From the NRA-ILA . . .
Part of the gun control advocates’ narrative includes the claim that the number of gun owners are a relatively small minority in the United States. The obvious goal of this messaging campaign is to convince policymakers that they need not consider the rights or the democratic will of this supposedly diminishing portion of the population. A new study has revealed that survey data purporting to show the number of gun owners in the U.S. is of dubious value and is likely a severe undercount.
The study is titled, “Predicting potential underreporting of firearm ownership in a nationally representative sample,” and was published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. According to the authors, the study “utilized demographic and intrapersonal variables to identify individuals who may have falsely denied firearm ownership and determined if individuals can be divided into meaningful subgroups.”
Summarizing the article for Reason magazine, J.D. Tucille explained that the researchers used data gleaned from known gun owners to build profiles of likely gun owners. Then . . .
they then applied the profiles across their sample of 3,500 respondents to estimate who was likely fibbing about not owning guns. The results depend on the probability threshold applied, but they came up with 1,206 confirmed owners, between 1,243 and 2,059 non-owners, and between 220 and 1,036 potential but secretive owners lying about their status.
These findings suggest that there could be between 18 to 86 percent more gun owners than is typically reported. The high end of the estimate would suggest an over 60 percent gun ownership rate.
The researchers acknowledged, “[t]he implications of false denials of firearms ownership are substantial,” adding, “such practices would result in an underestimation of firearms ownership rates and diminish our capacity to test the association between firearm access and various firearm violence-related outcomes. Furthermore, such practices would skew our understanding of the demographics of firearm ownership.”
These findings will strike many gun owners as obvious.
A significant portion of gun owners jealously guard their privacy, and for good reason. Gun control advocates often demonize law-abiding gun owners and make clear their intent to confiscate firearms. Some anti-gun extremists have tried to publicly expose gun owners for exercising a Constitutional right. Gun rights supporters have worked for decades to prevent the federal and state governments from recording gun ownership data.
Economist John Lott contends that many Americans refuse to answer or do not answer truthfully when asked about whether they own a firearm. In a piece for Fox News, Lott noted “current events influence people’s willingness to acknowledge gun ownership. After mass shootings, a sudden drop can be seen in the polling numbers.”
Wake Forest Professor of Sociology David Yamane shares Lott’s belief that inaccurate polling systematically underestimates gun ownership. In a 2019 piece titled “Why Surveys Underestimate Gun Ownership Rates in the U.S.,” Yamane laid out the case for systematic underreporting and provided a bevy of reasons why gun owners would be reluctant to be truthful with pollsters. The professor noted, “My educated guess is that the underestimate is at least 10%, that 25% would not be an unreasonable amount, and more than 25% is likely.”
In part, Yamane cited the work of another academic, Iowa State Political Science Professor Robert Urbatsch. In a study published in the June 2019 Social Science Journal titled “Gun-shy: Refusal to answer questions about firearm ownership,” Urbatsch explored the unwillingness of Americans to answer survey questions about firearms ownership. The abstract explained,
In recent years, surveys in the United States have faced increasing refusal to answer questions about firearm ownership, even as other similar questions see no comparable up-tick in item nonresponse. Asymmetrical polarization, elite messaging, and changing media institutions all suggest that the surging nonresponse concerning gun-ownership questions may be increasingly concentrated among those with rightward political and partisan leanings, potentially skewing inferences about gun-related issues. Data from the General Social Survey confirms that the increase in probability of declining to answer firearm-ownership questions is particularly stark among those identifying as Republicans, particularly those with a conservative outlook skeptical of government.
Moreover, in 2015, Zogby Analytics conducted a poll that attempted to gauge if gun ownership is underestimated by surveys. Zogby asked respondents “If a national pollster asked you if you owned a firearm, would you determine to tell him or her the truth or would you feel it was none of their business?” The polling firm found “36% of Americans feel it is none of the pollster’s business and that includes 35% of current gun owners 47% of Republicans and 42% of Independents.”
Even some of the more basic polling doesn’t support the diminishing gun owners narrative. Since 1959, Gallup has periodically asked Americans, “Do you have a gun in your home?” The number fluctuates a bit, but has typically been about just under half of households.
