• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun Ownership Project

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
It is sociology, not a hard science. Standards are not rigorous. In fact, he is right to make his study narrowly focused.
Sociology education is not a hard science and the standards are not rigorous...

Please go tell the Louisville Uni Sociology Chair this most important tidbit of working in the field their entire life.

Educational trivialization being espoused is disgusting.

Ya gutshot your contribution to this facade is noteworthy.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
If views of people who are actual, demonstrable white males are combined with the views of those who “identify” as white males, then the results will be skewed
Yep. I see "eye to eye" with "Eye" on this. Huge skew. (y)

And that ain't all. Real white males who are ANTI-gun could pose as gun owner subjects in a study. Just as we saw the very questionable young military vets with the mighty M16s talking at events. Fake gun owners preaching gun confiscation is all the rage.

Whiteness studies and events (actually anti-white racism) is HUGE in universities these days. Lord knows there's a lot of academic hatred for NRA too. (A rather ironic scapegoat considering their soft positions.) And this hatred against white males, conservatives, and gunowners is preached loud and clear. Other views and speakers are not allowed at many campuses. That's the world we live in - the context for this thread and situation - and universities initiate many of the trends that we see in media and politics. So whether it seems compassionate or not, promoting a study "narrowly focused" on white male gun owners cuz they are the "largest group" is going to attract some attention.

I can imagine this being a great study, which would be refreshing for a change! But I can also imagine this being a tiny drop in the ocean of bad propaganda. As a say, we'll see, and if it's an honest study and real intent, the OP can be assured that he will find a warm welcome here for years to come!

As for apologizing in advance on behalf of other forum members, gun owners, and Americans in general, that sounds kinda familiar...oh yeah, a certain president used to do something like that while bowing to any foreign royalty that came along. Wow Gut I'm so glad you could fill his shoes. You're my hero forever.... :love:

If someone finds such a reality to be an insult, that is on the person feeling insulted.
Aw dang, I think that's going to be a very offensive statement to many people, because isn't rebelling against reality and undermining our culture and nation the whole point of a lot of the new social movements that we see nowadays? Reality is triggering to say the least. ❄
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
"Socialism is not about the environment. It's not about justice. It's not about virtue....It's called power for the ruling class."

- Donald J. Trump


"Whiteness" studies, racial discord, gender and sex wars - all part of the same campaign to destroy the culture that holds this nation together and tear down the Constitution that gives us individual rights. That's one piece of paper they don't like in academia. They hate it, they hate free speech, and they hate guns in the hands of citizens who would be fun subjects for them to control and who are otherwise powerless.

Racial discord is a little bit about race - there are a few groups motivated by racial concerns - but mostly about money and other perks for the participants, fake righteousness for supporters, and socialism (the ultimate power grab) for the leaders and their academic pals.

Same with the war on men. (But that's fake, since it's mostly limited to white men.) Divide and conquer the culture, all in order to bring down that one hated piece of paper. Having accomplished that, the participants quickly will find out how little the leaders and their academic pals really care about races or gender, with a few exceptions. Hopefully that will never happen - if people aren't too gullible. Many women, minorities, and young people are catching on to the real motivation behind these, um, "sociology" wars.

