Ok. The NYT article quotes two or three polling agency results. So to dismiss AK's post of it as anecdotal, after you give an anecdotal story of your own, is laughable. But maybe you were cracking a joke. Which is fine. Dry humor.
LOL Ricter is still trying to learn how real social interaction works. He was always taught that government told one what to say and do and believe. Thinking freely wasn't the realm of the average person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you write on the internet of your secret guns? And you talk on the internet your opinion your country is so scary and dictator? Not really. You have your freedom to talk on the internet. You have freedom. But you complain you are so afraid of dictators and government, and your president Obama.
You mean my entire collection that was stolen just this morning? Huh? Yeah and I'm exercising it, does that make your vagina itch? So...what's your point?
Where has your bleeding heart political correctness gone? They're not criminals, they're just undocumented and disenfranchised.
Doesn't post any sources at all. Refers to the "General Social Survey" survey. I can refer to broadly ambiguous data, too. Then it says "according to data analyzed by the NY Times" aka, itself. Then talks about a Gallup survey that shows higher ownership and a "more moderate rate of decrease", according to the Times. Hell, it even says "detailed data on gun ownership is scarce". The whole article is nothing but supposition. There's nothing conclusive about any of it's information, and the conclusion the author is coming to is that of his/her own interpretation. The data available offers no conclusion - because it is quite incomplete and "scarce". Anecdotal: (of an account) Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. Can't be based on facts because there simply aren't enough available.