For instance, in 1972, 43 percent of respondents answered that they did have a gun in the home. In 2022, 45 percent affirmed that they had a gun in the home. Adding credence to the theory that political factors may curtail acknowledgement of gun ownership, the lowest number for Gallup’s long-running poll was recorded one week after the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.
Another piece of data to consider is that the proportion of single-person households has increased at the same time Gallup’s “Do you have a gun in your home?” number has remained roughly constant. According to U.S. Census data, in 1970 17.6 percent of households were one-person. In 2020, that number was 27.6 percent.
Will this new study, added to the mountain of other evidence, convince gun control advocates to abandon their disingenuous arguments about gun ownership rates? Given their track record of promoting bogus survey results over the best available data, don’t hold your breath.
This article originally appeared at nra-ila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Sounds like with all their studies and math, all they arrived at was an EWAG ( educated wild ass guess ).
Drop the E from EWAG and have a better definition.
Remember and educated idiot is still…………………………….an Idiot.
The E just involved a higher estimated percentage if said education was objective and useful, if not well………yeah no disagreement to be found.
Mr Schrade, Well said.
gadsdenfag.. Is a credit card Rambo like you voting for DJT? Or are you going to continue to be a batch for the oldshtforbrainsgeoff whose rhetoric was definitely instrumental in putting biden where he should have never been? Answer the question.
More raw hatred from the ugly personality of deb-the-dunce.
Seriously, aren’t you tired yet? Anyone SANE would be by now.
Why don’t you threaten me again? The prosecutors will love to stack on the charges… 😉
“Answer the question.”
And how DARE YOU demand he respond to you, Fascist.
That’s what Fascists do, make demands of others.
He’s a free American who doesn’t goose-step to your Fascist demands…
(I seriously feel sorry for whoever has to live with someone like you, constantly snapping out orders that must be obeyed… 🙁 )
oldshtheadheadgeoff…Is gadsdenfag another alias? If not then get your democRat lint licking lips off his behind long enough for him to answer the question…you did a pisspoor job answering for him…you pervert.
Debbie, please stop with the hate. Nobody wants to read this. Thank you.
oldshtheadbigheadgeoff…The evidence of making any all threats is found in your own words and displayed insanity. Now if I took the bait and called gadsdenfag to threaten him that would be interstate…You see a-hole my brother in law is a former elected prosecuting attorney and I did not just fall off a turnip truck. And yes if you ever raised a hand to harm me I will cut both of your hands off you pervert. Take that to your prosecutor.
kevin…Grow a pair little man and talk to the pervert oldshthead….that is if you are not another one of oldshthead’s concocted monikers…Don’t recall seeing a kevin but I do recall the oldsht blaming me for what he is guilty of…typical marxist democRat lint licker tactic.
i’ll wager it weighs the same as a duckbot.
“…my brother in law is a former elected prosecuting attorney …”
*Chortle*. 😉
Got you name-dropping now? Look at you, hissing and spitting like an angered cat!
It is so much fun *laughing* at your pathetic rage! 😉
oldshthead…Rage? Trying to save yourself by blaming me for what you are guilty of which is clearly displayed daily in your ever changing monikers is not working, the evidence is against you.
I will never cease defending myself from the same gutless slander you used against DJT and his voters. I have a mailing list and could call in the calvary to tear you apart but that would put me on the same level as your concocted supporting personas…You are a pervert and I come after child molesters and perverts like you who imagine themselves beating women and children and then sneak through a backdoor to display it. Keep talking pervert.
Skank
“I have a mailing list and could call in the calvary to tear you apart”
Sounds like a threat, I’ll take you up on that.
Bring it on. I dare you, you are all talk and no action. I live in Omaha, let me know when your ‘calvary’ are in town and I will gladly meet them/you in person.
Put up or shut up.
CATO, the Dank, do yourself a favor. Shut UP! Attacking a woman? What is the matter with you, other than the obvious?
Be gone vile harridan
Walter
Woman? Here’s a quote from your woman.
“I would not pee down your throat if your guts were on fire…”
Does that sound like a woman? She said that to Geoff, Geoff and I have had our differences but poor Geoff, no one deserves that.
