Fewer and Fewer Americans Own Guns

[GGJohn]

X-posted from the other group.

Household gun ownership in America is on a steady, long-term decline.

That's according to data from the latest edition of the General Social Survey (GSS), which is conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.


In 1980, 23.5 percent of those under 35 owned a gun while 27.4 percent of those 65 years of age and older owned a gun, an age gap of 3.9 percentage points. By 2014, this gap had expanded to 16.4 percentage points, with gun ownership dropping to 14 percent among those under 35 and increasing to 30.4 percent for those 65 years of age and older.


The facts are these. A clear majority -- two thirds -- of Americans don't have guns in their homes. Almost four out of five Americans don't personally own a gun. And as the gun-owning population continues to age and die off, fewer Americans are taking their place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/fewer-and-fewer-americans_b_7382326.html

I've said it many times, there is no way this poll is anywhere near accurate or truthful, I believe that the majority of gun owners won't tell an anonymous pollster that they do own firearms.
It's funny, when I ask the controllers how this can be said as fact, all I get are the standard "NRA talking points" meme or crickets.

[davepc]

1. Yet somehow sates issue record numbers of carry permits each year.

And the NICS is accessed a record number of times month after month.

[GGJohn]

3. Absolutely correct.

Illinois State Police can't keep up with the request for new FOID cards or CCW permits and yet we're to believe that firearm ownership is falling in this country?

[Lurks Often]

2. Fewer and fewer Americans honestly answering questions on the phone from strangers

is far more likely.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite. I see new shooters on a regular basis and for a while pistol permit instructors were teaching classes every weekend instead of the more typical once a month or once every couple of months.

[benEzra]

6. The General Social Survey

involves describing your gun ownership face to face with some stranger from Chicago over the course of an hour and a half interview, and the interview is explicitly NON-anonymous.

I'm looking for data on how the actual GSS interviews themselves are randomized; are interviews evenly spread throughout the United States, or is the highly abberant Chicago/southern Illinois pocket oversampled relative to more normal areas?

[Human101948]

7. Anecdotal is anecdotal...

Because you hang out at shooting ranges tends to skew your data. I meet virtually no people who own guns. Should I conclude that no Americans own guns?

[GGJohn]

9. No, you've virtually met people who may or may not tell you that they own guns.

With the ongoing attempt of the controllers to stigmatize guns and their owners, I'd bet my pension that fewer and fewer citizens are admitting that they own firearms.
Can you prove me wrong?

[Human101948]

12. Yep! I am a gun owner and I tell them so...

Perhaps one out of thirty own a gun. Do you really think they are suspicious of me?

You just make stuff up because it fits your world view.

[GGJohn]

14. Good for you, I refuse to tell any annonymous pollsters that I may own firearms.

Friends are different matter.
Again, can you prove me wrong that most gun owners won't tell some anonymous pollster that they own firearms.

[Demit]

11. I'm curious. Do you ask everyone you meet if they own a gun?

How long do you wait before you ask? Do you ask before or after asking how much money they make?

[Human101948]

15. It comes up in conversation about shootings and dumbass things that people do with guns...

You would think I was asking about their sex lives. Ooops! For some it is their sex life!

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Is that "obsession with other people's genitalia", an "Uncle Ruckus", or both?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=167493

That reminded me of four similarities between gun controllers and religious fundies...

4. A creepy obsession with other people's genitalia...

You've stated you're a gun owner in other posts in this thread, hence the "Uncle Ruckus":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#368402

That's a good one. A variant is the "Uncle Ruckus"

Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners

We figured out posters like you here years ago. Here's a handy list, so you can figure
out what not to do from now on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#362548

The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

[Lurks Often]

23. No, but I recognize that my data is anecdotal

and the increase in applications for pistol permits, required to buy a handgun in CT, spiked after the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, is more real data then anecdotal.

[pipoman]

4. Lakes are shallower these days...

[ileus]

20. We're going on a 9hr kayak float fishing trip this weekend.

[Eleanors38]

29. LOL!

[benEzra]

5. Uh-huh. They are in deep denial.

At most, this tracks gun-owner trust in pollsters from Chicago. (And are the GSS interviews randomized nationwide, or are they clustered in/around Chicago? Because Chicago, and Illinois in general, are severe outliers from national gun-ownership norms.)

The GSS data is also wildly divergent from other gun-ownership metrics that are less prone to underreporting, such as NICS data, carry licence data, and surveys that at least attempt to preserve anonymity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx



Even with anonymous polling, the sharp decrease in self-reported ownership after the Third Way made lawful gun owners Public Enemy Number One in 1993-1994 is noteworthy. To take the self-reported answers at face value would be to imagine that 20+ million gun owners suddenly became non-gun-owners in the space of 4 years, despite gun sales and gun license applications doubling or tripling in that time.

