this happening do not seem so remote; especially since there have been hints that you have also been the victim of...something. (I hope this isn't a taboo subject.)

(For context please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x167244 )

[iverglas]

34. "the receiving line for extraterrestrials"

Yes, also an amusing turn of phrase. ;) Conjures up just the right image.


You said yourself, when I referred to my own experience as a victim of violent attack: "Unfortunately, your experiences are all too common -- particularly in those tranquil rural areas where firearms 'crime' just isn't a problem like in the big bad cities, but everybody needs guns within reach in case a big bad burglar busts in."

Uh huh ... but your experience wasn't with a big bad burglar busting in, the scenario in which everybody, I said sarcastically, needs guns within reach; it was with an abusive member of the household who himself had firearms, and the firearms in the scenario were not useful for averting harm.

I'm sorry, but I think the nature of your personal response to your experiences is very easily understood for what it is, and it is not constructive, and it is not a successful strategy for dealing with the afermath of trauma. To take it beyond a personal response and turn it into a political crusade, well, it's just the same thing writ large.

The hints aren't from me; I've been perfectly plain about it. When I was an undergraduate ... no, actually, I was a law student, probably about the same age as you ... I was abducted, choked into semi-consciousness, sexually assaulted and, I'm quite sure based on my assessment of the situation at the time and afterward, was going to be killed. I couldn't see any other reason for finally being released from the locked vehicle under close watch, at the bottom of an old quarry in a remote rural area, and invited to go for a walk in the woods. I ran in the other direction instead. The individual had done the same to two younger women two days before, succeeding because each sister feared for the other's life if she escaped herself; and attempted it with three even younger women the day before -- one of the group of three threatened him with her hairbrush and they were released. We were all hitchhiking, a common mode of transportation for anyone under 30 in southern Ontario at that time. I was with a man who matched me in height, weight and hairstyle, and who was unfortunately going only half as far across the province as I was that day, as we were attending different schools and returning home after a weekend visiting my parents. It was the bad guy's good luck.

My conditioned response (arising not just from that incident; other traumas have created complex ptsd, in my case) to physical stimuli like loud noises is still problematic. And I do very much have a conditioned response to perceived threats that is indeed in the nature of oh no you don't, you're not going to get away with doing that to me -- be it road assholes who endanger me or store managers who think they can pull a fast one. But I don't act on those responses, at least not all the time. ;)

I don't organize my life around not being a victim, around the world being a scary and dangerous place with people lurking around every corner trying to take advantage of me or hurt me. It isn't. It's a world in which sometimes bad things happen, but I know that if I organized my life around that possibility, I'd have no life. I choose to organize it around accomplishing things that are worthwhile, and not just for myself, not just to make sure that nobody gets what's mine, be it my stuff or my definition of myself. I'm a lot more than a crime victim, and the world is a lot more than the crime I was a victim of. To make one's trauma and one's fears as a result of that trauma the central focus of one's life is a waste; to try to make them the basis for public policy is inappropriate and selfish, even if innocently so.

[Callisto32]

41. I don't think the world is scary, actually

I would agree with your assessment that it is actually a pretty good kind of place, wherein bad stuff happens. As for organizing my life around the possibility of being a victim, I really hope that I haven't been THAT ineffective in communicating my stance on the issue. I would not presume to advise anybody to live in fear. Believe it or not, I don't. My particular tormentor happens to be serving quite a lengthy sentence, right now, so he is no worry of mine. Even before that, though, I moved from a place where I was generally angry with and afraid of him to a place where, now, I just generally feel sorry for him. He is the one who is living the hard life, not I. (Would that be "me?" I can't remember.) But I digress.

Are you going to be attacked frequently? Probably not, but I suppose there are those who are. Are you EVER going to be the target of an attempted murder/maiming? (These are generic "yous") I really don't know the statistics, but I would guess that the chances of that are pretty low. So are the chances of ever having a "real" (though I personally think that all of that spent fuel happens to be a problem) problem, such as a meltdown, at a nuclear reactor. Do the staff members at those plants spend all of their time fearful of a catastrophic accident/screwup? I doubt it. But they had dang well be prepared to respond quickly and effectively should any problems ever arise. I see carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defense as the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale.
I am not a nuclear plant worker responsible for the physical well-being of a fairly large radius by virtue of my job, however. I am just me, responsible for the well-being of myself and those in my immediate vicinity by virtue of being human.

