More Republican women buying firearms, while gun ownership declines among male Democrats

[Captain Caveman]

Getting a gun doesn’t solve the problem. States with permissive concealed-carry laws — meaning places where more people are carrying guns in public — actually have more violent crime, even when controlling for other factors.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

Liberal women need to buy guns to protect themselves because their male counterparts haven't been real men in a really long time.

No, they have not.

To many of today's young "men," women are bitches and hoes, so why would they want to defent them?

Not to mention their constant talk of peanut allergies gluten-free diets means they could not defend a woman from a PB&J sandwich.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Getting a gun doesn’t solve the problem. States with permissive concealed-carry laws — meaning places where more people are carrying guns in public — actually have more violent crime, even when controlling for other factors.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Complete confusion of cause and effect.

Increases in crimerates lead to more desire by honest people to carry firearms, not the other way around.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Complete confusion of cause and effect.

Increases in crimerates lead to more desire by honest people to carry firearms, not the other way around.

Seems a good institute for studies

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 1060093

Seems a good institute for studies

Good, bad or indifferent, if their conclusion is wrong, it's wrong.

 

[daveman]

As for your guns - I also don't care, because I most likely own more firepower then you, at home, and (full-autos) stored in national security installations across the globe.

Am I the only one reminded of the Navy SEAL copypasta?

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Am I the only one reminded of the Navy SEAL copypasta?

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

Naw.
NSEAL was more believable.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Good, bad or indifferent, if their conclusion is wrong, it's wrong.

Let's digest timeframe, your actions or maybe inactions, and your conclusion within that-

You're a fast reader and analyser to come to that conclusion, the PDF study in the link has 126 pages

I have to ask myself, which one is more credible, the study conforming to the approach detailed in the link, or you're biased opinion without reading it

Tough call.

 

[2aguy]

Getting a gun doesn’t solve the problem. States with permissive concealed-carry laws — meaning places where more people are carrying guns in public — actually have more violent crime, even when controlling for other factors.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

This is a lie.....

Concealed carry laws means that normal people are carrying guns......normal people do not use their guns to commit crime or murder.....so the very premise of your post is stupid.........

Then there is the research....

Using these new estimators, we find that RTC laws do not significantly increase total violent crime or any of its components, murder, rape, robbery or assault. We find evidence that RTC laws significantly reduce murder and that constitutional carry laws significantly reduce rape.

New Publication at the International Review of Law & Economics: Estimating the effect of concealed carry laws on murder and other violent crimes

Our new research paper is available to read here. Abstract In 2021 we wrote a short paper noting that truncating the sample when estimating the effect of right to carry laws on crime could be biase…

crimeresearch.org

 

[2aguy]

Getting a gun doesn’t solve the problem. States with permissive concealed-carry laws — meaning places where more people are carrying guns in public — actually have more violent crime, even when controlling for other factors.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Normal people who own guns do not commit crime or murder with their guns......so, genius.....explain how it is that normal people who happen to own guns, all of a sudden become violent criminals and murderers....simply because they can own and carry a gun........you dumb shit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let's digest timeframe, your actions or maybe inactions, and your conclusion within that-

You're a fast reader and analyser to come to that conclusion, the PDF study in the link has 126 pages

I have to ask myself, which one is more credible, the study conforming to the approach detailed in the link, or you're biased opinion without reading it

Tough call.

I'm not that fast; I just have training you may not have. I have two masters degrees, one in Special Education and one in Educational Psychology. As part of mastering those two fields of study, I was trained to analyze research. Nothing in that training told me to simply read the one paragraph abstract and to accept what it said without question so long as a certain number of pages followed.

Here are the flaws I found in that specific article:

1 - Post hoc ergo proper hoc. This is the fallacy that because event B happened subsequent to event A, B must have been caused by A. The idea of using proper research protocols is to ensure that this fallacy is not the basis of the purported results.

2 - No isolation of the variable. In other words, there was no effort at all to ensure that all other conditions besides the purported cause were identical. We have no idea what else was going on in the cities in which concealed carry was allowed that may be far more responsible for the claimed rise in crime subsequent to that change.

Was the crime rate rising before concealed carry was introduced? If so, then it may be that the rise in crime promted the change in the law, rather than vice-versa.

3 - No control group. Instead the study used what it calls "synthetic control analysis" which is an attempt to provide a substitue for the control group protocol in situations in which it is difficult or impossible to have a control group. This is possibly better than no control group and no purported control group substitute, but it is very misleading if they authors present it as equal to a valid control group.

4 - No explanation of attempts to prove the null hypothesis. An explanation of this would be lengthy, so I encourage you to read the words of greater scholars than I here:

Understanding Null Hypothesis Testing – Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition

opentextbc.ca

Suffice to say that your article does not address the null hypothesis badly, rather it fails to address it at all.

