2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on March 10, 2015, 08:39:51 AM
-
So it is being reported that firearm ownership is at a record low which is in contrast to the large number of firearms being sold. Fewer people are buying guns but they are buying a larger number of guns.
In the late 1970s approximately half of homes had a firearm but in the most recent survey 32% of homes have a firearm.
So now this puts the statistic of more guns less crime into question. Thoughts?
http://www.newser.com/story/203790/gun-ownership-rate-hits-record-low.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=iHeartRadio&utm_campaign=story (http://www.newser.com/story/203790/gun-ownership-rate-hits-record-low.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=iHeartRadio&utm_campaign=story)
-
More people don't want to divulge they own a gun.
-
I recall a similar discussion recently.
Obviously gun ownership has not gone down. So why does the survey say there are less gun owners?
Simple...gun owners are not telling some phone survey taker that they own a gun or guns. I wouldn't.... Would you? duhhh
It's not like they strap a lie detector to all the people they call.
Also consider the source of that article, "NEWSER....Read Less, Know More"
Sounds dystopian to me.
===========
sorry, aiea beat me to the post while I was composing mine
-
Obviously gun ownership has not gone down. e
I'm gonna challenge that.
Look at what's going on as it relates to firearms in our nation. More and more people spouting the "Fewer guns, fewer crimes" party line. More and more politicians making ignorant laws. More and more judges ignoring Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. This is a generational thing; these adults were raised to believe guns are bad. And they probably don't own guns.
I believe that the percentage of the population who own guns is decreasing. In my own circle of friends, I am a vast minority as a gun owner.
Now, number of guns owned certainly does nothing but increase. But, like wealth, they're being accumulated in the hands of the few. I, myself, have more than one.
-
Part of the reason rates have gone down is obvious. We're a more urban population. A lot of the guns people owned were rifles or shotguns. Lets be real, back when there were 50% rates, very few of those people owned pistols or carried them in comparison to today. So as we shifted to a less rural, more irban population, the gu,s that serve less practical value in the city (varmint and hinting rifles, shotguns) obviously staryed to phase out in ownership, rates wise. And of course, the gun ownership that WOULD rise in city environments, pistols, is often restricted in those environments such as cali cities and chicago.
Its happened naturally out of practicality and unnaturally out of necessity due to crappy laws. Of course rates dropped.
-
.
-
Here's an article that challenges the claim (from 2013, but same arguments apply). http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2013/05/declining-gun-ownership.html (http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2013/05/declining-gun-ownership.html)
The same author writes this a couple of days ago: "Yes, the General Social Survey says a smaller percentage of households contain guns than at some time in the past. However, Gallup says gun ownership is up. Either way, the total number of households has increased over time, resulting in the TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS CONTAINING GUNS INCREASING, so there are MORE guns in MORE hands than ever before - the exact opposite of the WaPo headline ["America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before"]."
Also, the number of guns "owned" by women has increased dramatically in the past several years. Most reports assert that women are the fasted growing demographic of new gun owners, new firearm training class members, new CCW holders, and new firearm sports competitors,
So if the male and female members of a "household" now BOTH are firearm owners, whereas in the past only the male was an owner, there are twice as many firearm owners in that household, but it is only counted as ONE household. See the problem with the math and the terminology and parameters (deliberately selected to give a particular impression?)?
I personally believe it's likely the reluctance of firearm owners to reveal their ownership to a stranger that skews the results. There is research that validates this view.
A woman doing research for an article on learning to shoot guns: "So anathema are guns among my friends that when one learned I was doing this piece, he opened his wallet, silently pulled out an NRA membership card, then (after I recovered from the sight) asked me not to spread it around lest his son be kicked out of nursery school."
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2004/11/guinea_get_your_gun.single.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2004/11/guinea_get_your_gun.single.html)
-
Of course this article made today's Star-Advertiser.
-
I recall a similar discussion recently.
Obviously gun ownership has not gone down. So why does the survey say there are less gun owners?
Simple...gun owners are not telling some phone survey taker that they own a gun or guns. I wouldn't.... Would you? duhhh
It's not like they strap a lie detector to all the people they call.
Also consider the source of that article, "NEWSER....Read Less, Know More"
Sounds dystopian to me.
===========
sorry, aiea beat me to the post while I was composing mine
It is possible that people did not want to say they owned a gun. Anytime you ask a question that might be considered sensitive you will have people that lie or decline to answer. This can be reduced through various methods of collecting data as when someone is sure that their answers are anonymous they are more likely to answer honestly. I don't know the methods of this survey but if I can find them I will see what they say.
My question for you is how did you come to the conclusion that gun ownership has not gone down? Some survey with conflicting results?
-
Here's an article that challenges the claim (from 2013, but same arguments apply). http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2013/05/declining-gun-ownership.html (http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2013/05/declining-gun-ownership.html)
The same author writes this a couple of days ago: "Yes, the General Social Survey says a smaller percentage of households contain guns than at some time in the past. However, Gallup says gun ownership is up. Either way, the total number of households has increased over time, resulting in the TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS CONTAINING GUNS INCREASING, so there are MORE guns in MORE hands than ever before - the exact opposite of the WaPo headline ["America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before"]."