Can you imagine the folds of ass-fat smothering poor Geoff as she tries to squat over him, trying not to topple over and only being able to stabilize her fat ass and keep her balance with the help of a John Deere fork lift?
For fucks sake Walter, think of poor poor Geoff.
CATO, she is more of a woman, than you are a man. And that is not saying much for her. She has pretty much voiced my sentiments with people like you.
You have the “intestinal fortitude” to bicker about her when you need a bar of soap in your own mouth.
Walter, Walter, Walter
You poor pathetic dunce. I’m sure Skank is MUCH more woman than I am a man. I weight 180 wet and don’t need a John Deere fork lift to hold my fat ass up.
I’m glad she speaks for you. You are a dumb ass that doesn’t know the correct usage of ‘intestinal fortitude’
.
Cato, Cato, Cato, One one hand you bemoan Debbie’s language then then in your own inimitable style engage is language justd as bad or word. Speaking of pathetic dunces, you are one hypocritical pathetic dunce.
You are a sorry excuse for a “man” if there ever was one.
Like I said, your intestinal fortitude is somewhat lacking at best. I speak for myself, little fella. No you don’t need a John Deere to lift your sorry posterior, more like you need to be carted away in a honey wagon.
Walturd
I never bemoaned Skank’s language, I mentioned it’s not the language of a woman.
“you bemoan Debbie’s language **then then** in your own inimitable style engage is language **justd** as bad or **word**.”
You are quite the wordsmith.
And maybe Debbie will find the intestinal fortitude to respond herself.
CATO, VATO, CATO, you are a liar. And a poor one at that.
In your own words: ” Woman? Here’s a quote from your woman.
“I would not pee down your throat if your guts were on fire…”
Does that sound like a woman? She said that to Geoff, Geoff and I have had our differences but poor Geoff, no one deserves that.”
And then: “I’m sure Skank is MUCH more woman than I am a man. I weight 180 wet and don’t need a John Deere fork lift to hold my fat ass up” Now what do you call that?
You bring pathetic a whole band new meaning.
Walturd needs to buy a dictionary
Bemoan means to be sad or complain about something.
I’m not sad Skank is a fat mean bitch and I’m not complaining that you are too stupid to know the difference between it/her and a woman.
I merely quoted her/it to point out your dumbfuckery.
You should bemoan the fact that you are a retard.
Poor Cato. He is need of a frontal lobotomy. Does any one know a good surgeon?
Someone need to teach you the meaning of a gentleman. As you certainly are not one. And yeah, you are moaning and groaning like a 2 yr old. Same old shit, different day.
I was wrong when I said you were pathetic, You are worse than that and I don’t think they have invented a word that would cover that.
Now, be a good little tyke and go back to your playpen.
Always has been.
“Sounds like with all their studies and math, all they arrived at was an EWAG ( educated wild ass guess ).”
Follow the science: only results arrived at through a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guss), can be relied upon.
Sam- what are you doing??? Actually getting back to the topic at hand rather than participate in a totally unrelated and utterly meaningless childish cat fight???
How dare you!!!
“Sam- what are you doing??? Actually getting back to the topic at hand rather than participate in a totally unrelated and utterly meaningless childish cat fight??? How dare you!!!”
I do what I can to entertain.
The “Educated” is the problem part. More to the point, they are over-educated and so have a driving need to over-complicate the issue to make their peers and the rubes think they are smarter than they are. And then they still have to guess at the answer. Between 18% and 86%? That’s your answer? I could throw a dart at a poster and get more accuracy than that.
What they are missing is so simple that it is obvious why they cannot see it: If the survey asks if they own one or more guns and they answer “Yes” then they are a gun owner in high probability. If they answer “None of your fucking business” then they are in even higher probability an owner of several guns. And a Gadsden flag.
The problem with such surveys in our current social climate is that gun owners, for good reason, see such inquiries as the equivalent of “Do you still beat your wife?”
Well, duh.
Guns/ What guns?
I’ve suspected the same for at least 30 years by now.
The Leftist Scum ™ fear ostracisation from their little fascist buddies more than anything, so they keep their gun ownership well on the down-low…
oldshthead…I hate to rain on your parade to make yourself look like someone you are not…but After you slandered DJT and his voters like a lowlife marxist ccn host it makes you the leftist scum you claim to disdain…Cease with the charade pervert.
