100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educationa | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Nate Silver: “Gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment”
Posted by icarus on 19 Dec 2012 / 1 Comment Not only is there an inverse relationship between gun ownership rates and educational achievement, interestingly – people who are unaffiliated with religion are more likely NOT to own a gun. That’s right – atheist heathens are less likely to own a firearm. That makes me think of this picture HERE. Now when we acknowledge the relationship between education and gun ownership … that is not to be interpreted as saying only smart people choose not to buy guns or that only stupid people buy guns. That is not what that means. I haven’t quite absorbed the correlation but it does stand out and it is interesting. The obvious point by Nate Silver is that if you own a gun the more likely you are to be a Republican. Plenty of Democrats own guns naturally but the statistics find a tremendous correlation to guns and conservatism. Silver writes HERE: It might seem strange that ownership of a single household object is so strongly tied to voting behavior and broader political attitudes in America. But America is an outlier relative to other industrialized nations in its gun ownership rates. Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation. Silver says that for those who consider themselves religious … there is no correlation between “more religious” and “more guns”: In other respects, the profile of gun owners defies some of the stereotypes that urban liberals might assign to them. For example, despite President Obama’s comments in 2008 about voters who “cling to guns and religion,” the two qualities are not strongly correlated. Slightly more than 40 percent of voters who said they attended church weekly or more often reported having a gun in their home, about the same percentage as among those who attend religious services just a few times a month or a few times a year. And gun ownership rates are highest among the middle class, rather than the poor. Households making $50,000 to $100,000 per year were slightly more likely to own guns than those that made a little bit less or a little more. (However, gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment.) I can't get the graphs to transfer but they are interesting..... http://www.classwarfareexists.com/nate-silver-gun-ownership-rates-are-inversely-correlated-with-educational-attainment/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nate Silver: “Gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment” Posted by icarus on 19 Dec 2012 / 1 Comment Not only is there an inverse relationship between gun ownership rates and educational achievement, interestingly – people who are unaffiliated with religion are more likely NOT to own a gun. That’s right – atheist heathens are less likely to own a firearm. That makes me think of this picture HERE. Now when we acknowledge the relationship between education and gun ownership … that is not to be interpreted as saying only smart people choose not to buy guns or that only stupid people buy guns. That is not what that means. I haven’t quite absorbed the correlation but it does stand out and it is interesting. The obvious point by Nate Silver is that if you own a gun the more likely you are to be a Republican. Plenty of Democrats own guns naturally but the statistics find a tremendous correlation to guns and conservatism. Silver writes HERE: It might seem strange that ownership of a single household object is so strongly tied to voting behavior and broader political attitudes in America. But America is an outlier relative to other industrialized nations in its gun ownership rates. Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation. Silver says that for those who consider themselves religious … there is no correlation between “more religious” and “more guns”: In other respects, the profile of gun owners defies some of the stereotypes that urban liberals might assign to them. For example, despite President Obama’s comments in 2008 about voters who “cling to guns and religion,” the two qualities are not strongly correlated. Slightly more than 40 percent of voters who said they attended church weekly or more often reported having a gun in their home, about the same percentage as among those who attend religious services just a few times a month or a few times a year. And gun ownership rates are highest among the middle class, rather than the poor. Households making $50,000 to $100,000 per year were slightly more likely to own guns than those that made a little bit less or a little more. (However, gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment.) I can't get the graphs to transfer but they are interesting..... http://www.classwarfareexists.com/nate-silver-gun-ownership-rates-are-inversely-correlated-with-educational-attainment/ What garbage is this??? Please this must have came from an anti-gun garbage site eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must have missed my survey form
<--- Masters Degree, Athiest, Owns 7 guns Grandpa had 6 guns and a Masters Dad had a doctorate and 2 guns Aunt has One gun and a Masters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Texas, the more money and education you have, the more guns you have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chit-on-a-stick. Such BS.