5 - No logical theory of causation. This was addressed by 2aguy. In order to use this article as an argument against Right to Carry, it would need to present an explanation of how RTC could lead to a rise in crime. You may have such a theory, but your article does not present it. Instead, it makes vague and evidence free assertion that there would be "greater belligerence of permit holders that can attend gun carrying or even through counterproductive attempts by permit holders to intervene protectively"

That last makes me wonder attempts at protective intervention the authors would consider "counterproductive."

How do you believe that laws allowing the law-abiding to carry firearms would lead to rapists becoming more active, for example? The opposite would make more sense, that rapists would be less successful in a city in which women carry firearms, and as word got around would be less willing to try grabbing a strange woman. That's a logical theory of causation, but I don't know of any research that supports it, so I don't make that claim.

How would such a law, normally applying only to those 21 and over, cause an increase in college dorm rapes?

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'm not that fast; I just have training you may not have. I have two masters degrees.......

Sorry, as soon as you said that ^, it just means you feel these degrees puts you on a pedestal over everyone else, but it actually just makes you a pompous git.

You simply didn't read it and spoke shite because of your sense of aloofness. Now you're just trying to give a fantastic written out encyclopedia reply too late in the day. My psychology studies simply indicates you're a dumbass.

The study is subjective, so you're upset it doesn't conform to your feelings. Simple as.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry, as soon as you said that ^, it just means you feel these degrees puts you on a pedestal over everyone else, but it actually just makes you a pompous git.

Not at all. I rarely mention my degrees precisely because they mean nothing in most of our discussions on here. In the case of you presenting that study as if it closed the case on RTC, they are key to your understanding your errors.

Picture a small man having a few beers too many in a bar and challenging an even smaller man to a fight. The smaller man informs the other that he is a lightweight boxing champion in order to help the drunkard make a better decision about who to pick a fight with That was the spirit in which I gave you my qualifications for understanding a piece of research.

You simply didn't read it and spoke shite because of your sense of aloofness. Now you're just trying to give a fantastic written out encyclopedia reply too late in the day. My psychology studies simply indicates you're a dumbass.

You did not read it, as you admitted. You read the abstract and then went to the end to see haw many pages it was. You said to yourself 'it's one hundred and sixty-eight goldurned pages, and it agrees with my preconceived ideas! I caint be wrong!'

The study is subjective, so you're upset it doesn't conform to your feelings. Simple as.

You didn't even read my reply.

Too bad, it would have shown you the error of your using that purported study as evidence.

Enjoy your ignorance, then.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes, most people who buy a gun say they’re getting it to protect themselves and their family. But people who live with gun owners are 7x more likely to be shot by a spouse or intimate partner.

And when the going gets tough, there’s no evidence that carrying a gun helps. In a robbery or an assault, studies show people without a gun are just as likely to escape harm as people who are carrying one.

In fact in some cases, wielding a gun makes it more likely you’ll be injured.

Get the Facts - Project Unloaded

It’s the guns. Gun violence touches every corner of America. But where there are fewer guns, there are fewer gun deaths. Scroll down to learn why Jump to resources The United States is in the midst of a gun violence epidemic. On the average day in America, more than 130 people are killed by gun […]

projectunloaded.org

Death by other weapons and means fill the void of fewer guns to use.

 

[Stryder50]

Getting a gun doesn’t solve the problem. States with permissive concealed-carry laws — meaning places where more people are carrying guns in public — actually have more violent crime, even when controlling for other factors.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Another Left Wingnut partisan propaganda front posing as objective, when not that at all.

 

[Stryder50]

I love Republican women. They're not only sweet, sexy, and smart, they'll shoot you in the face if you try to mess with them.

More Republican women buying firearms, while gun ownership declines among male Democrats: poll​

Gun ownership among GOP women has increased 50%, Gallup said


"A recent Gallup poll found more Republican women are becoming gun owners than before, while gun ownership among Democratic-leaning men declines.

According to the Gallup survey published Thursday, the percentage of Republican female gun owners has increased from 19% from 2007-2012 to 33% from 2019-2024.

Twenty-two percent of Republican women surveyed in 2013-2018 told Gallup they owned guns, meaning there has been a 50% increase in gun ownership among conservative women since.

"Meanwhile, the rate has fallen seven percentage points among Democratic men, to 29%, and is down five points among independent men, to 39%," Gallup added. "Republican men remain the most likely gun owners among gender and party identification subgroups, at 60%."

The rate of gun ownership nationwide is still around 30%, Gallup noted, but the number "masks a sharp increase in ownership among Republican women offsetting declines among Democratic and independent men.

"Meanwhile, ownership remains high among Republican men but is relatively scarce among Democratic and independent women."

Men are still generally more likely to own guns than women, and the study concluded that gun ownership "may be influenced by one’s political beliefs more than in the past, likely because of the salience of the gun issue in political campaigns and political culture today."

Vice President Kamala Harris recently announced she owns a gun, prompting surprise across the country, but Republican women were not necessarily wooed by the admission.

"I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time," Harris said during a "60 Minutes" interview.