[Human101948]

8. Maybe they actually quadrupled or quintupled!

We'll never know because of gun owner paranoia.

[GGJohn]

10. And how is responsible for that so called paranoia? eom.

[Human101948]

13. I don't know how...

but perhaps you can explain the mechanism.

[GGJohn]

16. Ooops, meant to type who.

You made the claim about paranoia, so why would gun owners be paranoid of anonymous pollsters asking about gun ownership?
Could it be the ongoing attempt to stigmatize owners? The ongoing attempt to severely restrict ownership?

[Eleanors38]

30. Ah! You at least take the Political Theory of Gun-Owner Paranoia seriously....

Or, maybe not.

You're probably invested deeply in this major culture war slur, so you must concede at a minimum that the Family survey is suspect; I mean, if such a psychological malady is now so widespread, then any reputable surveyor should take all this into account and in turn concede from the beginning that the results are grossly suspect. So which side are you on?

BTW, most folks I know who keep arms have had them for years before letting me know about it. This is quite wise. You don't blow it out to any Tom, Dick, or Harriette what you keep in your home (guns being among the most sought-after commodity for thieves & B & E boys). Even my hunting buddies from years back don't tell me what they have beyond their hunting guns, and I haven't asked. And I'm sure not going to rattle off what I have to anyone sitting across from me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Hi, this the HONEST SURVEY COMPANY...

...is there anything worth stealing in your house?

[Eleanors38]

32. Yes, a broken VRT T.V. that weighs a ton. pleeeeeze.... nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Nudge...

...wink

[jimmy the one]

24. What reputable poll backs up gallup?

ezra: At most, this tracks gun-owner trust in pollsters from Chicago.

Gong, wrong; since Pew backs up what GSS has proferred, quite closely, you & gallup are on the outlier side. Unless Pew is largely concentrated in Chicago, gong again.
Note in graph below, how gallup & gss actually do essentially agree, for ~10 year period, ~1990 thru 2000, where they both show a sharp decline in HHld gun ownership rates. The very same time period which showed the sharpest decline in violent crime rates.


The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our {PEW} surveys largely confirm the {GSS} General Social Survey trend. In our Dec1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan2013 Pew survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/ --- pg4;

As a democrat, how have you missed the alleged rightwing bias shown by gallup? as in over representing republicans & under repping dems. Some of these are election polls, but we can assume they are drawn from similar samples & weights as other gallup polls: As the blogger Kos reported, in June 2003, Gallup's CEO James Clifton gave $2,000 to a very right-wing Republican who was running for Senate, Herman Cain. For the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.

Frum: The average Democratic advantage in party identification in the Gallup Poll since June, +6, is substantially smaller than the average in every other major national poll. In fact, no other major poll has shown that small a Democratic advantage even once during this time period. This is significant, of course, because party identification is very strongly correlated with opinions on other questions such as presidential approval, attitudes toward health care reform, and the generic ballot question. For example, Gallup recently showed Republicans leading on its generic ballot question for the first time this year. Of the other major polls that have asked this question, all except Rasmussen have continued to show a Democratic lead on the generic ballot question.
Now there is nothing unusual about “house effects” in polls but until fairly recently Gallup was considered to be in the mid-range when it came to house effects. Based on these recent results, however, it appears that Gallup now has a significant Republican lean compared with most other national polls. And because of its prestige and the frequency of its polls, Gallup also has a disproportionate influence on public and elite perceptions of the state of public opinion on major issues.
http://www.frumforum.com/does-gallup-poll-have-a-pro-gop-bias/

... In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%. Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.
.. In 2012, poll analyst Mark Blumenthal criticized Gallup for a slight but routine under-weighting of black and Hispanic Americans that led to an approximately 2% shift of support away from Obama. At the same time, Blumenthal commended Gallup for its "admirable commitment to transparency" and suggested that other polling firms disclose their raw data and methodologies.
.. In 2013, the accuracy of Gallup polling on religious faith was questioned. Gallup's polling on religiosity U.S. has produced results somewhat different from other studies on religious issues, including a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center, which found that those who lack a religious affiliation were a fast-growing demographic group in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)

ezra: The GSS data is also wildly divergent from other gun-ownership metrics that are less prone to underreporting, such as NICS data, carry licence data, and surveys that at least attempt to preserve anonymity.