Religious nuts are the Muslims. Freakin' Muslims, NOI and NBP own more weapons than the White Supremacists can stockpile in a fckin' lifetime. Who here gots white babies dey wants skinned? Kang Shabitch be da' man fo dat job. Disarm the Muslims and NBP for a safer society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disarm everyone for a safer society.... and I wasn't that anti gun until recently....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disarm everyone for a safer society..
so said Hitler.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Jeanniebean on the hitler comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, I know because of the mentally unwell accepted fear inspired ideal that has permeated this country from a statement from our founders about a well armed militia that we are all doomed to suffer the possible bullet from one of those legal gun owners in this country.
Because our right not to be shot by a legal gun owner is not as important as the right of gun owner to shoot us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 12/20/12 06:47 PM
|
|
Of course, I know because of the mentally unwell accepted fear inspired ideal that has permeated this country from a statement from our founders about a well armed militia that we are all doomed to suffer the possible bullet from one of those legal gun owners in this country. Because our right not to be shot by a legal gun owner is not as important as the right of gun owner to shoot us. Excuse me? Huh?  I don't think it matters much if a bullet comes from a legal or illegal gun. But still .... HUH? Are you claiming that a gun owner has a right to shoot us? You make no sense at all. But if you are pointing a gun at me in my house, then in Colorado, I can shoot you.... legally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, I know because of the mentally unwell accepted fear inspired ideal that has permeated this country from a statement from our founders about a well armed militia that we are all doomed to suffer the possible bullet from one of those legal gun owners in this country. Because our right not to be shot by a legal gun owner is not as important as the right of gun owner to shoot us. What? Are you saying that you are mentally unwell and need to be shot? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, I know because of the mentally unwell accepted fear inspired ideal that has permeated this country from a statement from our founders about a well armed militia that we are all doomed to suffer the possible bullet from one of those legal gun owners in this country. Because our right not to be shot by a legal gun owner is not as important as the right of gun owner to shoot us. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you don't have a "right not to get shot." You have an inalienable right to "life," but it doesn't say a long life, a happy life, or even a pain free life. That is just something an individual implies because of an over inflated feeling of self worth.
Grow up. Bad things happen, evil people exist, but the majority of the people walking this planet are mainly harmless. We have to stop making our laws and regulations as an adjustment for the least common denominator. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must have missed my survey form <--- Masters Degree, Athiest, Owns 7 guns Grandpa had 6 guns and a Masters Dad had a doctorate and 2 guns Aunt has One gun and a Masters Scored 147 IQ in the 4th grade, graduated in top 3% and own everything from hunting rifles, shotguns, defensive handguns, to evil black rifles like the ones being demonized. Honestly, its this kind of rhetoric which shows the true colors of the people who use it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you don't have a "right not to get shot." You have an inalienable right to "life," but it doesn't say a long life, a happy life, or even a pain free life. That is just something an individual implies because of an over inflated feeling of self worth. Grow up. Bad things happen, evil people exist, but the majority of the people walking this planet are mainly harmless. We have to stop making our laws and regulations as an adjustment for the least common denominator. I agree. We should just shoot all the evil people. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willowdraga
on
Fri 12/21/12 12:19 PM
|
|
Actually, you don't have a "right not to get shot." You have an inalienable right to "life," but it doesn't say a long life, a happy life, or even a pain free life. That is just something an individual implies because of an over inflated feeling of self worth. Grow up. Bad things happen, evil people exist, but the majority of the people walking this planet are mainly harmless. We have to stop making our laws and regulations as an adjustment for the least common denominator. Beg to disagree with part of it and that part is that WE AS A PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DO OWE THE CHILDREN THE RIGHT NOT TO BE MOWED DOWN IN CLASS. It is a right our children should have. And the least common denominator is the gun owner. 40 percent of the country are legally armed. They are the lessor fearful ones. We need to stop the availability of guns to those who are not mentally capable of having one and sadly because they are scared enough to need a gun most gun owners would be mentally not well enough to have one. The right not to be shot should supersede the right to fearful shooters to shoot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 12/21/12 12:27 PM