It has become a political crusade for me, as others have made the disarmament of the populace their political crusade. "Thesis, antithesis, synthesis," and all that.

Finally, and partially in an attempt to make this conversation more "pretty:"

I generally see the world as below.

Maybe its just me, but I think it's pretty.



Copyright, Me

[WWFZD]

68. A doff of the cap to you iverglas

I can't recall the last time I saw in print, or heard said, the word "festooning", well done. I'm funny that way, I get a chuckle out of a well turned phrase or a seldom used word.

[iverglas]

69. oh, yoo noobie

I say in the most affectionate way.

Enjoy it now! These days, I only do it to get up some noses. ;)


Now, maybe I should move on to pistols in pantaloons ...

[TPaine7]

19. You are obviously correct.

A firearm concealed on the person is no less a tool than a fire extinguisher carried in a car.

The firearm is intended to protect the person, the extinguisher to protect the car. To call either a "fetish" is just one example of a stereotype.

It is possible to have a fire extinguisher fetish; it is possible to have a gun fetish. But to assume that a concealed weapon carried on the person necessarily indicates a gun fetish is prejudice and ignorance.

Another thing hunters and concealed carriers of weapons have in common is self reliance.

[iverglas]

22. what a card

Another thing hunters and concealed carriers of weapons have in common is self reliance.

Just so unlike us urban "liberals". We're all on welfare, or we have maids and gardeners. Either way, we don't lift a finger.

You should try it sometime! You might like it.

[Callisto32]

24. Where did you get that?

I don't see anything in TPaine's post that suggests any such thing thing about "urban 'liberals'".

[TPaine7]

32. Your stereotype, not mine.

I will take your self description at face value, though I don't imagine it applies to urban liberals generally. I dislike labels (as well as stereotypes), but I have many "liberal" values myself. I also live in a city and I have never hunted.

I just analyzed the statements using logic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. You have welfare in Canada.

[iverglas]

47. and we have maids and gardeners too!!

The world is so full of a number of things
I think we should all be as happy as kings

or something

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Do you call it welfare?

Or is that the slang word for it?

[M24PS90]

60. That is funny!

You say "I wouldn't generalize about people who own firearms,..."

I have been reading your posts for months and all I can say it WHAT A CROCK of $h!T. You do nothing but generalize about those of us who own firearms and generalize about life and living in the U.S.!

If Canada is SO great then stay there and leave U.S. matters to us. Hypocrite.

[iverglas]

71. You'll be wanting to copy and paste something

C'mon, do it. There's a big prize waiting for the first person who actually backs up one of these weirdo allegations. And you will be the first. Won't you? --

You do nothing but generalize about those of us who own firearms and generalize about life and living in the U.S.!

ONE piece of supporting evidence. Just one.


If Canada is SO great then stay there

No prob, honeybun. I've stayed here for 5 years now. Actually about 15 years. Broken only by a visit to my recently-separated dad while he was on vacation and then two years later a visit to collect the stuff of my recently-deceased dad.

No, those two trips to Texas just about ended my relationship with parts south. And then the bicycle dealer in central Florida using the word I'd be banned from here for using to refer to a couple of his customers of colour ... and all the motels in Daytona with their "American"/"English"-owned signs ... phew. It wasn't like that in the 60s. You people maybe don't notice the tide of racism and all other things right-wing, if you're a little younger than me and living in the middle of it. Trust me. It's vile. And it's worse than it used to be. And we got people right here revelling in it.


and leave U.S. matters to us.

Ha ha. You must realize how that sounds, coming from that side of the border, eh?

Here, let me give you an idea:

Hypocrite.


Hahahaha.