Earlier in November, Fox News Digital spoke with female gun owners who reacted to the statement, calling it "smokescreen campaign rhetoric."

"I do not believe that she is a gun owner that practices and supports our right to protect ourselves," Jane Milhans, a gun instructor, said.

"When Kamala Harris started talking about owning a Glock, I felt nothing," Amara Barnes, founder of the Women Gun Owners Association of America, told Fox News Digital. "We all realize that it's pandering and virtue signaling to the right, and she's hoping that we're too dumb not to realize that she is completely anti-gun."

More Republican women buying firearms, while gun ownership declines among male Democrats: poll

Ladies Of Lead Group Therapy, LLC​

Every state should have one or more !

 

[Seymour Flops]

More black and Liberal women bought more firearms last year than anyother demographic. They are also all taking range lessons to learn deadly accuracy. That number should climb exponentially over the next four years.

Thanks for the post.

Are you counting "transwomen" among those black and liberal women? Because the OP specifically cited "males" and "females," so you may be looking at the same data as the OP and misinterpretting it.

 

[badbob85037]

I love Republican women. They're not only sweet, sexy, and smart, they'll shoot you in the face if you try to mess with them.

More Republican women buying firearms, while gun ownership declines among male Democrats: poll​

Gun ownership among GOP women has increased 50%, Gallup said


"A recent Gallup poll found more Republican women are becoming gun owners than before, while gun ownership among Democratic-leaning men declines.

According to the Gallup survey published Thursday, the percentage of Republican female gun owners has increased from 19% from 2007-2012 to 33% from 2019-2024.

Twenty-two percent of Republican women surveyed in 2013-2018 told Gallup they owned guns, meaning there has been a 50% increase in gun ownership among conservative women since.

"Meanwhile, the rate has fallen seven percentage points among Democratic men, to 29%, and is down five points among independent men, to 39%," Gallup added. "Republican men remain the most likely gun owners among gender and party identification subgroups, at 60%."

The rate of gun ownership nationwide is still around 30%, Gallup noted, but the number "masks a sharp increase in ownership among Republican women offsetting declines among Democratic and independent men.

"Meanwhile, ownership remains high among Republican men but is relatively scarce among Democratic and independent women."

Men are still generally more likely to own guns than women, and the study concluded that gun ownership "may be influenced by one’s political beliefs more than in the past, likely because of the salience of the gun issue in political campaigns and political culture today."

Vice President Kamala Harris recently announced she owns a gun, prompting surprise across the country, but Republican women were not necessarily wooed by the admission.

"I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time," Harris said during a "60 Minutes" interview.

Earlier in November, Fox News Digital spoke with female gun owners who reacted to the statement, calling it "smokescreen campaign rhetoric."

"I do not believe that she is a gun owner that practices and supports our right to protect ourselves," Jane Milhans, a gun instructor, said.

"When Kamala Harris started talking about owning a Glock, I felt nothing," Amara Barnes, founder of the Women Gun Owners Association of America, told Fox News Digital. "We all realize that it's pandering and virtue signaling to the right, and she's hoping that we're too dumb not to realize that she is completely anti-gun."

More Republican women buying firearms, while gun ownership declines among male Democrats: poll

The real reason for this is repugs are telling demorats just how stupid they are. After all it's over 65% chance a demorat will put a bullet in his own head within the first half hour after being in possession of a firearm. Though it is rarely fatal due to the void of brain matter that matters they are still a bunch of cowardly flaming homos transphobic, cross dressing, weirdos that hang out in boys' bathrooms for awhile popping little boners then not knowing what to do with them. It's when they smack them with roofing hammers the real trouble begins. Just what kind of roof could they be? Want to know more? Go to youtube and type in 'The John Brown Gun Club'.

 

[daveman]

Sorry, as soon as you said that ^, it just means you feel these degrees puts you on a pedestal over everyone else, but it actually just makes you a pompous git.

You simply didn't read it and spoke shite because of your sense of aloofness. Now you're just trying to give a fantastic written out encyclopedia reply too late in the day. My psychology studies simply indicates you're a dumbass.

The study is subjective, so you're upset it doesn't conform to your feelings. Simple as.

If a study is subjective, it's not based on science; it's based on emotion.

Pretty sure they'd have covered the difference between "subjective" and "objective" in your psychology studies. Where did you attend? The University of Internet?

 

[Captain Caveman]

If a study is subjective, it's not based on science; it's based on emotion.

Pretty sure they'd have covered the difference between "subjective" and "objective" in your psychology studies. Where did you attend? The University of Internet?

Open University in two subjects. When you pass courses etc.. they give you credits, enough credits gives you a degree. My credits built up from my first employer at an accountancy firm (AAT), then I did a mix of geology and psychology courses with the OU at my expense. You don't have to do a full blown one subject.

In observation, without doing a study, I would guess 60% to 70% of those with degrees gives them a sense of aloofness. The profession that produces the worst personality is teaching, imo.