Whut are these gunz you speak of?!?🙄🤪🤓
Egg-zactly, my body-building friend… 🙂
oldshthead…Noting his “body” followed by a smiley face indicates you want to go beyond friend…You are a pervert in neon lights.
Right here in sunny CA everybody I know owns a gun. That includes people at Berkeley.
did you ever see bot partridges welfare rolls royce? pre- war chassis/ drivetrain, homemade plywood body.
Can’t say as I have. But I have seen quite a few Rolls. One of my jobs after I retired was as a driver at an auto auction. Lots of fun.
CA is the home of the classic cars. The weather is easy on them here.
300 maybe 400 million guns out there seems to belie the results of that poll…
“300 maybe 400 million guns out there seems to belie the results of that poll…”
This is where “data” can lead us off a cliff: determining the number of new gun owners, vs. those adding firearms to an existing “arsenal”, “cache”, “stockpile”, “collection”, “amory”, “depot”, “warehouse”, “dump”,or private sales not requiring FFL.
And there is also the matter of FUDDs vs. 2A defenders.
I’ve heard numbers well north of 600 million.
And guns are very durable objects. 50-100 years is nothing to a firearm if kept in the right environment.
So, if these idiots want to treat gun owners as a diminishing minority, then why aren’t gun owners a protected class, such as religious or sexual minorities? Oh, yeah, gun owners are the one minority class that the anti-2A crowd wants eliminated. I guess that the media is just figuring out that telephone calls from strangers, who work for anti-2A universities, with suspect ties to the democrat party, aren’t going to get an honest answer.
I actually had college classes about polling, so out of courtesy I simply hang up on all pollsters and therefore don’t influence their sampling and at the same time don’t lie!
“I simply hang up on all pollsters”
Years ago, I installed a security block on my house phone; almost negligible contact from pollsters and telemarketers. Before that, regardless of source of survey calls, I would answer: “Why are you calling me?” No matter the reply, I would say, “Do I owe you money?” When the caller would declare they were not calling about a debt, I would state, “Great! I am so tired of constantly getting calls from bill collectors.” Generally (almost exclusively) the phone call ended, right there.
Sound like ridiculousness to me.
Governor DeSantis SUSPENDS State Attorney Monique Worrell for Neglect of Duty and Incompetence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2R_NEU0qLk
Geoff, please leave Debbie W. alone. After my last exchange with her I thought about her. For about ten seconds. I decided life is too short. Anyone who uses school yard insults is not worth debating with. If I thought that way I’d say the W stands for whore. Except, we all know that’s not true. A man would have to lay down with her first. I suspect she frequents this site because it’s the most attention she’s ever gotten from men. In any case, if anyone other than she is interested, I’ve voted Republican in every election since Reagan. It was absentee as I was stationed at Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, GA at the time. I missed mail call that day as I was busy on Taylor Creek Drop Zone, but it was on my bunk when I got back to the barracks. It went out the next day. Tommorw I’m driving to Bell, FL to buy another SIG P-226 MK 25 Navy. It’s a private sale. Since I doubt the man has a credit card reader in the crack of his ass I guess I’ll have to give him eleven $100 bills. Debbie strikes me as bitter. Not much you can do with that.
gadsdenfag…In your case the W stands for Whipazz. Spare me your bio, qualifiers, phone number and what mike the business friend is up to, etc.
You are a Credit Card gun owner. That means a dumbazz who waves around $4000 asking others for a certain 1911 purchases their firearms ready made in a box. That indicates they lack the knowledge, skill and drive to assemble a good as or better 1911 themselves. And next it’s blowbags who did not know what a Glock Trigger Plug was and proceed to berate instructions on how to make one spells Gun Dumbazz.
Any idiot can vote Republican and evidence of that are wimpy RINOs. In other words you did not say you will be voting DJT in 24 and that said all I need to know.
Huh. I don’t have a credit card reader built into my ass.
I won’t (and didn’t) accept anything but cash when I sell a firearm.
And since my interest was a WWII-era Colt 1911A1 like my father and uncle used during their service, I couldn’t care less about building one.