[M24PS90]

76. You are talking to the right person

when it comes to dealing with racism (Unfortunately I have spent more time on the receiving end of it than I care to remember). However, I have encountered the same racism in Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Belgium, France, Moldova and several other places. I would gladly endure it on "American" soil; where I am afforded the right to stand for what it right. Where I am allowed to write or state what I want to. Where I am allowed to own firearms (of my choosing) but am not required too.

Canada is where you live now but why? Is it because it is you right to? I respect that. I respect all of your rights. Do you respect mine?

I don't believe so "honeybun".

As far as your "proof" goes it is hard to pull back up since so many of your responses to Fire_Medic_Dave keep getting deleted but try this one on for size:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=167198&mesg_id=167222

"If I were to say -- and I'm not saying it, mind, I'm just offering the hypothetical -- that you're a puffed-up self-absorbed boy who hasn't yet discovered that the world doesn't revolve around himself and shouldn't really be blamed for being raised as a spoiled little toad with an overblown sense of privilege, for whom there may well be hope and who may in the near future find his horizons expanded enough to decide that the welfare of others is worthy of his concern, would that be closer to it?"

I don't really know why I am attempting to engage you in debate. From what I have come to understand about you I will never be as smart, as culturally divers, or as well traveled, or as Biblically versed as you.

I guess B. Obama was right. I'm just a Bible Thumping, Gun toting, Uneducated, antagonistic person who has an ax to grind and can find no one better to hold responsible than illegal aliens for all of my problems.

I can't wait to vote for a "truly" progressive candidate like him. :puke:

[benEzra]

2. Shooting is Zen. FWIW, the NORC is one of the most respected social surveys in the USA

and are affiliated with the University of Chicago, hardly a bastion of pro-gun sentiment.

http://www.norc.org/channels

From one site describing the survey, its funding, and its methodology:

THE GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY

2005
Susan Carol Losh PhD
Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
Florida State University
Tallahassee FL 32306-4453
[e-mail]

What does America really think, whether it is about prejudice--or anything else? One invaluable source is the General Social Survey (GSS) which began in 1972. Once annual, it is now conducted every other year. The GSS is a representative public opinion survey of adults in the lower 48 United States and is part of what is called “social indicator research.” It is mostly funded by the federal government (the National Science Foundation).

The GSS is a state-of-the-art poll. It uses probability sampling and, unlike most other modern surveys, it utilizes in-person surveys rather than telephone interviews or Internet questionnaires. Its response rates are well over 70 percent and among the highest in the world. The original GSS questions were repeated from earlier work by Gallup, Roper, Harris, The Survey Research Center (Michigan) and other researchers to enhance over-time comparisons. Because many earlier questions had flawed wording, the GSS tests alternative item formats in an experimental, "split-ballot" method. This allows assessments of the difference question format can make and whether new question construction can substitute for the old with little loss of meaning.

Annual case bases range from 1300 (when the GSS was done annually) to over 3000. Currently, the GSS conducts about 3000 interviews every two years. Case bases vary on specific questions if split-ballot questions were used, but adjacent years may be combined to enlarge the case base. Interviews last about an hour. The most recent available is the 2002 survey. The 2004 survey will be released later in 2005 and plans for the 2006 General Social Survey began in 2004. I am proud to be a consultant on one of the 2006 GSS modules.

About one-third of the GSS questions are repeated every time. These are called "the core". Examples include detailed background characteristics: gender, age, ethnicity, religion and religiosity, income, occupation, presidential voting histories, and marital and family statistics. Several "social indicator" questions are also usually asked, for example: attitudes toward trust and society, or confidence in social institutions. Usually three topical modules comprise the remainder of the survey. Prior examples include attitudes toward gender and society, the military, and friendships. Modules in 1990, 1994, and 2000 (using some of the same questions) measure intergroup tolerance and prejudice. Items are designed to be intelligible to a national sample of respondents. While these may neglect specific local concerns, and samples of some groups (e.g., Southern Jews) are too small to generalize, the GSS allows us to "photograph" the mind of the general American public year after year. It is a national resource. Quite simply, there is no other comparable set of data.

I expect that some will dismiss the NORC survey results because the OP cited the WSJ instead of DailyKos or whatever. But the NORC survey itself is well respected by progressives, and it is actually one of the major indicators used by sociologists.

