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

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

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

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

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

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/

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

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

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

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/

...
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.