Also, the number of guns "owned" by women has increased dramatically in the past several years. Most reports assert that women are the fasted growing demographic of new gun owners, new firearm training class members, new CCW holders, and new firearm sports competitors,
So if the male and female members of a "household" now BOTH are firearm owners, whereas in the past only the male was an owner, there are twice as many firearm owners in that household, but it is only counted as ONE household. See the problem with the math and the terminology and parameters (deliberately selected to give a particular impression?)?
I personally believe it's likely the reluctance of firearm owners to reveal their ownership to a stranger that skews the results. There is research that validates this view.
A woman doing research for an article on learning to shoot guns: "So anathema are guns among my friends that when one learned I was doing this piece, he opened his wallet, silently pulled out an NRA membership card, then (after I recovered from the sight) asked me not to spread it around lest his son be kicked out of nursery school."
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2004/11/guinea_get_your_gun.single.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2004/11/guinea_get_your_gun.single.html)
That also depends on how you measure it. Guns total or guns per capita. Of course guns total have gone up but I think the more relevant number is guns per capita. An even more relevant number is guns per household since we know that guns per capita can present a false image since a person who owns a lot of guns throws off the number.
The gallup poll did offer different results but they weren't that far off. Gallup pole said 37% while the one in the article I originally linked says 32% Either way it is down quite a bit from the 50% previously reported.
-
It is possible that people did not want to say they owned a gun. Anytime you ask a question that might be considered sensitive you will have people that lie or decline to answer. This can be reduced through various methods of collecting data as when someone is sure that their answers are anonymous they are more likely to answer honestly. I don't know the methods of this survey but if I can find them I will see what they say.
My question for you is how did you come to the conclusion that gun ownership has not gone down? Some survey with conflicting results?
...
I don't have solid numbers. Who does?
But country boy common sense tells me that since gun sales shot way up over the last few years, then ownership (as I see it) is also up.
It's not like all the previously owned guns just disappeared into thin air.
-
.
-
The gallup poll did offer different results but they weren't that far off. Gallup pole said 37% while the one in the article I originally linked says 32% Either way it is down quite a bit from the 50% previously reported.
1975 50% of households = 35.5 million
2013 32% of households = 39 million
or
2013 37% of households = 45 million
2014 and 2015 number of households unknown officially, but the total having firearms is almost unquestionably even higher than in the past... surely some of those 32 million NICS checks/ guns sold in the last two years went to first time owners.
More households now have firearms than ever before. And that only includes the households where a member of that household was foolish trusting enough to reveal to a stranger that they had firearms in the home.
Here's an article about women (as heads of housefolds) and gun ownership in the past couple of years: http://fortune.com/2015/03/06/gun-boom-smith-and-wesson/ (http://fortune.com/2015/03/06/gun-boom-smith-and-wesson/)
-
More people don't want to divulge they own a gun.
I agree with this.
-
her ein Hawaii too according to HNN http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28399236/hawaii-firearm-registrations-down-after-2013-record-high (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28399236/hawaii-firearm-registrations-down-after-2013-record-high)
-
This only covers permits issued.
But it does not say NEW or Person buying is a person who has already.
But working at the store I would say NEW ownership is UP. There are more people getting into shooting than before.
All the people who have firearms already are a bit slowing down buying more. Except for the fanatics (you know who you are!)
Accessories are at a high.
Some customers have slowed their buying due to the economy and also having a family.
Hard to find ammo is still hard to find and when it comes in its sold out fast.
-
her ein Hawaii too according to HNN http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28399236/hawaii-firearm-registrations-down-after-2013-record-high (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28399236/hawaii-firearm-registrations-down-after-2013-record-high)
its one of those obvious things though. 2013 had the huge rush post Sandy Hook. it makes sense we'd be down considering that context.
i really hate how they said the licenes are "approved sparingly".
they wont say "never", because then it makes Kealoha sound like the contemptuous jerk he is.
-
her ein Hawaii too according to HNN http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28399236/hawaii-firearm-registrations-down-after-2013-record-high (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28399236/hawaii-firearm-registrations-down-after-2013-record-high)
Never try to draw conclusions on short term statistics. Many unusual and unique circumstances can impact the numbers in the short term. Look at trends over longer periods than just one year for a more realistic picture.
Last year’s decrease in firearm activity shows only part of the actual picture. Officials say that firearm activity has actually increased dramatically in the past 14 years.
From 2000 to 2014, permit application processes annually have gone up by 298.4 percent, the number of firearms registered rose 354.9 percent, and the number of firearms
imported has surged by 356.6 percent.
Consumer behavior is like the stock market. It fluctuates based on a variety of causes, but over a long period, trends can be identified and explained.
http://bigislandnow.com/2015/03/11/state-wide-annual-firearm-statistics/ (http://bigislandnow.com/2015/03/11/state-wide-annual-firearm-statistics/)
-
...
I don't have solid numbers. Who does?
But country boy common sense tells me that since gun sales shot way up over the last few years, then ownership (as I see it) is also up.
It's not like all the previously owned guns just disappeared into thin air.