We hear this hate mongering every day. So a "WHITE MALE" gun study at the Uni will definitely get a bit of scrutiny. I hope it's honest! And if it is, I hope it's accurate and unskewed! (Something increasingly difficult given modern activist tactics.) I encourage academic connections and projects - I've said here before that we need to encourage OUR young people to go into teaching, journalism, and politics. But a little scrutiny is smart, and people in the right mindset will understand and welcome it, just as we welcome those with true intent.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
Yooo gutshot you going show your white, crumegon union card to prove ethnicity & gender? :ROFLMAO:
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
It did for me but I got over it
Scrutiny is one thing outright rejection and refusal to voice your input is another. I am not afraid to speak my mind in this type of forum. They don't intimidate me. I will not let them exclude me by making the process too scary for me to risk participation and it appears to be the same for poetdante.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Scrutiny is one thing outright rejection and refusal to voice your input is another. I am not afraid to speak my mind in this type of forum. They don't intimidate me. I will not let them exclude me by making the process too scary for me to risk participation and it appears to be the same for poetdante.
Nerves of steel.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Florida
Although the study is primarily focusing on white male gun owners, a participant will not be excluded from interviewing if they do not consider themselves white or male.
If you don't consider yourself a male, but you were born with two testicles and a penis, then you are male. If someone that meets these criteria says otherwise, then how can any information they provide be legitimately used for research? What other information are they falsifying?
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
If you don't consider yourself a male, but you were born with two testicles and a penis, then you are male. If someone that meets these criteria says otherwise, then how can any information they provide be legitimately used for research? What other information are they falsifying?
No one that I know of has said any such thing about me. And only the most uninformed would ever do so. The criteria for the survey includes males. I am a male. So, I have no reason to exclude myself. The criteria are inclusive, not exclusive. I am sure you must have heard the old story about dogs: All begeals are dogs but not all dogs are begeals. I am a begeal in this dog show, so I am a legitimate member of the group. If a few collies and a few spaniels choose to be in the group, but not at my interview, I don't care. As I understand it, my interview will be solo, so I don't care what paperwork gets rubbed against my data. I doubt that I will contract "gayness" of "trans genderism" from the experience. Now some people, whose maleness is so very fragile, they may fear that the slightest contact between their data and that of someone that "identifies" as male will cause them to switch their identity for life and dive literally "HEADfirst" into the gay lifestyle while experiencing a TAILspin for the rest of your life. I have no such fear about being the BUTT of any jokes about my maleness. Anyone that CHOOSES to exclude themselves might be doing so because they did not consider themselves to be a legitimate member of any group that includes males. If you feel that way, I understand your not wanting to be in any group that includes males. I wonder what such people do if they encounter a person that "identifies" as male while in a public place? Do you run screaming from the presence of such a person like a little old lady that sees my open carry 1911 and panics?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
No one that I know of has said any such thing about me. And only the most uninformed would ever do so. The criteria for the survey includes males. I am a male. So, I have no reason to exclude myself. The criteria are inclusive, not exclusive. I am sure you must have heard the old story about dogs: All begeals are dogs but not all dogs are begeals. I am a begeal in this dog show, so I am a legitimate member of the group. If a few collies and a few spaniels choose to be in the group, but not at my interview, I don't care. As I understand it, my interview will be solo, so I don't care what paperwork gets rubbed against my data. I doubt that I will contract "gayness" of "trans genderism" from the experience. Now some people, whose maleness is so very fragile, they may fear that the slightest contact between their data and that of someone that "identifies" as male will cause them to switch their identity for life and dive literally "HEADfirst" into the gay lifestyle while experiencing a TAILspin for the rest of your life. I have no such fear about being the BUTT of any jokes about my maleness. Anyone that CHOOSES to exclude themselves might be doing so because they did not consider themselves to be a legitimate member of any group that includes males. If you feel that way, I understand your not wanting to be in any group that includes males. I wonder what such people do if they encounter a person that "identifies" as male while in a public place? Do you run screaming from the presence of such a person like a little old lady that sees my open carry 1911 and panics?
A Fountain of Energy & Vitality
Nugenix
Claim Your 14 Day Sample!
It boosts your Vitality, Drive and Confidence.

I’m just the messenger…….I'm not even a paid spokesmen......This is not a solicitation.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
I wonder what such people do if they encounter a person that "identifies" as male while in a public place? Do you run screaming from the presence of such a person like a little old lady that sees my open carry 1911 and panics?
Running might be appropriate in some cases. Screaming - maybe not so smart. If it's an alien with tentacles and futuristic weapons identifying as a human, or vice versa, I'd suggest quietly being somewhere else. Meanwhile be careful on those assumptions - that little old lady might identify as a young male bodybuilder, putting some heavy moves on you before reporting you for mispronouning, and your 1911 might decide to identify as a bubble blower just when you need it most. :p

Scrutiny is one thing outright rejection and refusal to voice your input is another. I am not afraid to speak my mind in this type of forum. They don't intimidate me. I will not let them exclude me by making the process too scary for me to risk participation and it appears to be the same for poetdante.
Hmmm. Trying to paint everyone who spoke up with concerns on this racially and gender-exclusive study as discriminatory bullies, eh? Exaggerating, imagining, straying from the truth a bit? I think most of us are pretty familiar with those tactics and who uses them.

(I hate to use the term SJW though. Then again, sure looks like those tactics, doesn't it?) 🦆

SHAME on whoever were the big bad meanies that tried to intimidate, silence, and exclude poor little gutshot and his 1911 with hurtful words and inconvenient observations that almost made this whole "WHITE MALE GUNOWNERS" study seem too scary! :eek: I so admire the poor little chap for overcoming the words, sticks, stones, and so forth and courageously taking part anyway. Wow, that sure showed them!

TRIGGER WARNING: The following statements contain facts, which some people may consider triggering and hurtful. We sympathize.

- Nobody prevented anyone else from participating or tried to intimidate anyone else.

(Pretty self-obvious since everyone claiming this is participating and emphasizing they are not intimidated.)

- Nobody prevented or discouraged anyone else from posting. Again self-obvious.

- Questionable studies and claims about guns and gunowners are rampant these days.

- Questionable people claiming to be gunowners and veterans are rampant these days.