If anything, because NORC uses non-anonymous, in-person interviews, it may actually underestimate household gun ownership by a few percent (Hi, I'm from the government, do you own any guns?) but on the whole it's one of the best data sets out there on social factors.

[pipoman]

3. I would add the list of sponsers for the 2008 study

http://www.norc.org/projects/general+social+survey.htm

2008 Sponsors

* Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
* Baylor University
* Brandeis University
* Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
* Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
* John Templeton Foundation
* Joyce Foundation
* National Science Foundation
* Northwestern University
* University of California, Los Angeles

Again not many bastions of gun rights advocacy or conservative thinking here...see The Joyce Foundation

http://www.joycefdn.org/Programs/GunViolence/

[benEzra]

5. For practical purposes, the Joyce Foundation *IS* the U.S. anti-gun lobby.

Almost every gun-ban organization and gun-ban think-tank/PR organ I can think of is funded in whole or in part by some guy behind a desk at the Joyce Foundation.

[SteveM]

4. Similar findings reported by Gary Kleck some 18 years ago...

"Middle and upper income people are significantly more likely to own than lower income people... Gun owners are not, as a group, psychologically abnormal, nor ...more racist, sexist, or violence-prone than nonowners..."

and elsewhere,

"Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in even a single violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners."

The Great American Gun Debate, Kates & Kleck, 1997, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. National Institute of Justice research, summarized above.

[spin]

6. The survey backs up my experience with gun owners...

I've been a gun owner for 39 years. At the various ranges I've shot at over the years, I've met and often became friends with many other shooters.

Gun owners represent a wide cross section of our society. I've met doctors, nurses, lawyers, bankers, teachers, preachers, factory workers, engineers, construction workers, cops and ex-cops, active duty military and many retired military who owned guns and valued the Second Amendment.

Most were Republican but many were not fond of President Bush or his policies.

Many would vote for a Democratic candidate if he favored reasonable gun laws. However, they would vote against a Democrat who wanted to see draconian or ineffective "feel good" legislation enacted into law. They would cast a vote for a pro-gun candidate even if they agreed with other views held by the anti-gun candidate. Guns and gun ownership were their "self interest". The NRA rates politicians on their support of gun ownership. Surprisingly, some Democrats get high ratings. Many gun owners belong to the NRA and use these ratings to decide who to vote for.

Overall I found other gun owners to be well educated and intelligent. Most had good paying jobs, many could be considered well off or wealthy. Some were hunters, but many owned guns for self defense. Over half had concealed carry permits.

At one range I shot at there was a long wooden table where the shooters could sit and talk. The subjects discussed did occasionally involve guns, but more often evolved subjects ranging from computers to politics.

Overall, I found shooters to be friendly, helpful people. Very few, if any, were discontented or unhappy.

[Callisto32]

15. I would suggest....

that those who are not familiar with the "gun culture" at large, and live near Harrisburg, PA take a day and attend one of the gun shows that are held at the PA State Farm Show Complex. Just observe the people who attend, both as byers/traders and as booth holding vendors. What may surprise many is just how "diverse" a group you seem to have. All types attend to buy/sell/trade not only weapons, but many other things as well. Most of these other things are, admittedly gun related, but there is usually a good showing of craftsman and outdoors suppliers, also. The atmosphere is generally casual and friendly (less the occasional unpleasant vendor) and all of these groups mix freely. If nothing else, it can help to break some of the stereotypes of just who are members of the "gun culture."

[krispos42]

10. Well, large numbers of urban poor...

tens of million, perhaps over a hundred million, don't own guns and won't own them. And live in states and/or cities that actively discourage guns and the use of guns in self-defense or hunting.

That might have something to do with it.

[Longtooth]

17. WOW!!!

My first place to this place. Imagine my surprise to click on the "guns" forum and see a topic posted by a person with username "trigger Happy". I think I'm going to like this place.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

27. nah, they're looong gone

About 15 years ago on Boxing Day I got a toothache. I'd never had a toothache. Fillings, yes, but not toothache. I bit into my sister's lasagna and leapt from my chair in agony.