People do turn in firearms they don't want to the police department. Usually when going though a deceased relative's items however I think that this probably is not the case for most firearms. Again they could be funneled into the hands of fewer owners. In the last 8 years I have become the owner of 8 firearms. This can throw off the number if we only look at total number of firearms. If 5 people our of 100 owned 5 guns it would seem that 25% of the population owns a firearm but a more accurate analyses would show that those 25 firearms are only in 5 households.
-
You ask for other people's thoughts on this matter, then argue against their opinions.
Why not just come right out and state your thoughts on the matter, at the onset, then ask for comments?
You allude to the statistic of "more guns, less crime" being "called into question. "
Would you kindly provide your thoughts on how and why the statistic is being "called into question," now, in light of results from an imprecise survey, and knowing that statistics, percentages, and numbers can be manipulated to support any desired result?
My quest is really for the truth more than anything else. I wish to develop the strongest and accurate gun rights arguments as well. So if a statistic come out that brings into question the party line of "more guns = less crime" I must address it. And if it is the case that more guns does not equal less crime then I must dispense with that line of arguments or modify it. Because of this, if someone posts a rebuttal but the rebuttal is flawed I must point out the flaw as it does us no good to use flawed arguments to defend the 2nd amendment. So, for example, if science showed that more people owning firearms did contribute to crime then I would have to accept it and evaluate my position on the matter. Or if science showed CCW reduced crime rates I could then use it as a strong argument for firearms.
I did not post an opinion because I don't fully know the whole story on how many people actually own firearms as opposed to how many firearms there are total. Moreover it really is not a matter of opinion, either there are more firearm owners or there aren't. If one man in a town of 100 owned 50 firearms it would seem that half of the town had firearms and someone might say to look at how peaceful that town is with such a high number of firearms. But in reality that 1 person cannot carry 50 firearms at a time, therefore those 49 firearms he isn't carrying isn't making the town more safe. Simply comparing the number of firearms to the crime rate alone is a fairly weak correlation. You need something else to make it stronger such as CCW rates or how many homes had firearms.
I am of the general opinion that the real question is not how many firearms there are but who has those firearms. It is because we are civil that we can own firearms safely and use them for good.
-
ok, well the problem is, that statistics regarding the spread of gun ownership or decrease of it are almost always useless for either side in terms of truth. the only real hard data is sales or background checks.
-
My quest is really for the truth more than anything else. I wish to develop the strongest and accurate gun rights arguments as well. So if a statistic come out that brings into question the party line of "more guns = less crime" I must address it. And if it is the case that more guns does not equal less crime then I must dispense with that line of arguments or modify it. Because of this, if someone posts a rebuttal but the rebuttal is flawed I must point out the flaw as it does us no good to use flawed arguments to defend the 2nd amendment. So, for example, if science showed that more people owning firearms did contribute to crime then I would have to accept it and evaluate my position on the matter. Or if science showed CCW reduced crime rates I could then use it as a strong argument for firearms.
I did not post an opinion because I don't fully know the whole story on how many people actually own firearms as opposed to how many firearms there are total. Moreover it really is not a matter of opinion, either there are more firearm owners or there aren't. If one man in a town of 100 owned 50 firearms it would seem that half of the town had firearms and someone might say to look at how peaceful that town is with such a high number of firearms. But in reality that 1 person cannot carry 50 firearms at a time, therefore those 49 firearms he isn't carrying isn't making the town more safe. Simply comparing the number of firearms to the crime rate alone is a fairly weak correlation. You need something else to make it stronger such as CCW rates or how many homes had firearms.
I am of the general opinion that the real question is not how many firearms there are but who has those firearms. It is because we are civil that we can own firearms safely and use them for good.
I disagree. It's not how many guns or who has them, but whether you are comparing short term trends or long term.
While the numbers in the article are showing a drop from last year, look at the article I posted using the same report. It paints a much different picture and doesn't leave the reader to draw their own inaccurate conclusions.
There is nothing scientific about using a one year, five year, ten year or twenty year period for comparison. An honest analysis will look for significant changes that affect gun ownership and use that as a demarcation point between periods. Either that, or they will exclude small periods that contain significant data outliers to avoid unfairly skewing the data.
So, does a slowdown in sales and registrations, or a smaller number of registered guns in one year compared to the previous, really mean shooting interest has dwindled?
I suggest a look at the amount of ammo and reloading components and equipment purchased each year would be a better measure of interest than whether people buy a new gun every year. Consumables are going to be more indicative of shooting activity, and therefore interest.
-
here
-
My quest is really for the truth more than anything else. I wish to develop the strongest and accurate gun rights arguments as well. So if a statistic come out that brings into question the party line of "more guns = less crime" I must address it. And if it is the case that more guns does not equal less crime then I must dispense with that line of arguments or modify it. Because of this, if someone posts a rebuttal but the rebuttal is flawed I must point out the flaw as it does us no good to use flawed arguments to defend the 2nd amendment. So, for example, if science showed that more people owning firearms did contribute to crime then I would have to accept it and evaluate my position on the matter. Or if science showed CCW reduced crime rates I could then use it as a strong argument for firearms.