Yet GSS is corroborated by PEW quite closely, while Gallup has been the erratic one over the past 20 years.
You posting from Cairo, ezra?

[jimmy the one]

25. more bad for gallup

Another source calling a high republican bias for gallup, during the 2012 Obama - Romney election. We assume this bias would, or could apply to gallup's other polls, where the bias might not be measured due no other pollsters to compare with, or few.

---------# of polls.. avg error... bias .......
Pew Research 2 ...... 1.5 ...... R +1.1 ... live phone
Gallup ..........11 ..... 7.2 ...... R +7.2 ... live phone

It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

So you can't say, by these figures, that pew is biased to the dems, since they're not, they're also slightly biased +1.1 to repubs, while gallup is biased right by 6.1 more pts, to 7.2. This would account for discrepancies in our gun ownership poll graphs above.

Polling a lot higher for one candidate during the campaign & then 'suddenly' at the end of it tighten up the race, as in gallup drawing it to 1 pt, obviously can be a clever tactic to try to influence people prior to the election, without suffering loss of prestige. They have new 'rules' to expose this chicanery. Good for us, bad for gallup.

my previous post: blogger Kos reported, in June 2003, Gallup's CEO James Clifton gave $2,000 to a very right-wing Republican who was running for Senate, Herman Cain.

[Shamash]

18. Let's make this simple for the control types

An anonymous person calls you on the phone and asks "Do you have in your home any valuable, easily portable items with a high black market resale value?"

Question 1:
How do you answer them?

Question 2:
What is your opinion of the reliability of phone polls about gun ownership?

Question 3:
Are your answers for #1 and #2 compatible?

[ileus]

19. In todays political climate you'd be insane to answer a question like this.

The way Anti's are they're likely to have you swated if you acknowledge owning a firearm.

Or at the very least somehow ending up on a domestic terrorist watch list and no fly list.

[sarisataka]

21. Allow me to simplify

Here is how determine the reliability of a poll regarding guns.
If the poll is questioning defensive gun uses you can assume 9 out of 10 people or more will lie to give you false positive.

If the poll is questioning ownership of guns you can assume every single person is telling the truth as if they were standing in front of the Pearly Gates and being personally questioned by Hey-zeus Key-rice hizzelf.

I hope that makes things clearer.

[GGJohn]

22. That pretty much sums it up. eom.

[LongTomH]

26. Pardon my dissent on this (sticks up hat on stick to draw fire).....

......but, if you're going to assume that the figures cited simple mean that people are lying to pollsters, you're going to have to make the following assumptions:

1. The percentage of liars has increased sharply from 1985 to 2014. and
   
2. young people under 35 are much more likely to lie to pollsters, and
   
3. that percentage of young liars has been increasing since 1980 (Damn kids!).

The decline in hunting is due largely to:

1. US society being more urbanized than in the 1980s. (Note than young people today are less likely to own a car; they frequently use urban mass transit.),
   
2. People working two more more jobs have less time for sports like hunting and/or target shooting, and
   
3. they have less money to spend on guns and gun sport.

As for guns for self-defense, I would simply point out that both violent crime and fear of violent crime peaked in the 1980s. Both have been in decline; although the drop-off in fear of violent crime lagged the decline in violence by several years.

By the way, I'm an urban apartment dweller, living on an area bounded on the east by a poorer, more violent area. I've actually heard gunshot within a block or two of my complex. I still don't see either the need or utility of owning a gun.

And no, I'm not RKBA, I do favor sensible gun regulations, especially in urban areas.

(pulls back hat on stick to count bullet holes!)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Let me count the ways

Excuse me for putting my nose in here but maybe I can answer some of these questions.

Young people are today at the forefront of numerous social, political and cultural changes. Since the 80s we've seen the rise of internet and all manner of fraud from Nigerian scammers to the social misfits seen on Catfish the TV show. We've seen privacy eroded by personal info being compromised and stolen from companies we deal with. Phone records are monitored by the government. FISA, USA Patriot Act...

Is it any wonder? Is it such a stretch that an increasing number of people refuse to be truthful about certain things they may feel should remain private?

I also favor sensible regulations, UBCs for one.

welcome and thanks for posting

[HockeyMom]

27. Gun Households

Do you live in a gun household? Easy question Yes or No. For me? Yes. However, go beyond that one.

Do you personally own guns? No. Do you use the guns in your household? Nope. The ultimate question not asked? If you live in a gun household, do you know HOW to use the guns in your household? No. Next question? Why not? I don't want to.

Ever see any of those latter questions asked? I guess it is just ASSUMED that everyone in a gunner household approves and uses guns.