Root canal. Two weeks later, tooth broke. On a Friday afternoon. Before I could get to dentist on Monday, counterpart tooth on other side of mouth broke. First broken tooth extracted, under twilight sedation. Second broken tooth capped. Large (all things being relative) cave-like aperture in gum between capped tooth and next tooth appeared. Before it healed, infection developed. Lasted two months. When that was over, went for bridge where tooth now missing on other side -- crown on back molar, fake tooth where broken tooth was, attached up into next molar. Two weeks later, bridge fell off. Never afraid of dentists before. By now, ready to carry concealed firearm to appointments. Bite never the same since. Back molar on bottom of where crowned molar on top is broke 5 years ago, after two years of complaining about pain on biting. I liked it that way, and just left it. Pressure on other side of mouth finally got to tooth with bridge attached up into it. Which broke last week.

I can tell you the tale of my cataract surgery next if you like! And all this at an age when I should still have all my moving parts intact ...

(No, krispos, the eye debris has never gone away. I'm driving a junker.)

[Callisto32]

33. Yikes

Also, Yeouch.

[mvccd1000]

35. Ouch!

That hurts just thinking about it. Hope the next repair is more successful (and less painful) than the previous attempts!

[krispos42]

86. Good thing you're up in Canada.

Hmmm, actually, you're in Toronto, which is fully two degrees south of where I am, so maybe I should say "Good think you're down there in Canada". :-)

This is something that your universal single-payer health insurance system took care of? Must be nice... <sigh>


And I didn't realize your eye spots were permenant :-(

[iverglas]

87. ha

Ontario is a shall-pay province.

No dentacare here, and I don't carry private supplemental insurance, being self-employed and gambling that the premiums would cost more than drugs/dental, which they would be any other year. (Our combined drug expenses, for two people with diabetes and high cholesterol and hypertension divided between us, are under $100 a month, I'd guess.) Dental hell ran me about $5,000, as I recall. But all in one year, so I actually got a tiny bit of tax relief. (Medical expenses have to exceed a certain percentage of income to qualify for anything, so I have to spend quite a bit to get over the threshold.)

The eye spots were 100% free. Still don't know whether they're permanent.

But keep in mind that you don't actually know where I live. Because I've never said. Other than admitting to being an effete central Canadian / in Ontario. Could be up, could be down, you'll just have to keep looking over your shoulder in both directions.

[krispos42]

88. Ugh...

Sounds like fun, American-style!

"Give me $5,000 so I can hurt you. But first, fill out this stack of forms."

:-)

[Longtooth]

37. No, I'm a little along on my years on this rock

hence the username.

[Longtooth]

36. Gosh back

And it is for people like you that I prefer to keep my profile hidden. Thank you for checking up on me . . . And for the cute reference to my username. I thought this place would not be so discriminating on the elderly.

[iverglas]

38. no checkups needed

Right beside your name is the absence of a profile icon. It's always rather glaringly obvious ... and predictable.

[Longtooth]

39. Thanks for the warm welcome. Is this the normal reception for new folks?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

43. cheeses, didn't get the hint?

I mean, no never mind to me, but one would have thought someone would get the hint when the first such thing disappeared.

I get the distinct feeling that there's an effort underway to make sure newbs don't fall into the "buddy" "dude" etc. trap, though. Dang, and it's such good fun.

[Longtooth]

51. Thanks

I find it odd that my first post (stating that I think I'll like it here) was met with hostility right out of the box. I would think that moderators would try and quash that kind of behavior.

[spin]

45. Welcome to DU...

and to the gun forum.

Sometimes things do get a little unfriendly here. I sure hope the unfriendly people don't own firearms.

Most gun owners I've known through the years have been polite, courteous and patient. Maybe that's why Robert Heinlein said:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html

[iverglas]

49. ???

Robert Heinlein??

Did the Wayne LaPierre well run dry???

[Longtooth]

53. I'm beginning to sense that your not real big on gun rights

[iverglas]

54. guns got rights??

Who knew.