I did not post an opinion because I don't fully know the whole story on how many people actually own firearms as opposed to how many firearms there are total. Moreover it really is not a matter of opinion, either there are more firearm owners or there aren't. If one man in a town of 100 owned 50 firearms it would seem that half of the town had firearms and someone might say to look at how peaceful that town is with such a high number of firearms. But in reality that 1 person cannot carry 50 firearms at a time, therefore those 49 firearms he isn't carrying isn't making the town more safe. Simply comparing the number of firearms to the crime rate alone is a fairly weak correlation. You need something else to make it stronger such as CCW rates or how many homes had firearms.
I am of the general opinion that the real question is not how many firearms there are but who has those firearms. It is because we are civil that we can own firearms safely and use them for good.
Well, you must know that neither you, nor anyone else, will ever have verifiably accurate data as to exactly how many firearms there are, exactly where they are located, and exactly who owns them and/or has functional access to them (okay, except here in Hawaii where our elitist betters have made sure we all beg them for permission to own an arm and reveal all our personal data to them), nor will you ever know exactly how many people exactly where have and how often and where they carry. Nor will you ever know with full accuracy the deterrent effect on criminal behavior given whatever level of inaccurate statistics there are about gun ownership and CCW in any particular area. So your whole assertion re "the truth" blah blah blah is nothing but a ruse. You will never have either an argument nor a refutation of an argument based on this type of data, if you require 100% "scientific" accuracy and no surmising, speculation, or a priori assumptions. Why do you ask a question that you know can't be answered to the standard of your criteria?
-
Well, you must know that neither you, nor anyone else, will ever have verifiably accurate data as to exactly how many firearms there are, exactly where they are located, and exactly who owns them and/or has functional access to them (okay, except here in Hawaii where our elitist betters have made sure we all beg them for permission to own an arm and reveal all our personal data to them), nor will you ever know exactly how many people exactly where have and how often and where they carry. Nor will you ever know with full accuracy the deterrent effect on criminal behavior given whatever level of inaccurate statistics there are about gun ownership and CCW in any particular area. So your whole assertion re "the truth" blah blah blah is nothing but a ruse. You will never have either an argument nor a refutation of an argument based on this type of data, if you require 100% "scientific" accuracy and no surmising, speculation, or a priori assumptions. Why do you ask a question that you know can't be answered to the standard of your criteria?
Have you ever studied statistics? I mean in a classroom where they teach standard deviations, margins of error, Poisson Distribution, and the fallacies associated with statistical analysis in general?
You have to ask these unanswerable questions so you can determine whether your study has any meaning, or if it's just another question that can be added to the Trivial Pursuit games.
The truth is not a ruse. the truth exists whether or not you ever see it. It's like the tree falling the forest but nobody is there to hear it. Does the sound exist in the absence of an observer capable of hearing it? Does the truth exist even if everyone agrees with the lie instead?
Statistics is never exact, but neither is it useless. If done properly, it is a good indicator of an ESTIMATE. That estimate has a margin of error which must be factored in. If you don't know how to do that, then you might was well just find another topic to discuss. Statistics is not for you until you learn the basics.
The margin of error says how wrong, either above or below your estimate, your figures could be. A wide margin tells you you might as well just pull a number out of your @ss for all the good it is. A small margin tells us the approximation is useful for basing decisions and conclusions.
You say there is no way to know this or know that. There are ways to know that for a given population using surveys and observation. You just have to approach the study scientifically instead of latching onto some arbitrary numbers like the difference in a percentage and trying to make some kind of conclusion with nothing other than that raw percentage. The kicker is, you don't even know if the percentages are correct! You're just taking the report in the news at face value! How accurate is that? Garbage in = garbage out.
-
Have you ever studied statistics? I mean in a classroom where they teach standard deviations, margins of error, Poisson Distribution, and the fallacies associated with statistical analysis in general?
You have to ask these unanswerable questions so you can determine whether your study has any meaning, or if it's just another question that can be added to the Trivial Pursuit games.
The truth is not a ruse. the truth exists whether or not you ever see it. It's like the tree falling the forest but nobody is there to hear it. Does the sound exist in the absence of an observer capable of hearing it? Does the truth exist even if everyone agrees with the lie instead?
Statistics is never exact, but neither is it useless. If done properly, it is a good indicator of an ESTIMATE. That estimate has a margin of error which must be factored in. If you don't know how to do that, then you might was well just find another topic to discuss. Statistics is not for you until you learn the basics.
The margin of error says how wrong, either above or below your estimate, your figures could be. A wide margin tells you you might as well just pull a number out of your @ss for all the good it is. A small margin tells us the approximation is useful for basing decisions and conclusions.
You say there is no way to know this or know that. There are ways to know that for a given population using surveys and observation. You just have to approach the study scientifically instead of latching onto some arbitrary numbers like the difference in a percentage and trying to make some kind of conclusion with nothing other than that raw percentage. The kicker is, you don't even know if the percentages are correct! You're just taking the report in the news at face value! How accurate is that? Garbage in = garbage out.
You apparently entirely missed the point of my question to eyeeatingfish, but nevertheless...
Alright, given your vast academic knowledge of statistics, please answer the following questions and give us your margin of error and level of confidence, with references.
How many households in the U.S. have firearms?