I remember.
I’ve been polled twice in my life. Once by phone and once after voting. Both times the question was prompted for one of a set of answers. Completely useless for gathering worthwhile data.
No nuance, detail, clarification, follow up or anything that would value. Polling has to be one of the most useless billion-dollar enterprises there is.Well, I shouldn’t say useless. It’s great for nudging the groupthink around and encouraging self-censorship.
I have an idea. This article is about polling. Let’s conduct an unofficial one ourselves. Who wants Debbie to continue to post comments? Yea or Nay? Those that want her to continue to post so they can continue to laugh at her don’t count. I’m afraid I fall into the last group.
Its America, she can post if she wants to
You can always scroll past it if you dont want to read it
AQ, you are correct. I never said she couldn’t. What I asked is how many care. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a positive response to one of her comments.
I definitely see your point Gadsden. Not alot of positive, seems mad at the world sometimes. For some reason i think she tries to show that she’s tough, maybe raised with all brothers.
Related: Election polling: Spam calls, mistrust make it harder to predict how people will vote
“Spam callers, an overworked populace and distrust in polling institutions like universities and mainstream media organizations have created greater hurdles in the pursuit of data that reliably reflect public opinion.
“To collect the standard 1,000 responses, pollsters often make 20,000 calls or more. Even then, there are some demographics that are more likely to respond than others.” — https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2023/08/08/election-polling-limitations-trump-biden/7511691503298/
I would support the concept that not only are there more gun owners but more guns than anyone can possibly estimate accurately. For example, I live in a state that I moved to in 2006 and at the time there were no regulations whatsoever on a private transfer from one owner to the other. When as a young boy my father had two hunting rifles which I inherited at the time of his death. Then there are within the immediate family transfers which are still legal in many states not requiring a background check providing the person is legally able to possess a firearm. Since there is no universal firearm registration in this Country and we know there also is a supply of illegal firearms in the hands of many criminals it would be an impossibility to have a real handle on how many people have them and how many are out there. I would say it is probably in that 60 to 66% range in ownership and well over one gun per man, woman and child in this Country. In the past 4 years we have increased the number of firearms by 48 million and we know many buyers during that time are first timers and women. This is why it is laughable at trying to collect firearms because people did not buy them to give them to the Government. They bought them because of the policies of the Government and increased violence, the Bruen decision and to protect themselves from the current bunch of lunatics running our Country at present.
This is what’s funny to me. She calls me a fag. I’m not and I’ve been called worse. Most of the African Americans I’ve arrested called me a “white mutherfuckn’ cracker” (How’s that for rasist?”) As I drove them to jail I would thank them for recognizing my heritage. That confused them. I would then explain the true definition of a Florida Cracker. After all, I had a captive audience. That usually let the wind out of their sails. I never used a racial slur. No matter what, Once I made contact it was always sir. My Great-grandfather was Cuban. Immigrated here to work the tobacco/cigar trade. Landed in the port of Appalachicola. I think that makes me 1/16 Hispanic. Now if Debbie doubts my bonifides she can call 850-627-9233. She can ask to speak to Sheriff Morris Young. She can ask about Paul. That’s all she needs to say. The Sheriff will know exactly who she means. I look over his mother when she’s fishing at the farm. While she’s at it she should ask about my experience with firearms.
Just her guys. The Sheriff will become annoyed if he gets too many calls.
Now Debbie, if you intend to call him give me a heads up. I’ll shoot him a text on his private cell so he can anticipate it. You’re not getting that #. Sorry. if not, it’s unlikely he will take your call.
To Deb I say don’t go away mad just go away OR stop acting like a 4 year old and try to contribute something useful or at least interesting.
New Studies Reveal Huge Gun Ownership Stats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZqFwh99PQ4
Its probably closer to ~70%.
You need to qualify the term ‘ownership’.
The definition of ‘ownership’ is: the act, state, or right of possessing something:
Not everyone purchases from a gun store or actually purchases. For example, a lot of women borrow a gun or are gifted a gun so being in possession of that gun would be ‘ownership’.
