47% of households own gun

[Zebo]

I'm surprised it's that low. Everyone I know has them and there are 350,000,000 of them with only around 100,000,000 households. Every household has 3.5 using simple division. Some a little more, some a little less in reality.

 

[HeXen]

47% gun ownership means nothing if a higher percentage of home burglars do not get shot.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm surprised it's that low. Everyone I know has them and there are 350,000,000 of them with only around 100,000,000 households. Every household has 3.5 using simple division. Some a little more, some a little less in reality.

Like Rainsford said before, it's probably pockets. I don't know a single person who owns a gun.

 

[Rainsford]

Common sense? There's almost 300 million guns in this country. Someone has to own them.

True, but I wonder what percentage of gun owners only own one gun. There are a lot of anecdotal stories (even in this thread) that suggest gun owners collect guns as a hobby beyond the level necessary for just personal defense. 300 million is a lot of guns, but it's not that many owners if ever gun owner has 12 guns 😉

 

[Rainsford]

47% gun ownership means nothing if a higher percentage of home burglars do not get shot.

Unless you guns are sentient, I don't think it would matter if gun ownership was 100%. Most home robberies take place when nobody is home. It's a lot easier to rob a house that way, whether or not the occupant has a gun.

 

[spidey07]

True, but I wonder what percentage of gun owners only own one gun. There are a lot of anecdotal stories (even in this thread) that suggest gun owners collect guns as a hobby beyond the level necessary for just personal defense. 300 million is a lot of guns, but it's not that many owners if ever gun owner has 12 guns 😉

I guess people are still ignoring the article that states first time owners are increasing every year.

Do the math, if first time purchasers are increasing every year the end result would be a larger percentage of homes having a firearm.

41% a year ago to 47% today. That is very significant.

 

[IGemini]

Like Rainsford said before, it's probably pockets.

Yup. Even here in NY, a bastion of anti-gun laws, I know a guy who could single-handedly outfit a small militia, no joke. You have those who will not own guns at all, those who have one or two for personal protection, then small-time collectors, and virtual armories.

 

[Zebo]

A dog is best protection against home invasion/robbery as thieves will hit another target. We have 2 labs and a German Shepherd and they hear a someone from 1/4 of a mile away and raise all sorts of hell. I don't lock the house and leave keys in ignition. But I do that even at stores so..

 

[Jhhnn]

There is NOTHING concrete until after it happens. Not in any field or issue. Certainly the new reporting requirements were made to happen, but it's impossible to know if that was planned before the shoe fell, or a compromise because of it, or what. It's similarly impossible to know if it could have been made to happen without the focus on the Mexican issue, or rather it's a single event or the first of many to come.

Regardless of specifics it definitely highlights a general long term pattern of intent which reinforces the need to keep an eye on things, and promote education on the issues to prevent public opinion and interest falling off and allowing more or worse acts.

In other words, your projection of specific intent to enact unpopular measures is unsupported, but you're absolutely sure that was what was happening, and the intent of F&F all along...

Basically, you subscribe to conspiracy theory w/o actually coming out & saying so...

Which is not to deny the presence of anti-gun forces, at all, merely to point out that they're not nearly what enthusiasts claim they are. They were a lot stronger back when the Brady bill became law, and Dem politicians were put into a bind, needed to give 'em something, so we got the AWB, which was about as pointless & ineffectual as a law can get. If that's what enthusiasts are afraid of, then they're afraid of their own shadows & the boogeyman, too. We'll never even go back to that, provided enthusiasts can take care of their own, prevent their own more extreme members from voting from the rooftops, seeking second amendment solutions, watering the tree of liberty, acting on the kind of fantasies that endanger the system of democracy.

 

[HeXen]

Unless you guns are sentient, I don't think it would matter if gun ownership was 100%. Most home robberies take place when nobody is home. It's a lot easier to rob a house that way, whether or not the occupant has a gun.

ironically funny isnt it. gun owners buy a gun to protect the home yet still get burglarized. kinda defeats the purpose, especially the odds of your own guns being stolen then used to hurt or threaten someone else.

 

[Rainsford]

I guess people are still ignoring the article that states first time owners are increasing every year.

Do the math, if first time purchasers are increasing every year the end result would be a larger percentage of homes having a firearm.

41% a year ago to 47% today. That is very significant.

I'm not sure the math allows long term extrapolation too far into the future. A one year jump is not a trend.

In any case, what I said had nothing to do with "first time" owners...I was just saying that the incredibly huge number of guns doesn't necessarily suggest widespread ownership if most gun owners own several guns. The first time gun buyers could have bought 50 guns each for all we know...