How many total firearms are in those households?
What, exactly, is the measurable criminal deterrent effect of those firearms, and how does it vary by region where there are higher vs. lower total guns, total guns vs. guns per household, and CCW rate (please specify how you determined how many people are carrying how often)?
Thanks.
-
You apparently entirely missed the point of my question to eyeeatingfish, but nevertheless...
Alright, given your vast academic knowledge of statistics, please answer the following questions and give us your margin of error and level of confidence, with references.
How many households in the U.S. have firearms?
How many total firearms are in those households?
What, exactly, is the measurable criminal deterrent effect of those firearms, and how does it vary by region where there are higher vs. lower total guns, total guns vs. guns per household, and CCW rate (please specify how you determined how many people are carrying how often)?
Thanks.
Given my "vast knowledge" of statistics? Those are good questions to study.
Implying my knowledge of statistical modeling and the science involved in statistical analysis somehow gives me access to data or studies that no one else has collected is obviously not valid.
BTW, my knowledge is not just academic. I've used statistical studies in real life and helped top management make critical decisions that often involved risking lives.
You would be amazed at how much data is involved in selecting the correct munitions and platform to take out a given hardened target from an estimated altitude/range, in specific weather conditions, speed, etc, etc,.
That data was updated monthly, and the optimal solution depended on target priorities, service status of available aircraft, crew availability, munitions availability, aircraft-munitions combined performance characteristics, ....
I didn't fly the missions, but I made sure the people who did weren't trying to kill a giant with a BB.
I was a programmer for the AWACS systems that included surveillance and weapons control positions as well as radar and communications. After that I was a designer and integration lead for the systems that planned the coalition air wars starting with Desert Shield/Desert Storm. All missions were planned, executed, and evaluated using the systems I helped create and field. I was in the command centers in S. Korea during more Ulchi Focus Lens and other live exercises than I can remember. Thailand, Guam, Japan ... always the person tagged to be onsite for Naval, AF and joint exercises.
Please don't assume my comments are purely academic. I've used these disciplines in the real world for things that really matter.
-
Please don't assume my comments are purely academic. I've used these disciplines in the real world for things that really matter.
I didn't assume that. But okay.
You apparently entirely missed the point of my question to eyeeatingfish, but nevertheless...
Alright, given your vast academic knowledge of statistics, please answer the following questions and give us your margin of error and level of confidence, with references.
How many households in the U.S. have firearms?
How many total firearms are in those households?
What, exactly, is the measurable criminal deterrent effect of those firearms, and how does it vary by region where there are higher vs. lower total guns, total guns vs. guns per household, and CCW rate (please specify how you determined how many people are carrying how often)?
Thanks.
-
There's a huge variable in this whole thing. Honesty.
And that can't be given a margin of error. Or maybe it can if we start a poll on here.
Someone calls you from XYZ polling and asks you if you or anyone in your household owns a gun.
How do you respond ?
I'd tell them either no or none of their got damn business.
-
.
-
Or maybe it can if we start a poll on here.
I'm pretty sure polling people viewing a Second Amendment "Legal and Activism" forum won't survive the "random selection of subjects" test. But all polls have "flaws", especially noted by people opposing the results of the poll, so... :shaka:
-
A couple of comments on why the GSS has unusually low numbers of gun owning households.
Guns in America: While ownership falls, sales remain strong
Published Thursday, Mar. 12 2015, 12:01 AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-losing-gun-fight-in-america/article23411490/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-losing-gun-fight-in-america/article23411490/)
Excerpts:
But within the data, there is a more complex story. For years, the General Social Survey tended to show a significantly lower rate of gun ownership in the United States than many other surveys – a discrepancy that may be explained not by statistics, but by the basic mistrust of authority that appears to be a common denominator among the most fervent pro-gun advocates.
“The only thing I know that’s for sure different between the GSS and other polls is that the GSS is an in-home, face-to-face survey,” said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University. “What that does is make it a non-anonymous survey. You may say gun owners are paranoid for thinking it, but they think governments – and in particular the federal government – are out to get their guns.”
.....
Does everyone agree that it's declining?
Not entirely. “The big challenge for me looking at these numbers is that you have to be confident that people are going to report their gun ownership accurately,” said Samuel Bieler, research associate at the independent and non-partisan think tank Urban Institute in Washington. “And I think it’s an open question as to whether if a gun owner is already suspicious of someone’s motive for collecting firearm information, whether they’d be willing to do that,” he added. There are also Gallup surveys that point to spikes in gun ownership in recent years. “There’s enough noise and enough countervailing explanations that to me, the jury is really still in some ways out on the full amount of gun ownership,” said Mr. Bieler.
.....
The survey also pointed out that an increasing number of Americans believe gun ownership protects people from crime. In December, 2012, 48 per cent held that position. Two years after Newtown, 57 per cent believed guns save people from becoming victims of crime.
The findings present a paradox, according to Ms. Carlson.
“How is it that people are increasingly imagining guns as tools of safety rather than tools of violence? How is that possible even when you see this decline in ownership?” she asked.
“I think it’s because what we’re seeing is not the decline of American gun culture. We’re seeing the transformation of American gun culture from a hunting oriented gun culture to a gun culture where guns are about protection,” she added.