- Lies and mistakes about guns are rampant. Flaws in studies and claims are common too, even in honest projects.

- All kinds of people participate on this forum and express themselves freely. We hate no one. We do have the right to promote the truth and respect scientific facts, including genetics.

- Including non-white or non-males in a study claiming to examine white males would contaminate the results, as Eye said, and make the study sociologically inaccurate and useless.

- True facts and considerations should be received as friendly helpful advice if a useful study is desired.

- All gun owners is a larger and more inclusive group than white male gun owners.

- There are also more narrowly focused groups than white male gun owners.

- Scrutiny, caution, lack of desire, and/or refusal to participate is not hatred or intimidation.

- Gun ownership is not a white male phenomenon.

- Your dog may decide to identify as a cat, but can he walk on the fence or jump on the roof? 🐶🐱:unsure:

Things that make ya go HMMM....
 
Last edited:

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
But we do need more honest and accurate projects of all types. Media, studies, web sites etc. So if this or any other study is well-done, I'll certainly welcome it! I don't want to discourage any good people from projects. We need any good project that we can get, and we need to get more accurate people into the fields of journalism and education. Take those fields back; they should be unbiased. A warm welcome from me to anyone engaged in such pursuits with true intent!

I do like to encourage caution though. I've run into many tricky people and situations. I've seen a publisher hold up an opinion piece, claiming to be waiting until a spot opened, when actually reaching out to a Moms Against Whatever type group for an opposing piece to make a sympathy play. I've seen wild ridiculous claims from University folks, including accusing a conservative person about not caring about people with disabilities, when that person was (unknown to them) in a wheelchair. I've seen fake veterans and gun owners encouraging "reasonable" gun control. We live in interesting times....
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
HP995, well articulated in your post(s) above

Additional in the second post i truly agree with you, viable, well crafted, following established norms & methodology, repeatable, etc., study(ies) would be quite appreciated...

So here we have someone at the grad level looking for an easy grade [maybe ignored course deadlines so behind a bit] with minimal effort and has absolutely no clue on any type of viable research methodology nor interest in providing a viable output but lacks subject participation mentions to a buddy who says...hey bet you’ll get bunch of folk off of OCDO forum to participate....

Unfortunately, the OP hit a snag...apparently we are a tad bit smarter than the average bears running out there in Louisville and immediately questioned [no not even going to use the term project] the homework’s methodology, subject participators, ad nauseam.

What is problematic is some members are really ‘ok’ with the stereotypical biased premise presented ‘we chose white cuz its a known fact there are more whites who own guns’ didn’t blink an eye on a public forum push that olde worn out stereotype down the road in front of everyone!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is a common technique from the left to portray any dissent from a party line as being born of fear or hate or ignorance.

That I find that line of reasoning here is most disappointing.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Any study that distills gun owners into subcategories has a misunderstanding of our RKBA, or is attempting to validate a false premise regarding or RKBA.

The 2A does not discriminate nor segregate. Liberals hate the 2A because it limits the state and not individuals. Individualism is a clear and present danger to liberals and their hateful ideology...this they will not tolerate and will work, by hook or crook, to minimize individualism and individual liberty.

The study interview should be exceptionally brief...one simple question if you will:

1. Do you support the restoration of the unfettered exercise of our RKBA.
a. Yes
b. No

The RKBA is not a mandatory declaration, and our "feelings" on the topic is irrelevant. Liberals demand that feelings be a determinant for the implementation of "reasonable restrictions" on our RKBA.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It is a common technique from the left to portray any dissent from a party line as being born of fear or hate or ignorance.

That I find that line of reasoning here is most disappointing.
Your first sentence as a general statement can be applied to any position depending on the perspective that is being portrayed.

The second sentence is also general in nature. It is meant to insult. But, insult who is the question. And, based on what reasoning?

Please explain.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Thanks for asking.

The question is not, “Who?” It is “What?”

It is meant to criticize the tactic of ascribing a position on an issue to feelings and not to rational thought, thereby minimizing the value of the position. That is not seen as often from those who love Liberty as much as from those on the left.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Thanks for asking.

The question is not, “Who?” It is “What?”

It is meant to criticize the tactic of ascribing a position on an issue to feelings and not to rational thought, thereby minimizing the value of the position. That is not seen as often from those who love Liberty as much as from those on the left.
It's who.
Your first sentence separate feelings and rational thought into two different categories. Implying one being evil, feelings, and one being good, rational thought. That is an illogical position because you have failed to provide a basis in fact to weigh the differences, other that one is good and one is evil. For what reason, is anyone's guess.

Your second sentence then backhandedly accused some Liberty lovers as evil. So, the question is, who are those Liberty lovers that are evil?

That is the perception you have presented. If you meant something else please explain.
 
Top