 

[PrinceofWands]

In other words, your projection of specific intent to enact unpopular measures is unsupported, but you're absolutely sure that was what was happening, and the intent of F&F all along...

It's not 'supported', it's outright declared in the emails. Black and white, straight english, it says they're going to use it to get control measures passed. Period. No interpretation, straight text. You need to read them. They openly declare it.

 

[BladeVenom]

I don't know a single person who owns a gun.

You live in New York City. It's not very representative of the normal populace. People in NY probably deny owning a gun, because of the strict laws, or they are afraid it will get stolen.

Almost everyone I know owns a firearm.

 

[Rainsford]

ironically funny isnt it. gun owners buy a gun to protect the home yet still get burglarized. kinda defeats the purpose, especially the odds of your own guns being stolen then used to hurt or threaten someone else.

I'm not sure it's funny, exactly, but it does strike me as a bit odd. The concept of owning and carrying a gun for home and personal defense seems to focus an extreme amount of thought towards one particular kind of relatively rare threat, often seeming to ignore other more likely problems. Obviously it's hard to say for certain, and I'm making some assumptions here, but I wonder what percentage of gun owners take other precautions when it comes to things like burglary or vehicle theft?

In other words, when it comes to bad situations I'd like to prepare for, ones where it seems likely a gun would help are pretty far down on my personal list, to the point where I feel little need to have and/or carry a gun. I get the impression this is not the case with gun owners, but I could of course be wrong.

 

[Rainsford]

You live in New York City. It's not very representative of the normal populace. People in NY probably deny owning a gun, because of the strict laws, or they are afraid it will get stolen.

Almost everyone I know owns a firearm.

No offense, but what makes you think where you live is any more representative of "the normal populace" than NYC?

 

[fskimospy]

You live in New York City. It's not very representative of the normal populace. People in NY probably deny owning a gun, because of the strict laws, or they are afraid it will get stolen.

Almost everyone I know owns a firearm.

Afraid it will get stolen? You do realize that NYC has a considerably lower than average crime rate, right?

I have also lived in Chicago, Virginia, Philadelphia, and San Diego. While in San Diego I was in the military, and still basically no one I associated with owned guns. Are all those places not 'normal people' either?

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm not sure it's funny, exactly, but it does strike me as a bit odd. The concept of owning and carrying a gun for home and personal defense seems to focus an extreme amount of thought towards one particular kind of relatively rare threat, often seeming to ignore other more likely problems. Obviously it's hard to say for certain, and I'm making some assumptions here, but I wonder what percentage of gun owners take other precautions when it comes to things like burglary or vehicle theft?

In other words, when it comes to bad situations I'd like to prepare for, ones where it seems likely a gun would help are pretty far down on my personal list, to the point where I feel little need to have and/or carry a gun. I get the impression this is not the case with gun owners, but I could of course be wrong.

Most people do (gun owner or otherwise). Insurances, locks, security systems, smoke detectors, etc. People have them if they're safety conscious, and don't if they're not.

As for likelihood of need, the odds (overall) are 1.7% annually to be the victim of a violent crime and 12.7% annually to be the victim of a non-violent crime. By way of comparison there's roughly .34% annual chance of your home catching fire. In other words, you're five times more likely to be the victim of violence in a year as you are to have a home fire. Now ask yourself, if someone would prepare against the home fire, why not violent crime?

 

[HeXen]

I'm not sure it's funny, exactly, but it does strike me as a bit odd. The concept of owning and carrying a gun for home and personal defense seems to focus an extreme amount of thought towards one particular kind of relatively rare threat, often seeming to ignore other more likely problems. Obviously it's hard to say for certain, and I'm making some assumptions here, but I wonder what percentage of gun owners take other precautions when it comes to things like burglary or vehicle theft?

In other words, when it comes to bad situations I'd like to prepare for, ones where it seems likely a gun would help are pretty far down on my personal list, to the point where I feel little need to have and/or carry a gun. I get the impression this is not the case with gun owners, but I could of course be wrong.

not only that, but there are cases where the owner does shoot and hits them in the back or after they exit and get into serious trouble. The most unlikely event being that its used to save your family and you don't get into trouble using it. it can happen but so can being attacked by a shark.
I saw at least one incident in the paper where a home invasion happened and the owner did not make it to his gun rack in time, sadly, though i think it was over drugs anyway.