-
The last sentence in your post is the underlying point - Americans are becoming more and more urbanized, and as such, they're buying guns for home/self defense rather than hunting purposes. That being the case, I think it's more than likely that the self defense crowd would be more leery of disclosing their ownership in ANY polls.
-
I didn't assume that. But okay.
You apparently entirely missed the point of my question to eyeeatingfish, but nevertheless...
Alright, given your vast academic knowledge of statistics, please answer the following questions and give us your margin of error and level of confidence, with references.
How many households in the U.S. have firearms?
How many total firearms are in those households?
What, exactly, is the measurable criminal deterrent effect of those firearms, and how does it vary by region where there are higher vs. lower total guns, total guns vs. guns per household, and CCW rate (please specify how you determined how many people are carrying how often)?
Thanks.
Gonna have to back up Maui on this one. What he is talking about is a scientific method of gathering and analyzing data. It is not going to give you a perfectly accurate answer but when done properly you can obtain a fairly accurate measurement even on many questions that seem like you wouldn't be able to answer. The margins of error aren't just made up either, they have been studied and methods have been developed so as to reduce the margin of error as much as possible. I mentioned this earlier when I said that when a study is anonymous people are more likely to answer questions accurately. A face to face interview will leave you with a less accurate number than an anonymous mailed survey. Additionally the way questions are worded can have an effect on the accuracy of questionaire answers.
However just because he is well versed in the science of statistical analyses doesn't mean he is going to know the answer to just any statistical query you might make. These are questions that can be answered using statistical anylses and proper statistics gathering methods.
It is important that when we look at a statistic we analyze the method used to gather the data to ensure that it was gathered in a way that gives us an accurate result. When you learn about statistical analyses, data gathering, and questionaire writing you are able to look statistics and recognize some strengths or weaknesses of the presented data without even going in depth. For example if you asked 10 people a political question about a national issue I can already know that your data set is not going to be reliable because the sample size is too small given the size of the population being studied.
Now if you want those specific questions answered someone would have to do a study that adresses those questions. Such a study might have been done already. Certainly we know by this discussion that at least two sources have attempted to measure how many households have firearms. Whether they are accurate is a separate question. However if they were done properly they are likely accurate to within a few percent.
-
I disagree. It's not how many guns or who has them, but whether you are comparing short term trends or long term.
While the numbers in the article are showing a drop from last year, look at the article I posted using the same report. It paints a much different picture and doesn't leave the reader to draw their own inaccurate conclusions.
There is nothing scientific about using a one year, five year, ten year or twenty year period for comparison. An honest analysis will look for significant changes that affect gun ownership and use that as a demarcation point between periods. Either that, or they will exclude small periods that contain significant data outliers to avoid unfairly skewing the data.
So, does a slowdown in sales and registrations, or a smaller number of registered guns in one year compared to the previous, really mean shooting interest has dwindled?
I suggest a look at the amount of ammo and reloading components and equipment purchased each year would be a better measure of interest than whether people buy a new gun every year. Consumables are going to be more indicative of shooting activity, and therefore interest.
Studying consumables is probably a good way to measure practice and therefore interest in firearms but I don't think it will show an accurate number of how many people own firearms and that is what I am really after. This bit of data is what is going to make or break the validity of the "more guns = less crime" argument.
A study of how many people train regularly and how many people CCW would be useful though when discussing whether firearms prevent crime.
-
Gonna have to back up Maui on this one. What he is talking about is a scientific method of gathering and analyzing data. It is not going to give you a perfectly accurate answer but when done properly you can obtain a fairly accurate measurement even on many questions that seem like you wouldn't be able to answer.
So if you believe what you wrote above, then why are you asking any questions about how many people and/or households possess firearms? If those polls you reference are "scientific", then you already have your "fairly accurate measurement". What, "fairly accurate" isn't accurate enough? You seem to want it both ways. If you've studied the methodology of those polls and concluded they are are NOT "scientific", and/or not methodologically sound, then why are you defending polls as being "scientific"?
The margins of error aren't just made up either, they have been studied and methods have been developed so as to reduce the margin of error as much as possible.
Right. So you believe the discrepancy in poll numbers re gun ownership is attributable to what? If you believe that the "margin of error" is "scientific", and polls reach different numbers that are outside the "margin of error" of the other polls, how do you explain that? How do you account for the fact that none of the IPCC referenced studies substantiating anthropogenic global warming yielded anything even close to a "margin of error" that would account for no warming for the past 15 years?
I mentioned this earlier when I said that when a study is anonymous people are more likely to answer questions accurately. A face to face interview will leave you with a less accurate number than an anonymous mailed survey.
Are you sure? Every single question ever asked in anonymous polling has always revealed a more accurate assessment than any face to face polling? How much "more likely"? To what degree under what conditions? References? Or is this some "common sense" conclusion you've reached outside the realm of "science"?
Additionally the way questions are worded can have an effect on the accuracy of questionaire answers.
However just because he is well versed in the science of statistical analyses doesn't mean he is going to know the answer to just any statistical query you might make. These are questions that can be answered using statistical anylses and proper statistics gathering methods.