About 11 months ago I commented about analysis of data gathered annually by my wife and her associates for a contract for the governments NIH and a few different research org’s. Information gathered from all 50 states and research surveys by various government and private entities. It included outright purchase (e.g. via an FFL and 4473) ownership, and ownership in terms of ‘permanent’ possession (e.g. ‘borrowing’ or gifted), and ownership in terms of private person-person sales/buys, and ownership in terms of self-made. Then, it was closer to ~65% but gun ownership has increased since then so its probably closer to ~70% by now.
What do numbers have to do with anything?
LGBTQ are a tiny minority and look how we bend over backwards for that minuscule percentage…but just fine to be hateful and bigoted to gun owners and white people.
What a country…right?
Don’t get me wrong…everyone deserves respect…and that includes gun owners and white people, too…along with everyone else.
ALL lives matter.
Well…mostly… lol
Gun-haters have to be among the stupidest “smart people” out there….
This has the ring of a “study” with .GOV money paid under the table. “Come up with an algorithm to help us detect when those deplorables lie to us.”
How many gun owners inherited unregistered, unknown firearms? Granddads Winchester, Uncle Bill’s 1911, Aunt Ruth’s 38? All purchased privately or before FFL’s and government forms were required. How many were manufactured in the late BP era? Colts, Winchesters, Early Mausers. With a little care to not over pressure or over load, many firearms from the late 1800’s are just as functional as they were a century ago and are considered as relics and antiques instead of modern firearms. That 44-40 Winchester lever gun still shoots well.
Next is how many people own a couple firearms but refuse to respond to questions about them? I have friends and family who quietly buy a few boxes of ammo from whatever shop/store and pay cash. Bought their firearms privately and legally, but the weapons have been off the record for several trades and owners. Should anyone like some random pollster call or accost them in a public venue, they will either politely refuse to answer questions or give BS answers. They’ll tell a DR. or official what they may or may not own is none of their business.
Last thing, a couple posters on here are something between ridiculous and annoying with the personal insults and political pissing contests. Bad enough we get the usual crap from the resident trolls.
That are functional and ready for use………..I would guess 50 million for the median with up to 100 million possible. Production improvements and increased demand from increasing population is what is driving the expansion of numbers………….not that we didn’t have a lot of guns prior to recordkeeping especially when one considers we had under 100 million people less (barely) than a century ago. So we pretty much always have had a lot of guns per person compared to the rest of the world.
Survey data on this topic is not ever likely to be meaningfully accurate but, there is data we have that can be pretty instructive. As TTAG recently reported, we have seen 48 consecutive months with over 1 million NICS checks for gun purchases. Given that most of those checks are part of a gun sale and given that some could be for multiples and some people buying a gun don’t require a check in some states we can then, reasonably, conclude that over the past 4 years we have seen around 48 million guns sold. Some are new, some are used etc. etc. but we still have reasonable industry data that can lead us to conclude that, over the past decade, somewhere on the order of 100 million guns have entered the ecosystem.
A decade ago, the most widely used estimates of privately held guns in the U.S. was around 300 million (I understand that this estimate was partially derived using survey data and that such data is exactly what I am saying is unreliable in part but, I also think it likely skews low so, I think that 300 million is a decent lower bound to use for 10 years ago.) We also were being told, a decade ago, that those 300 million guns were held by about 45% of the households (of approximately 2.5 people each). So, ten years ago, 330,000,000 (I know the population has changed a bit in the last ten years but, not a whole lot so I’m just gonna use 330 mil) people living in 132,000,000 households (330×10^6/2.5) owned 300 million guns. Of those 132,000,000 households, we’ve been told that 45% own all the guns so, 132×0.45=59.4. So, 59,400,000 households with guns ten years ago. (about 330/59.4=5.56 guns per gun owning household – passes the sniff test I think.)
If, over the past decade, 100 million more guns have been made and purchased, how many went to households that were not previously gun-owning? Well, that is the big question, isn’t it. Well, it’s not zero percent because we’ve heard a lot of reports about how many new owners gun sellers are selling to and we know that some percentage of the population that bought some of those guns came of age during that decade so, let’s make a guess and see where it leads. If 10% of the guns sold in the last decade were sold to first time household then that would mean 10 million new owner households in the last decade. If that were the case, then the 59.4 million gun households would have grown to 69.4 million. 69.4 million divided by 132 million is 52.6%. 400 million guns divided by 69.4 million is 5.76 guns per gun owning household which is real close to the 5.56 sniff test above. As such, I’d say that is a pretty good guess.