[Longtooth]

56. Yes, the same rights that "speech" has. Guns are number two on the list.

[iverglas]

57. how bizarre

Where I'm at, people got rights.

Reminds me of that joke about the guy with the wheelbarrow full of manure and the strawberries and the two rest home residents ...

We really *must* be crazy, they sez. We put whipped cream on our strawberries!

[Longtooth]

58. You wanted to play the word games. Now you want to tell jokes.

Reminds me of the bad news good news joke. You don't have nothing but manure to eat, but there's tons of it.

[spin]

63. Be nice to iverglas

She helps to make this forum interesting.

Without people like her we would all agree here...what fun would that be?

By the way, you can learn a lot from her. Always remember that you can learn something from everyone you meet (in person or online). It's nice to find out what people on the opposite side of an issue think.

Always attempt to be polite.

“A polite enemy is just as difficult to discredit, as a rude friend is to protect.”

Bryant H. McGill quotes

[Longtooth]

80. Kindness begets kindness, hostility begets . . . .

[spin]

81. Two other good quotes...

Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you - not because they are nice, but because you are. ~Author Unknown

Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up. ~Jesse Jackson

[spin]

61. I like quotes...

Will post more...

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

Thomas Jefferson

[Longtooth]

52. Thank you, I've always enjoyed Heinlein's works also.

[Longtooth]

50. Wow, something got posted and deleted before I could even read it.

Wonder what that was all about?

[iverglas]

55. hard to remember

Just the usual inane yammering about moi, as I recall.

[mvccd1000]

21. Well, that WOULD have been a good one....

.... but alas, I did not think of it. I only picked that subject line because it was the title of the article I was posting.

I'll have to keep it in mind for future forum registrations, though.

Welcome to DU!

[zanne]

59. Since when do we value editorials from the Wall Street Journal?

When the editorials are pro-gun? You can say what you like about gun ownership being a progressive value, but the majority of gun owners and advocacy for less gun control comes from the right wing. It isn't a progressive position by a long shot.

[apocalypsehow]

62. Amazing how many reactionary cesspools get linked to by our "pro-gun Democrats," isn't it?

Well, maybe not so much know that I think about it for two seconds.

[spin]

64. It's quite possible that "pro-gun Democrats " hold the same...

opinion of links posted by "anti-gun Democrats". But they are still interesting to read.

[apocalypsehow]

66. For starters, the next time you catch me linking to the WSJ (or citing it as a source) feel free to

chastise me to your heart's content. Or any other outpost of right-wing fuckery, for that matter, other than as a proof that some reactionary POS has said something particularly egregious or absurd.

Second, I put "pro-gun Democrats" in quotation marks because the triumph of experience over hope - to coin a phrase and then reverse it - has proven I need to time and time and time again.

[WWFZD]

65. "reactionary cesspools"?

Forgive my ignorance here. I don't live n NYC and I don't make a living in stock trading, investment banking, hedge funds, bonds, none of it. I'm sure I've read WSJ articles in my ordinary perusing but nothing stands out or comes to mind. Other than ARTHUR C. BROOKS I couldn't name one writer at the paper, assuming he's not a guest contributor.

Is it a reactionary cesspool because it's the paper of our capitalist financial industry, I guess, or is it a reactionary cesspool because it printed an editorial that possibly cast doubt on some peoples long held prejudice against gun owners?

[apocalypsehow]

67. Good Lord - we're back to this "innocent old me" routine again, are we?

Yet another "pro-gun Democrat" who's just shocked - shocked I tell you! - to discover what every literate adult in the country has known since about forever.

Here, go have some fun catching up to 2008 on planet Earth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=166427&mesg_id=166536

[spin]

70. Interesting Wikipedia article on the New York Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times

[WWFZD]

72. If wikipedia says it it's good enough for me

Sorry I missed the last lecture.
2008 already?
Dadgumit, must have been ought two last time I received my Democratic party basic strategy card.
Anti-business - check, Gun bans- check.
Yep, you're right it's all here.

[apocalypsehow]

73. You type a lot but don't say anything.

I'd get that checked out.