Given the contradictions in polling numbers, which one(s) are correct/"proper", and which ones "unscientific"/improper/wrong? If the academicians who study the questions involved and statistical analysis cannot agree, how are YOU going to decide?
It is important that when we look at a statistic we analyze the method used to gather the data to ensure that it was gathered in a way that gives us an accurate result. When you learn about statistical analyses, data gathering, and questionaire writing you are able to look statistics and recognize some strengths or weaknesses of the presented data without even going in depth. For example if you asked 10 people a political question about a national issue I can already know that your data set is not going to be reliable because the sample size is too small given the size of the population being studied.
Now if you want those specific questions answered someone would have to do a study that adresses those questions.
Such studies have been quoted above, some by you, yet you don't seem to be satisfied by the answers, even though you defend them as "scientific".
Such a study might have been done already. Certainly we know by this discussion that at least two sources have attempted to measure how many households have firearms. Whether they are accurate is a separate question. However if they were done properly they are likely accurate to within a few percent.
So if those few percent are outside the margin of error for either or both polls, what is your "'scientific" explanation? And please outline why you believe that the polls re firearm ownership CAN be accurate, given all the (unknown?) variables and the fact that many people clearly state that they would not give accurate answers to any such polling questions regardless of how supposedly "anonymous" the poll is. You're just trusting that the polling and statistical analyses were done "scientifically" and accurately without any errors or built-in prejudices? Please give us your scientific assessment of the accuracy of the two main polls cited above.
-
Scientific margin of error ?
Have you checked the poll on how would you answer ?
The last sentence in your post is the underlying point - Americans are becoming more and more urbanized, and as such, they're buying guns for home/self defense rather than hunting purposes. That being the case, I think it's more than likely that the self defense crowd would be more leery of disclosing their ownership in ANY polls.
+1
Massive variable on disclosure. Calculate the margin of error based on our poll.
-
Massive variable on disclosure. Calculate the margin of error based on our poll.
If you count the forum poll answers "No" (34.5%) and "None of your got damn business" 48.3%) as being from gun owners/households that are "reluctant" to reveal their ownership, then added to the 32% of the GSS poll respondents who admitted to being a household with a gun, that means 114.8% of Americans/American households have guns. What's the margin of error and confidence level on that number? :shaka:
-
Puna,
I have not studied the methods used in this particular survey so I don't know how accurate the results are. And I did not defend them as scientific. What I have been trying to explain is that a survey CAN BE designed to effectively minimize margins of error and provide an accurate answer. We shouldn't just dismiss data we don't like by claiming that survey statistics cannot be accurate.
The reason I ask the question is because I don't have all the data. I don't know about every survey done on the topic. By starting this thread we can share information, we can learn about conflicting data and about supporting data. As for what would account for the differences between two different surveys, I don't know, I haven't seen how the surveys were conducted. Some possible reasons could be anonymity, sample size, how the question was worded, method of collection, etc but I am just speculating. If the data was gathered poorly then we can dismiss the results it but if it was gathered correctly when my original question deserves discussion.
I don't recall how much a lack of anonymity can affect survey results, I just know that it has been shown that people are less likely to answer honestly on questions about sensitive issues. And no, it is not common sense, I studied this in college as part of my sociology degree.
-
Puna,
I have not studied the methods used in this particular survey so I don't know how accurate the results are. And I did not defend them as scientific. What I have been trying to explain is that a survey CAN BE designed to effectively minimize margins of error and provide an accurate answer. We shouldn't just dismiss data we don't like by claiming that survey statistics cannot be accurate.
The reason I ask the question is because I don't have all the data. I don't know about every survey done on the topic. By starting this thread we can share information, we can learn about conflicting data and about supporting data. As for what would account for the differences between two different surveys, I don't know, I haven't seen how the surveys were conducted. Some possible reasons could be anonymity, sample size, how the question was worded, method of collection, etc but I am just speculating. If the data was gathered poorly then we can dismiss the results it but if it was gathered correctly when my original question deserves discussion.
I don't recall how much a lack of anonymity can affect survey results, I just know that it has been shown that people are less likely to answer honestly on questions about sensitive issues. And no, it is not common sense, I studied this in college as part of my sociology degree.
I don't understand why you are discussing this issue and asking about "accurate" and/or "scientific" data and yet admit that you won't take the time to investigate the existing contradictory data (while claiming to have some background in issues that would allow you to make such determinations). Do you want the "truth", as you claim, or do you have some other agenda? Whenever someone presents a point of view about these issues you take a contrary position based upon hypotheticals and then say "I don't know if that is true or not". Well f*cking find out, or shut up.
You obviously must know that there are vast numbers of studies about firearm ownership and/or CCW and the consequence of those rates on defensive gun uses and rates of criminal acts, most famously is John Lott's work, including "More Guns, Less Crime". That book of research by two university professors was published in 1998. You've had almost 17 years to study that book, its revised and updated editions, and the dozens of critical and supportive studies, reports, and papers submitted in response to the information and hypotheses in the book. Yet, in those 17 years you haven't gotten around to looking at the data and coming to some conclusion that will aid you in making sound arguments using that data re the advisability of law-abiding American citizens owning and/or carrying weapons, It appears that you really aren't that interested in finding out the "truth" as you claim. What's the problem?
