TexasCHLforum.com

If you don't want to be disgusted and/or angered you probably shouldn't read this article.

http://media.www.centralfloridafuture.c ... ailedition

Those owning a firearm were more likely to be white men living off campus with a significant other. They were also more likely to drive a motor vehicle after binge drinking, have unprotected sex under the influence, vandalize property and get in trouble with the police.

Does that sound like someone you want owning a gun? Well unfortunately, they already do.

You know what? Clicked the reply button...but honestly is there anyway to respond to that garbage? Well, besides wanting to puke I mean, but then again that could be from all the binge drinking/beating my wife that I have been doing. Man that reminds me I'd better go drive to the store for some groceries and maybe harass some police along the way. Well, back to that survey...yea it's total crap.

I'm curious as to how they obtained their data.

I wonder if the author would feel differently if their child had been murdered on a college campus?

RHZig wrote:I wonder if the author would feel differently if their child had been murdered on a college campus?

The author would probably apologize to the murderer for society having alienated him.

JasonH wrote:

RHZig wrote:I wonder if the author would feel differently if their child had been murdered on a college campus?

The author would probably apologize to the murderer for society having alienated him.

HAHA


Yea...

Has anyone heard of this study they cite? This is first time I have heard of it which seems kind of strange.

stroo wrote:Has anyone heard of this study they cite? This is first time I have heard of it which seems kind of strange.

Yes. IMHO, it was extremely flawed. They asked people if they owned firearms, if they had ever carried them in a vehicle, and if they engaged in various antisocial behavior.

The problem is, there was no way to confirm any of it, including weapons ownership. That's a flaw in all studies of this type that rely on people to answer questions about private behavior.

I can't find a copy of it online. I think this article refers to it: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=023

- Jim

Keep in mind this is a Florida paper, just the kind of unsubstantiated fear mongering I would expect to see there frankly.

atxgun wrote:Keep in mind this is a Florida paper, just the kind of unsubstantiated fear mongering I would expect to see there frankly.

Perhaps, but this wasn't a real newspaper that any grownup would take seriously but a school newspaper, Remember that Florida is the state that lead the nation with CHL and the Castle Doctrine. They have been very very much leaders for the RKBA in our nation and we have taken their lead in much of what we have accomplished.

Perhaps someone should smack that editor or whatever with the 89 printed page book of facts

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Thats a good .88 pound

They showed their attitude of immaturity and selfishness in the first paragraphs. They love the First Amendment because they work under it and use it to their own benefit. They do not like guns, so they do not support the Second.

Only immature and selfish people pick and choose among the rights based on their personal usefulness. Mature people realize the Constitution is one document and you either support the whole thing or not.

I realize that the only way I can protect my rights, especially those which are important to me, is to protect the rights of others, and the rights important to them. This is even more critical when it is a right I disagree with. They have their rights and I must support them if I want to defend my rights.

And, yes, I disagree with the way many journalists interpret the right to a free press. I think it was meant to give them the ability to print their opinions, but it was not meant to force everyone else to give them the information or protect them from breaking other laws to get information.

Remember that "gun owners" include people like us and also criminals. The criminals are the ones who overwhelmingly do the irresponsible behaviors that the "study's" authors use to misrepresent all of us.

If the study confined itself to CHL holders, it would have come up with the opposite result - that CHL holders are more responsible and engage in questionable behaviors less often than the general population.

But that's not the way they wanted it to come out. So they did a "study" that relies on self reported data and is subject to whatever sampling bias that they intentionally allowed or unintentionally failed to prevent.

One element of nonsense in the editorial was the assertion that the gun laws in New England are no stricter than in the rest of the country. These ignoramuses have obviously never been to RI, CT, or MA.

Another is that only 3 out of 1000 students in New England own guns. Having lived in "gun-unfriendly" RI for 50 years, I'm very sure that the true ownership rate, among students, is much higher than that.

But the main problem is that self reported data is notoriously unreliable. The authors of the study have no way of knowing how many law abiding gun owners, or criminal gun owners for that matter, simply threw the survey form into the trash.

In contrast, we know for a documented fact what the crime rate is for Texans holding CHL's, because DPS tracks and reports that data annually. So we know that TX CHL's are much more law-abiding than the general population.

If the question is "should students be allowed to carry guns on campus" it stands to reason that we're talking about students that by age and having a clean record qualify for CHL's. So that is the population that they should have studied.

But the authors of the Harvard study avoided doing this because they knew that the result would show that people qualifying for CHL's are certified good guys.

That was not the result they wanted.

living off campus

That tends to happen after you graduate.