cross post from the other group

[AndyS]

I recently posted that 32% of people polled own a gun. That's a 2020 number.

That % is constant over decades of polls and surveys +- a few % points. A poll from the University of Chicago LINK which is newer than the one I quoted reveals that there are more guns in households than before (46% vs 40%).

It's difficult to sort out what numbers are relevant to gun ownership vs people exposed to guns. The new poll is couched in % of households with guns. I understand the rationale of scaling the conversation to people exposed to guns but that gets kinda' hard to boil down to how many people own guns. The US census defines a household as 'one or more people living at the same address' and the average household as 2.51 people. I haven't found a way to play those numbers against total population (~350 mil) to match the number of people who own guns, ie the number of gun owning voters and their relative voting power as a block. Like all other group I realize that they are not monolithic but it should be useful in establishing how large the gun rights constituency is.

There is one reference that seems useful though; the number of first time gun buyers during the pandemic buying surge. In the article a number of 5% of Americans were first time buyers. If the number in 2020 was 32% of the population (in keeping with long term trends) and an additional 5% of the population is new from 2020 to 2022 can I interpolate that now 37% of citizens now own guns?

In any event the % is now more than 32 and I recognize that. The number of people owning guns has increased.

I strive to be accurate and factual. One cannot come to rational conclusions without reliable data. Wishful thinking isn't helpful.

If anyone has more accurate data from reliable sources please share it.

[padfun]

1. I protect my home

I have one gun here and it is for defense if needed. I dont take it outside or anywhere when I travel. It is only for home defense. Your home is your last line of defense and to defend that is of utmost importance. There are serious right wingers out there who will be killing "libs" in the future and I know everyone knows that. They don't hide anymore.

It's sad that this country is like this, where we need protection in our own homes to such a degree.

[sanatanadharma]

2. I do not have a gun

I do not have a gun.
Perhaps I can not protect myself.
I will die.
Everyone dies.
I refuse to kill.

[Lucid Dreamer]

3. I do have a gun.

I do have a gun.
Perhaps I can not protect myself.
I will die.
Everyone dies.
I refuse to kill anybody that is not trying to kill me.

[yagotme]

4. Chicago Trib, Dec 10, 2020

167% jump in FOID card applications compared to 2017.
2.2 mil IL residents with FOID's, almost doubled since last decade.
Concealed carry licenses have swelled from 90,301 in 2014 to 343,299 in 2020.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-increase-firearm-permits-gun-sales-record-covid-protests-20201210-7txsd5nvgndt7e23ttcaruh6aq-story.html

This is IL, one of a few states that have a FOID card, where "new" owners can be more easily counted. Most states do not require an ID for possession.

[AndyS]

5. That is certainly a large increase and I wish all states required this kind of licensing

but I don't see how it can be extrapolated to the nation as a whole. There has been an increase in ownership over the pandemic years but how much is hard to quantify. If I recall correctly the survey numbers showed as much a a 51% ownership rate in 1978 that has slowly declined until 2014.

I wish there were easily accessible numbers but the gun Lobby and general paranoia has made it impossible to assess the size of the gun constituency.

[yagotme]

6. The FOID and CC licensing is harder data,

than some unknown person calling a house and saying "Do you own guns." I would not answer yes to that person, myself. Perhaps that is what your "decline" in numbers mat be, as fewer people fully trust the government, for whatever reason. The surveys probably cover a wider area, but smaller sample of people than the police data. I know this is but one state, but I believe NICS (dealer background check calls) requests have been up nationwide, so a hard raise in ownership "proven" in one state, coupled with an overall increase in nationwide gun sales, may lead to an assumption of an increase in nationwide ownership.

[AndyS]

7. Perhaps but the assumption can't be quantified and is useless for policy decisions

unless we want to advocate for wishful thinking as a guide. It's like the old dodge of correlation vs causation. I can positively show that there is a correlation between gun availability and gun violence but not prove conclusively that one caused the other.