Plenty of sensitivity analysis could be performed including the initial stock of 300 million, the initial percentage of 45%, and, naturally, the percentage of guns sold to new owners over the last decade. If that is less than 10% but greater than 0% then the “new” percentage is between 45% and 52.6%. If it is greater than 10% then the new percentage is over 52.6%. To reach the 60% mentioned in the OP would mean that (0.6×132=79.2) 79.2 million households would have a gun which would be an increase of 79.2-59.4=19.8 million gun owning households which could have happened if just under 20% of gun buyers in the last decade were first timers. That strikes me as within the realm of possibility especially given that 80/20 type ratios are very common in consumer behaviors across a wide swath of arenas.
All that said, without relying on surveys, except insofar as some historical data might be concerned, and principally relying on observed industry data, I’d hazard to say that currently there are over 50% of U.S. households that contain at least one gun and that the percentage is rising.
Cold water incoming…..
Of the known gun owners purchasing even one firearm, we can conclude very little. Sales of guns over the last 5yrs have been mounting, yet….we know zero about the people who purchased those guns. Are they all POTG? 2A supporters? People preparing themselves for TEOTWAWKI, or people gearing up to attend Lou’s Boogie? How many are hard leftists who are buying guns in order to protect themselves from gunowners represented by that “basket of deplorables”? And on and on.
While the anti-American segment of America might try to demonstrate the the utility of the Second Amendment is negligible, and thus of no serious need, we get ourselves also bogged down in discussions about the utility of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment remains valid, if only one gun owner existed.
Arguments about utility, and low numbers of gun owners, are designed to overcome Bruen (and Justice Thomas), serving as foundation for repeal of 2A, and stacking the courts in favor of eliminating the threat to govt overreach and tyranny.
Oh, I agree, we know nothing much about the new, old and other owners, I’m just talking about numbers and how I think sales data is more useful than survey data for understanding those numbers. What are the implications about the attitudes and politics of the people buying the guns? Who knows?
The attempt to paint the number of gun owners as low as a means to and end is taken as stated. On balance, countering that narrative with sound data may or may not move the needle – I’m just a hard science guy over a social science guy.
“I’m just a hard science guy over a social science guy.”
I can understand the implications if one is crafting a riposte to the attempt to overcome 2A based on its utility as represented by ownership numbers. My thought is there are two audiences for the ripose: gun grabbers, and POTG. The gun grabbers will never concede that their surveys and estimates are fatally flawed. POTG should understand that counter-numbers are actually no more valid for us.
For both audiences, estimates piled on estimates do not actually result in a more accurate estimate.
@ Sam,
Again, agreed. Just pointing out that there are ways other than extrapolated surveys to catch data that may, or may not, be useful.
As for the audience: Clearly the POTG are right and the gun grabbers are wrong. 😉
Oops, spotted an error. I divided 330 by 59.4 and should have divided 300/59.4. Change is 5.56 guns per household to 5.05 guns per household. Most of the discussion is unchanged though. (at 79.2 million households, 400 million would also be 5.05 per house.)
@MyName
“As for the audience: Clearly the POTG are right and the gun grabbers are wrong.”
Thinking….if numbers are bogus for gun grabbers, can those same bogus numbers logically support POTG?
Can any set of data really be reliable, without intense scrutiny as to data source, and data set selection?
For instance, all the “science” surrounding global warming/cooling tells us that unless we return to the stone age, the global temperature change will be +/- a number that is within the “margin” of error”. As for gun sales, POTG like to assume stats mean a rapidly growing number of new POTG are are being created.
Yeah, that was a joke – thus the winky face.
“Yeah, that was a joke – thus the winky face.”
Roger, that.
All I can say is this place has sure become infected with trolls and misinformation bots. It’s getting to the point that I rarely read the comments anymore.
“All I can say is this place has sure become infected with trolls and misinformation bots. It’s getting to the point that I rarely read the comments anymore.”
Politics is everything, everything is politics.
Comments are closed.