Or, perhaps you want to claim that since academics, who spend their entire lives conducting research and studying these questions, continue to disagree, that there is no "truth" and all the research is flawed in one way or another or to one degree or another, and therefore no one can draw a reasonably accurate conclusion with any degree of certainty? But, no, you don't. You claim that you (or someone else who you can read and study) have the ability to analyze research methodology and determine the degree of reliability or "accuracy" of particular conclusions. So why don't you do that? I don't get it. Please spare me the "I just want the truth so I can evaluate the arguments for and against implementing Second Amendment rights".
-
I don't understand why you are discussing this issue and asking about "accurate" and/or "scientific" data and yet admit that you won't take the time to investigate the existing contradictory data (while claiming to have some background in issues that would allow you to make such determinations). Do you want the "truth", as you claim, or do you have some other agenda? Whenever someone presents a point of view about these issues you take a contrary position based upon hypotheticals and then say "I don't know if that is true or not". Well f*cking find out, or shut up.
You obviously must know that there are vast numbers of studies about firearm ownership and/or CCW and the consequence of those rates on defensive gun uses and rates of criminal acts, most famously is John Lott's work, including "More Guns, Less Crime". That book of research by two university professors was published in 1998. You've had almost 17 years to study that book, its revised and updated editions, and the dozens of critical and supportive studies, reports, and papers submitted in response to the information and hypotheses in the book. Yet, in those 17 years you haven't gotten around to looking at the data and coming to some conclusion that will aid you in making sound arguments using that data re the advisability of law-abiding American citizens owning and/or carrying weapons, It appears that you really aren't that interested in finding out the "truth" as you claim. What's the problem?
Or, perhaps you want to claim that since academics, who spend their entire lives conducting research and studying these questions, continue to disagree, that there is no "truth" and all the research is flawed in one way or another or to one degree or another, and therefore no one can draw a reasonably accurate conclusion with any degree of certainty? But, no, you don't. You claim that you (or someone else who you can read and study) have the ability to analyze research methodology and determine the degree of reliability or "accuracy" of particular conclusions. So why don't you do that? I don't get it. Please spare me the "I just want the truth so I can evaluate the arguments for and against implementing Second Amendment rights".
I have looked at contradictory data as it was posted and it has been part of this discussion. That is why I ended the first post asking for people's thoughts. When different studies come up with conflicting results then we can talk about what may have made the results different. I don't just find a contradictory source with a result I like better and then ignore the source whose result I don't like.
I have not read that book and this is the first I have heard of it so I really cannot offer educated comment on it's arguments. It sounds like something I would be interested in reading. It would be even cooler to see their response to the results quoted in the original article.
Your logic is flawed because if I wasn't interested in the truth then I wouldn't have started this thread asking for people's thoughts! This is information sharing and gathering.
-
Brief essay from Kurt Hoffman re this question of more guns owned by fewer people. He goes over basically the same territory that's been covered, but I found this survey result interesting. Says a lot about the mindset (lack of mind?) of those opposed to Second Amendment-guaranteed rights.
"Progressive" Writer Blames "Arsenal Owners" for Blocking Onerous Gun Laws
http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/arsenal-owners-to-blame.htm (http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/arsenal-owners-to-blame.htm)
Taking a look at some of the datasets and questions, I found this one from 2004:
990. Suppose research proves that more legal restrictions on handguns would increase violent crime. Which of these two reactions would be closer to your position:
1. WOULD CHANGE MIND AND OPPOSE MORE RESTRICTIONS
2. WOULD STILL SUPPORT MORE RESTRICTIONS
62.9% said they would still support MORE restrictions. Think about that. Even if it is proven conclusively that gun control INCREASES violent crime, most people NORC surveyed would still push for more restrictions.
-
Brief essay from Kurt Hoffman re this question of more guns owned by fewer people. He goes over basically the same territory that's been covered, but I found this survey result interesting. Says a lot about the mindset (lack of mind?) of those opposed to Second Amendment-guaranteed rights.
"Progressive" Writer Blames "Arsenal Owners" for Blocking Onerous Gun Laws
http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/arsenal-owners-to-blame.htm (http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/arsenal-owners-to-blame.htm)
Taking a look at some of the datasets and questions, I found this one from 2004:
990. Suppose research proves that more legal restrictions on handguns would increase violent crime. Which of these two reactions would be closer to your position:
1. WOULD CHANGE MIND AND OPPOSE MORE RESTRICTIONS
2. WOULD STILL SUPPORT MORE RESTRICTIONS
62.9% said they would still support MORE restrictions. Think about that. Even if it is proven conclusively that gun control INCREASES violent crime, most people NORC surveyed would still push for more restrictions.
Thanks for bringing that to light.
In fact, if the whole issue were based on logic, it would not have been an issue in the first place.
More guns = less crime. Criminals themselves say they wouldn't want to target gun owners. How hard is that to understand?
It has always been an emotional issue. People simply do not like violence in the world and close their eyes and wish it would go away. Those are immature and naive people, basically. Also they need history lessons.