[yagotme]

8. That goes along with the assumption that a survey showing a decrease in ownership,

should be used for making policy. That knife cuts both ways.

[AndyS]

9. What do you suggest we use?

As I have repeatedly said, over the 40 or so years I've been discussing this topic the gun side has always demanded the highest level of credibility for anything the regulation side uses for policy decisions.

What am I to make of this sudden shift? I've had people in threads here make statements like, "Your don't know and I don't know but . . ."

Or is there a double standard?

[yagotme]

10. What I was saying earlier,

that surveys can be twisted/maligned to get a certain outcome. Hard data, like in IL, and nationwide NICS figures, have a firmer showing of what's happening in the country. Pushing a ban on "assault weapons", when they are probably in the top 3 types of firearms sold, is most likely a losing proposition. Proper definition of terms, (always a good argument starter on this site,) needs to be used, and understood. If it's not clear, the courts will have a field day with the new law, and it will be tossed. Hard to get your point across, when you're using a blunt tip, so to say.

To get back to your OP, I was trying to provide you with some solid, not surveyed, data. Again, I realize that this was from 1 state, but, like earlier, comparing 1 state with the overall national rise should give a better view than a poll. No one knows the exact #'s you seek, and probably never will, without a complete and total police state. Hoped my input might shed a slightly clearer light on the data.

[AndyS]

11. So, if we are to have the kind of hard data the gun rights side wants should we have a

national data base to make policy? It would seem to make sense. If this is true will you work with me to make such a database part of policy?

[yagotme]

12. Fishing with an empty hook, I see.

The anti-gunners seem to be the heavies when it comes to changing the status quo on 2d Amendment issues. Asking pro-gunners for personal data for the use by anti-gunners to make policy, is a non-starter. Would you give your data to the Rethugs so they could better refine their policy? As far as a national data base, you either have the skewed results of a survey, or a police state, as I stated earlier. Therefore, it makes little sense, to me.

[AndyS]

13. This is where we always end up. Paranoia wins out and we have the equivalent of

a snake eating it's own tail.

We must have hard data to make policy. We can't have hard policy because of paranoia. Therefore to get the cooperation of those who claim to have the knowledge to sanely make policy we must abandon reason and rely on whim. No policy is made so more people die by gun than cars.

Okay, I guess you take what you can get. Like it or not. From either side of the conversation.

BTW, you're making an awful lot of allegations regarding 'skewed data' and 'biased polls'. I'd ask that you show some evidence that such is true or that gun owners won't admit to having a gun but we know where that goes, don't we?

[yagotme]

14. Well, let's see...

"No policy is made so more people die by gun than cars."
Source? I looked for a good bit, seems it just depends on the year, both run in the mid 30's to high 30's. One source said 40,000 bun deaths per year, but it was an anti-gun site. Wiki had a pretty good automobile chart. I'll try to post the link below. Suicide is the biggie on firearms, accidents with cars. So, to greatly reduce gun deaths, let's start with the biggie, and make suicide illegal. As far as polling, it's pretty well known that polls can be skewed, and those with privacy concerns don't answer polls.

Tell me about paranoia, though. Were you paranoid 5 years ago, when the Rethugs were in control? Would you trust anything that came out of that cesspool? Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not after you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

[AndyS]

15. ARRRRREERGHGGGH1!111

SHOW ME THE SOURCE. OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

[yagotme]

16. Sheesh. Ok. Google dump coming up. No need to curse.

https://dandygoat.com/gallup-poll-majority-of-people-lie-to-gallup-pollsters

https://www.newsweek.com/70-republicans-60-democrats-say-people-lie-when-taking-polls-1529841

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/09/06/exclusive-pollster-explains-his-finding-that-10-percent-of-trump-supporters-lie-on-surveys/

https://ricochet.com/784352/could-democrats-be-lying-to-pollsters-too/

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29206289

https://hotair.com/headlines/2021/11/15/dont-trust-the-polls-pollsters-are-increasingly-unable-to-predict-american-thought-n429253

https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/u-s-surveys/frequently-asked-questions/

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/how-the-pollsters-got-it-so-wrong-failure-to-detect-lies-from-closet-trump-voters/

Here's a couple to get started on. The Pew one has some interesting paragraphs, touching on weighting, etc. Seems the general consensus is, that people DO lie to pollsters, for varying reasons.