[mvccd1000]

77. Just because the study was mentioned in the WSJ...

... does not mean that it was done BY the WSJ. Had you read further up the thread, perhaps you would have some information on the group who conducted the study. Hardly a right-wing, reactionary cesspool, by any description.

Sorry if the results don't agree with your preconceived notions. Must be tough being a prejudiced "progressive."

[apocalypsehow]

83. Once again, I don't care *WHO* conducted any study: my observation was related to the

frequency with which you "pro-gun Democrats" so often find yourselves rooting around in right-wing cesspools - and linking to them. That fact is irrefutable.

Now, go cry about it to someone who cares.

[mvccd1000]

84. Actually, I was "rooting around" ...

... in Google News. I try to stay on top of things, so I often read through articles in every category, and even search for topics that interest me.

Some people seem to prefer a much more one-sided view of things. Is it safer that way?

[benEzra]

78. Like this, you mean?

http://www.norc.org/channels

Yeah, that University of Chicago crew are obviously a bunch of paid NRA flacks.

From one site describing the survey, its funding, and its methodology, from a quick web search:

THE GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY

2005
Susan Carol Losh PhD
Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
Florida State University
Tallahassee FL 32306-4453
[e-mail]

What does America really think, whether it is about prejudice--or anything else? One invaluable source is the General Social Survey (GSS) which began in 1972. Once annual, it is now conducted every other year. The GSS is a representative public opinion survey of adults in the lower 48 United States and is part of what is called “social indicator research.” It is mostly funded by the federal government (the National Science Foundation).

The GSS is a state-of-the-art poll. It uses probability sampling and, unlike most other modern surveys, it utilizes in-person surveys rather than telephone interviews or Internet questionnaires. Its response rates are well over 70 percent and among the highest in the world. The original GSS questions were repeated from earlier work by Gallup, Roper, Harris, The Survey Research Center (Michigan) and other researchers to enhance over-time comparisons. Because many earlier questions had flawed wording, the GSS tests alternative item formats in an experimental, "split-ballot" method. This allows assessments of the difference question format can make and whether new question construction can substitute for the old with little loss of meaning.

Annual case bases range from 1300 (when the GSS was done annually) to over 3000. Currently, the GSS conducts about 3000 interviews every two years. Case bases vary on specific questions if split-ballot questions were used, but adjacent years may be combined to enlarge the case base. Interviews last about an hour. The most recent available is the 2002 survey. The 2004 survey will be released later in 2005 and plans for the 2006 General Social Survey began in 2004. I am proud to be a consultant on one of the 2006 GSS modules.

About one-third of the GSS questions are repeated every time. These are called "the core". Examples include detailed background characteristics: gender, age, ethnicity, religion and religiosity, income, occupation, presidential voting histories, and marital and family statistics. Several "social indicator" questions are also usually asked, for example: attitudes toward trust and society, or confidence in social institutions. Usually three topical modules comprise the remainder of the survey. Prior examples include attitudes toward gender and society, the military, and friendships. Modules in 1990, 1994, and 2000 (using some of the same questions) measure intergroup tolerance and prejudice. Items are designed to be intelligible to a national sample of respondents. While these may neglect specific local concerns, and samples of some groups (e.g., Southern Jews) are too small to generalize, the GSS allows us to "photograph" the mind of the general American public year after year. It is a national resource. Quite simply, there is no other comparable set of data.

The Wall Street Journal didn't conduct the survey, the University of Chicago did. But the NORC survey itself is well respected by progressives, and it is actually one of the major indicators used by sociologists.

Funding for NORC, FWIW:

http://www.norc.org/projects/general+social+survey.htm

2008 Sponsors

* Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
* Baylor University
* Brandeis University
* Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
* Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
* John Templeton Foundation
* Joyce Foundation
* National Science Foundation
* Northwestern University
* University of California, Los Angeles

Since the Joyce Foundation for practical purposes is the U.S. gun-control lobby, one can hardly argue that this was a bogus study designed to make gun owners look good; quite the opposite, actually, as the JF funded the gun questions in hopes of making gun owners look bad.