 

[spidey07]

not only that, but there are cases where the owner does shoot and hits them in the back or after they exit and get into serious trouble. The most unlikely event being that its used to save your family and you don't get into trouble using it. it can happen but so can being attacked by a shark.
I saw at least one incident in the paper where a home invasion happened and the owner did not make it to his gun rack in time, sadly, though i think it was over drugs anyway.

It's pretty frequentl here in KY to hear on the news "A man broke into a home and was shot and killed by the home owner. No charges are expected to be filed". The laws in most states are on the side of the home owner being able to kill anybody who enters his home illegally, self defense is not needed and shooting them in the back is perfectly fine.

 

[irishScott]

ironically funny isnt it. gun owners buy a gun to protect the home yet still get burglarized. kinda defeats the purpose, especially the odds of your own guns being stolen then used to hurt or threaten someone else.

Given my gun safe where all my guns are stored when I'm away, the odds of my guns being stolen by anyone short of John Dillinger back from the dead is all but nil.

 

[classy]

No, it isn't. Not once you pass the needed level of sampling, which is roughly 1,000 people as long as it's well done. You need to take some statistics courses.

Please provide evidence that the Gallup poll was 'open polled'. Meanwhile, please provide evidence that the study you linked wasn't 'open polled'.

It's all about methodology. Proper methodology and control of the poll, and 1,000 people is all you need. Poor methodology and 1,000,000 is useless and non-representative.

I have taken some statistics classes smartass and the accuracy of this poll for this particular question is flaky at best. It was open polled as well. Here is how the poll was done

Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

All your sampling nonsense is only accurate when its a control enviroment. That is not the case here. They randomly contacted adults in each state. The oddness is they contacted only 600 landlines. So you talking about literally 12 people per state in that way. Then they contacted 400 people via cell phone. For a poll like this that is quite odd. There are a lot of people who have cell phone numbers from one state but live in another.

Maybe this methodlogy is effective for elections, but to try and achieve a some what accurate answer as to gun ownership per home, you need a greater sample of people. To try and determine an accurate assessment per state for a question such as this, you clearly need more than 20 people per state.

 

[classy]

Again I don't question the increase of gun ownership, but I seriously question the level of gun ownership per house.

 

[fskimospy]

I have taken some statistics classes smartass and the accuracy of this poll for this particular question is flaky at best. It was open polled as well. Here is how the poll was done

All your sampling nonsense is only accurate when its a control enviroment. That is not the case here. They randomly contacted adults in each state. The oddness is they contacted only 600 landlines. So you talking about literally 12 people per state in that way. Then they contacted 400 people via cell phone. For a poll like this that is quite odd. There are a lot of people who have cell phone numbers from one state but live in another.

Maybe this methodlogy is effective for elections, but to try and achieve a some what accurate answer as to gun ownership per home, you need a greater sample of people. To try and determine an accurate assessment per state for a question such as this, you clearly need more than 20 people per state.

The poll is fine, nothing you wrote here in any way alters its validity. Did you read it?

The poll was not measuring gun ownership by state, it was measuring it for America as a whole. The closest it gets is a regional breakdown about things like 'the south' for which there are obviously still samples in the hundreds. The regional results might have a higher margin of error, but the margin of error for the poll as a whole is completely fine.

No more people are needed, at all.

 

[classy]

The poll is fine, nothing you wrote here in any way alters its validity. Did you read it?

The poll was not measuring gun ownership by state, it was measuring it for America as a whole. The closest it gets is a regional breakdown about things like 'the south' for which there are obviously still samples in the hundreds. The regional results might have a higher margin of error, but the margin of error for the poll as a whole is completely fine.

No more people are needed, at all.

Well I read it, but did you?

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.


So in other words or layman's terms. You believe twenty people per state is enough of a sample for that state to be included in the final results? I don't think 20 people is enough. And you are in error as well, because while they are not state polls, the sampling is done on a state by state basis. And the results are cumulative.

 

[fskimospy]

Well I read it, but did you?

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

So in other words or layman's terms. You believe twenty people per state is enough of a sample for that state to be included in the final results? I don't think 20 people is enough. And you are in error as well, because while they are not state polls, the sampling is done on a state by state basis. And the results are cumulative.

Yes. Do you understand what that is telling you? The part that you bolded doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. No part of this poll whatsoever is using a sample of 20 people. None.

Where did you get the idea that the sampling is done on a state by state basis? The explanation of their methodology clearly states they are using random digit dialing methods. They took a random sample of 1,000 Americans. If the sample is truly randomly selected (and I see no reason to believe otherwise), then the central limit theorem clearly states that sample is perfectly fine within this margin of error.

This is basic statistical math. There is no increase in sample size necessary. I think you do not understand what the poll is measuring.