[AndyS]

17. Just declare victory and go home. Sources are flawed, so here are my sources to show

sources are flawed. Link vs Link.

There is no rationale to continuing this discourse. Circle after circle, snake choking on it's tail.

There is no proof of anything, no real data, no rational basis to make policy.

Good day.

[yagotme]

18. Well, you asked for sources that showed people lie to pollsters. Rather vehemently, too.

I provided same. One from Pew. Guess the pollster is lying about lying to pollsters. You got what you asked for, then complained that my sources aren't good enough. Sounds like I'm not the one declaring victory, then leaving. A good evening to you.

[AndyS]

19. That's not the complaint, the issue is the moving goal posts. nt

[yagotme]

20. Your OP asked for credible data from sources.

I submitted data from IL which shows an actual growth of new owners. I stated that polls can't be trusted completely, and provided different sources that agreed with that premise, including Pew Research. Now, I have moved some goal post to another location. I'm guessing that all my responses to you will always be insufficient and lacking.

[AndyS]

21. I'm guessing that all my responses to you will always be insufficient and lacking. what you said . .

Just as mine have been for you.

You cite a poll to prove that polls aren't reliable. You don't see the disconnect in that? Does your poll show that ALL other polls are inaccurate and skewed? Of course not.

My cites have covered multiple disparate sources over 50 years or more, all showing a consistent trend which lends credibility.

I've consistently tried to be honest and accurate. I volunteered a change in ownership. I recognize that you have hard numbers from one state--what about the other 49? Can you honestly say that with all the different demographics and regulations that any one state can extrapolate to the nation as a whole?

Changing goal posts? "I have hard data." "Polls aren't accurate." "Here's a poll to prove that polls aren't accurate."

I understand the whole high school debate mentality that surrounds this topic. I was part of that for most of the lase 4 decades. Then gun violence touched me personally. It's not about scoring points anymore. Not for me.

[yagotme]

23. Here's some more data for you to process:

https://www.safehome.org/data/firearms-guns-statistics/?msclkid=6a3e5168b68a11ecb4dc4f74b418b3c9
Over a 19 year period, large increases, percentage wise, of firearms were sold nationwide. From 8% to nearly 400%, Wash D.C. being an outlier, for a couple of reasons. (1,750%)

Yes, I see the disconnect in the poll info. Catch 22. You have to believe the polls are accurate, including the poll that states they aren't. Which is why I said polls CAN be inaccurate. As in, don't bet the whole pot on a poll or two. Or try to change an Amendment to the Constitution.

Again, you asked for some hard data, which I supplied for 1 state. That being insufficient, we went off on a discussion of polls. YOU requested the data, for your research. Am I to go online and do the searching for you? I get the impression that you may have already searched, and didn't like/agree with the info you were finding.

[The Mouth]

22. So many different kinds of gun owners

I have, and like guns. I believe lethal force is potentially justified in the protection of life, liberty, and/or property.

I also know people who should *NOT*, no way, fucking ever, own a gun or have unfettered access to one.

Except for a couple with fast-access biometric locks, everything else of mine is locked away in a safe. I couldn't live with myself if one of my collection was stolen and used in a crime; it's *MY* responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.

All rights come with limitations and responsibilities.

To the OP, I think that no one knows, or can know. More important is doing what we can to prevent nuts from getting guns, while being aware that there are distinct limitations on the burdens you can impose on a person to practice an enumerated constitutional right, be it voting, protesting, practicing their religion, or owning a firearm (as to 'well-regulated', I think we know how SCOTUS is going to interpret that).