FWIW, if anything, because NORC uses non-anonymous, in-person interviews, it may actually underestimate household gun ownership by a few percent (Hi, I'm doing a Federally funded survey, nice house, do you own any guns?) but on the whole it's one of the best data sets out there on social factors.

[Longtooth]

79. Wow! Thanks for researching that. Good Job!

[apocalypsehow]

82. Do try to keep on topic: I don't care if a resurrected Mahatma Gandhi conducted the study,

with the help of a pleasantly surprised Bertrand Russell passing him notes down from purgatory. The fact that you "pro-gun Democrats" so often link to right-wing cesspools was a general observation, and one that was spot-on at that.

More telling the squealing I've heard about that factual observation to date; very telling indeed.

[radioburning]

85. "Gun Nut"="Art Fag"

"Gun Nut" equals "Art Fag". For the record, I don't approve of either term.
I'm just trying to make people aware of the fact there are a lot of people in this country, whether you like it or not, that enjoy shooting guns in a lawful, legal ways and that does not automatically make us violent, psychotic, depressed, a republican, a redneck, racist, poorly educated, anti-social, or a "nut". We just want you to stop trying to take away our right to go to the shooting range and try to get closer to that bullseye, go hunting and bring home some food that didn't come from the supermarket, collect and admire specific guns for their aesthetic value or quality of craftsmanship or design, or just plain sleep better at night knowing that if you hear somebody breaking into your home you have the chance to do something to protect your life and that of your loved ones-other than just sitting on hold waiting for 911 to pick up. Whatever the reasons are that people want guns, when you call someone a "gun nut", or any other of the derogatory terms people use against gun enthusiasts, you're doing the same thing as when somebody calls someone into the art scene an "art fag". All it is is a way to negate everything about a person because you are ignorant to what makes them passionate about something. It's the same thing, just coming from a different direction.
Fine. You don't understand why we'd be at all interested in anything related to guns. I don't understand why anyone would be interested in anything related to onions! But I understand that there are other people in the world who love onions. So be it. I move on. Now here's where you say "well, onions don't kill people". Well, guns don't kill as many people as automobiles. Guns don't kill as many people as prescription drugs. Guns kill literally less than 1 tenth as many people than "poor diet and lack of exercise" (if you look at causes of death on the Center for Disease Control's annual totals). For the most part, most people just attribute those things to "symptoms of living in the modern world", and accept that the world will never be an absolutely perfect "utopia". But so called "assault weapons", which are the "evil boogeyman" of guns, get banned-not because they are responsible for less than 5% of all gun deaths, but because they look menacing and intimidating. Don't believe me? An AR-15(banned) and a Ruger Mini-14(not banned) shoot the same bullet, at roughly the same velocity and speed. The only "real world" difference is the way they look. That's like taking two similar cars and banning the one with the racing stripes because "it looks fast". Most of these gun laws are proposed by people who've never even been shooting. Motorcycle helmet laws were decided mostly by people who've never even been on a motorcycle. I almost cry when I see a 13 year old kid riding their bicycle around in quiet a cul-de-sac wearing a helmet because some bloated, out of touch politician thought it would be a good idea to play parent to a state! How long till we have to wear a helmet while shopping in the mall? This is an exaggeration, but what if the girls on the tv show "Laguna Beach" were deciding laws that affected your life? The laws would seem perfectly normal to them! Wouldn't you start to speak up about it? It's like people who will only have sex in missionary position making laws to make you have sex in only missionary position. You wouldn't even know I had guns unless you were standing next to me at the shooting range. Stay out of my life!
We are just people who are tired of being demonized by people who are usually completely ignorant about why we are passionate about guns, and when you call us gun nuts we see exactly what you are trying to do-belittle us because we are strong in our beliefs and you are afraid of anyone who is not afraid to be what they want to be and do what makes them happy...even if it makes the squeamish and timid nay in disapproval.

End of rant.

Signed,
radioburning
Liberal, Agnostic, Pro-Gun, Pro-America.

[radioburning]

89. Please, please, please stay anti-gun!

There's already more than enough shooters at my local gun range as it is! And try getting in there on the weekend? Forget about it...