Assume nothing.

[Eleanors38]

28. A curious turn in the rhetoric of "paranoid gun-owners"....

Assuming for a moment that there is no other motivation to own a gun BUT paranoia (as the culture warriors claim), then why should those surveyed Suddenly become rational, reliable subjects of a properly vetted "Gold Standard" survey?

Jeez, where is paranoia when you need it?

[Human101948]

35. You're absolutely right! Obama is coming to take your guns!

The survey was just a way to collect data on which houses to send the SWAT teams to!

[Eleanors38]

36. Old stuff. Do you really take your own stand seriously?

[Human101948]

38. You are the one arguing for paranoia...

"most folks I know who keep arms have had them for years before letting me know about it. This is quite wise. You don't blow it out to any Tom, Dick, or Harriette what you keep in your home (guns being among the most sought-after commodity for thieves & B & E boys). Even my hunting buddies from years back don't tell me what they have beyond their hunting guns, and I haven't asked. And I'm sure not going to rattle off what I have to anyone sitting across from me. "

You consider your friends possible thieves and B & E suspects? That's what I would call paranoia.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. And you are the one "Phelpsing" other DUers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#367562

"Phelpsing" - loudly and repeatedly proclaiming the moral and/or. ...

...psychological deficiencies of gun owners.

[Eleanors38]

45. Sorry but "whoosh" as the expression goes. I don't ask my friends because....

it's none of my business. I don't tell Tom, D, and H because they are people I don't know. (I don't tell 'em I have a hundred in cash in the dresser door in a pair of socks, either.). You know it's sort of sad and funny at the same time how a field of study like psychology has been so cheapened that its terms are used as routine insults; there is hardly any credibility in their use, otherwise.

Don't get me started on the politics of crap language arts.

[Eleanors38]

46. If you were serious about the gun control "issue," you might see Obama's dilemma...

He, AG Holder (when in office), & Pelosi all publically advocated some unworkable "assault weapons ban," yet have to know this is not possible. So here they are, three very powerful office holders, revealing their wants & desires, yet knowing it ain't gonna happen. The only net effect is to present a powerful case that they want a ban with no real and viable constituency to support such. One might even be persuaded that tens of millions of gun-owners just might believe these powerful office holders are half-assed serious about the issue. That, my friend, is not a case for paranoia.

It IS a case for unwise, counter-productive politics, and a broad indication of being out of touch with reality. I hope these folks are getting better advice. For his part, the president now recognizes the RKBA is in fact an individual right, as the SCOTUS has reaffirmed. This hopefully marks a move away from self-destructive politics.

[pablo_marmol]

37. One of the best metrics for measuring new gun owners involves firearm training......

........because folks who are buying their second, third, ___ gun won't be needing training. Of course, someone who has owned only pistols may hire a rifle coach and verse-vica -- but this yardstick still measures fairly well.

Go to your local range and ask how business has been in the training arena the last ___ years.

Bailiff........next case.

[Human101948]

39. You are judge and jury...that's swell!

Based on a guess, a total fabrication supporting your position.

You might be right but then again you may be wrong.

[pablo_marmol]

42. "You might be right but then again you may be wrong."

Well, since I personally know a lot of firearm trainers, and question the trainers at the range where I shoot there is no fabrication involved whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that your accusation of a fabrication on my part shows how little you actually know about what we're talking about here.........and is yet another example in an endless string of examples of dishonesty from Controllers such as yourself.

Edited to add: I know it's hard for you to stomach the fact that more and more Democrats and women are buying guns.....but get over it. It's a trend that's not going to end anytime in the near future.

[DonP]

43. Still waiting for one of the "fewer gun owners" believers to explain Illinois?

I've brought it up in several threads and they kind of ignore it and drift away.

Cant buy a gun here without a FOID (Firearm Owners ID Card) in a store or at a fun show.

In the last 18 - 24 months the Illinois State Police issued over 250,000 new FOID cards, e.g new gun owners, bringing gun ownership in Illinois from 1.5 million to over 1.8 million. (This was prior to the new CCW law being passed.)

So my standing question for all the doubters out there is; so is Illinois just a national anomaly?

Or is it a state where the hard facts on new gun owners are part of the public record and not a "survey" that can be easily skewed?

Not hard numbers but ... about 20% of all my CCW classes are new shooters starting from scratch.

But to be "kind" to the less "aware" among us, it does give the desperate grabbers something to cling to so they an pretend that they actually "won" something. "See, see, more people don't want guns, we're winning"

Yeah, sure they are.

[Duckhunter935]

44. bet all you get are

crickets