|
|
Actually, you don't have a "right not to get shot." You have an inalienable right to "life," but it doesn't say a long life, a happy life, or even a pain free life. That is just something an individual implies because of an over inflated feeling of self worth. Grow up. Bad things happen, evil people exist, but the majority of the people walking this planet are mainly harmless. We have to stop making our laws and regulations as an adjustment for the least common denominator. Beg to disagree with part of it and that part is that WE AS A PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DO OWE THE CHILDREN THE RIGHT NOT TO BE MOWED DOWN IN CLASS. It is a right our children should have. A little dramatic don't you think? The right to life will suffice. We need to stop the availability of guns to those who are not mentally capable of having one and sadly because they are scared enough to need a gun most gun owners would be mentally not well enough to have one. Most people will not agree. Secondly, there is no way to tell if a person is "mentally capable" of having a gun, (and according to you no one is.) People will buy a gun for three reasons, 1. They are afraid and want to protect themselves. (and you say that a person who fears is abnormal and mentally not well, and that is absurd!) 2. They want to murder, rob or assassinate someone, or commit a crime against unarmed innocents. 3. They need it for their jobs (Police and Military) What you are advocating I suppose, is a police state. What you have done, is allow a tragedy to manipulate you into a pawn for the agenda of the State to disarm the people. You are a pawn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
You are funny jean. I can't be a pawn in this game because the playing field doesn't even have pawns anymore...lol Except for those who believe there are pawns and they themselves are the little pawns holding their little rifles to a missile being dropped on their head. The playing field is now, the government is way more powerful than the people in firepower, no way around that. I know it, I accept it. No need to fear what is done and cannot be undone. The gun owners buy guns out of fear. Fear is not a healthy state of mind. If they believe it is to fight the government they are really out of their minds. The government really has no problem with the little private owners. That is why they have been allowed to have their guns this long. They have no problem eliminating the issue if one arises. It is those of us, who are tired of the fearful (mentally unwell) gun owners or their relatives getting their guns and shooting up innocent people that have a problem with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must have missed my survey form <--- Masters Degree, Athiest, Owns 7 guns Grandpa had 6 guns and a Masters Dad had a doctorate and 2 guns Aunt has One gun and a Masters Strange, all the gun toters I know have Bachelor's or better. Did they forget to ask us? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you don't have a "right not to get shot." You have an inalienable right to "life," but it doesn't say a long life, a happy life, or even a pain free life. That is just something an individual implies because of an over inflated feeling of self worth. Grow up. Bad things happen, evil people exist, but the majority of the people walking this planet are mainly harmless. We have to stop making our laws and regulations as an adjustment for the least common denominator. Beg to disagree with part of it and that part is that WE AS A PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DO OWE THE CHILDREN THE RIGHT NOT TO BE MOWED DOWN IN CLASS. It is a right our children should have. And the least common denominator is the gun owner. 40 percent of the country are legally armed. They are the lessor fearful ones. We need to stop the availability of guns to those who are not mentally capable of having one and sadly because they are scared enough to need a gun most gun owners would be mentally not well enough to have one. The right not to be shot should supersede the right to fearful shooters to shoot. We don't owe the children a god damn thing!! They don't vote, they don't pay taxes and they sure as hell don't contribute to society. This is not a country of children. I don't want this nation to have "child safe" as the standard of living, and the concept of it is ludicrous at best. Society is for those that survived childhood. I'm not responsible for YOUR children. YOU ARE!!! You have the responsibility to them, not the state. You want the state to be responsible? Then do it the right way. Remove all children from their parents at age 3, lock them away in federally sponsored orphanages and don't release them until they are adults. Until you are willing to do that, don't come crying to me about "the children." You had them, you raise them. It's bad enough we give "parents" tax breaks. You're rights also don't supersede mine. That's why they are called "rights." We all have them. You have a right to a gun same as me, you just don't choose to exercise it. How about we take away the right to vote for parents? Leave responsible decisions to the folks who can still think rationally and without worrying about "the children." That makes a lot more sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
