Study about high schoolers opinion of guns

[Jackal]

http://repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers/75/

Only read the abstract so far, I do not agree with the results or the ultimate conclusions of the results. Discuss.

[Lycanthrope]

It's probably somewhat accurate.

Adult views on firearms in the research have been stable which means it is likely that view change as you get older. I doubt the new generation will support anti-gun legislation......BUT......the current generation is getting less exposure to hunting and shooting sports than was the trend in yesteryear.....so it is natural for their views to be swayed more by the media than by direct exposure. There is a big difference in the exposure when an adolescent is taught to hunt or target shoot......versus just having a gun in the home. They are also more likely to support policy on a very shallow basis and not see wide ranging effects.

I do question the data on how many student report they had a friend victimized by a gun.....adolescents are notorious for labeling acquaintances as friends and maximizing perceived trauma (whenever an adolescent commits suicide half the school shows up.....even if only a handful were actually "friends" with the victim).

Lycannosurprisethrope

[PocketProtector]

The public schools and NEA are a collection of global warming, anti-gun, anti-capitalism, pro-abortion radical leftists. This is the education the kids are getting. Everything slanted way to the left.

[TaePo]

This proves nothing, other than our in-school coverage of the Constitution and the B.O.R. is woefully inadequate and we will suffer for it in the future.

[Robert Kayland]

Polling students in urban areas, especially where gang violence is more prevalent, will result in X...

Polling students in rural areas, where sustenance hunting is more prevalent, will result in Y...

And as any good student knows, for any given equation, X may not equal Y.

[Lycanthrope]

Um....didn't they do a cross section sample?


Pretty sure it was noted.....

Lycandidyouguysreadit?thrope

[Robert Kayland]

Um....didn't they do a cross section sample?


Pretty sure it was noted.....

Lycandidyouguysreadit?thrope

The claim was:

"Population weights were applied, and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between demographic and exposure variables and opinions about firearm policies."

But the only concrete statement related to environment was along the lines of "was there a gun in the home (especially a hand gun) or not."

Didn't seem to be a convincing sampling based upon rural/urban factors... maybe I missed something?

[Dredly]

Um....didn't they do a cross section sample?


Pretty sure it was noted.....

Lycandidyouguysreadit?thrope

a cross section sample? they interviewed 1005 high school students... out of several million students currently in highschool. the insanely small number of subjects can not possibly be considered an accurate representation for the whole age group

[Lycanthrope]

a cross section sample? they interviewed 1005 high school students... out of several million students currently in highschool. the insanely small number of subjects can not possibly be considered an accurate representation for the whole age group

You'd be surprised......as long as they randomized. Granted, it may only apply to that geographical area, though.

Why are you guys surprised that kids would have shallow ideas about firearms? They have shallow ideas about a lot of things........it doesn't mean they stick.

Lycanusedtodoalotofstatsthrope

[Coops]

This is a study from 2003 where they questioned a whole 1000 16-18 year olds with the intention of extrapolating the data to all teenagers 16-18, then proclaim that current laws are not strict enough to satisfy the voters of tomorrow.
There are some flaws in the study.

Two of the authors wrote the paper while they were "affiliated" (whatever that means) with the University of California. California has the #1 strictest gun laws in the country (New Jersey is #2).

The paper does not say how the list of students was arrived at other than to tell where they got the list from. The list was obtained fromm a company in Connecticut (the number #3 strictest state). They proclaim the demographics of the list to be representative but do not compare it to actual demographics. They also do not say how many questionnaires were discarded and for what reason. For all we know, they asked the company who provided the list to give them students they thought would favor their predetermined study outcome.

The paper does not reveal the exact wording of the questions. As we all know, it is very easy to slant the results simply by asking leading questions. Or asking a series of question to set the tone first. Slanting the results is exactly what was intended here.

Buried in the paper is the line: "The majority (80.6%) of students believe that
the United States Constitution guarantees individual citizens the right to own firearms..." But that is not the focus of the abstract. They qualify that statement with "...yet over half (55.3%) believe that laws regulating gun sales and use are not in violation of a person’s constitutional rights." Well duh. Everyone thinks that there should be some laws. Like the law that prohibits selling a gun to a 10 year old.

There is a reason for establishing a minimum age for voting. The majority of children just do not have the experience, maturity or the education to make decisions about things other than for themselves (sometimes). That is not a knock on young people. It just takes time for the Human animal to grow into an adult. This study targets children with leading questions, then makes an interpretation in keeping with the political agenda of the "researchers".

If this is the kind of professor that Penn hires, they should lose their accreditation.