Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline the front page of the New York Times proclaims. I’ll leave it to more statistically-minded members of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia to dissect the General Social Survey’s methodology. Suffice it to say, it’s entirely possible that the number of respondents admitting that they have a firearm in their home may be declining—especially over the last year. By the Times’ own admission, “Gallup, which asks a similar question but has a different survey design, shows a higher ownership rate and a more moderate decrease.” Here’s the thing about that . . .
If we head over to gallup.com (the Times somehow forgot to link) we discover that they interviewed three times as many people (6k) and came up with the same number. Only Gallup says . . .
Across those six data sets, an average of 30% of Americans said they personally own a gun. Another 14% did not personally own a gun but live in a household with someone who does.
I don’t know how much overlap exists between the two data sets, but I make that a lot closer to 50 percent that General Social Survey’s 34 percent. And another thing. The Times says . . .
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant.
Wait. That means that the survey reveals a two percent increase in the last three years. Equally interesting, the man behind the General Social Survey points out that there’s only one way to get an accurate picture of American gun ownership:
Tom W. Smith, the director of the General Social Survey . . . acknowledged the rise in background checks, but said it was impossible to tell how many were for new gun owners. The checks are reported as one total that includes, for example, people buying their second or third gun, as well as those renewing concealed carry permits.
“If there was a national registry that recorded all firearm purchases, we’d have a full picture,” he said. “But there’s not, so we’ve got to put together pieces.”
Absent that particular Constitutional abuse, the Times turns to Dr. Daniel Webster director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research for analysis of the [alleged] trend of declining gun ownership.
Somehow the Times forgets to mention that it’s the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Center for Gun Policy and Research [emphasis added]. As in New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire backer of the Mayors Against Gun Ownership Ilegal Guns.
Urbanization also helped drive the decline. Rural areas, where gun ownership is the highest, are now home to about 17 percent of Americans, down from 27 percent in the 1970s. According to the survey, just 23 percent of households in cities owned guns in the 2000s, compared with 56 percent of households in rural areas. That was down from 70 percent of rural households in the 1970s.
So the places where it’s hardest for Americans to exercise their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is the place where gun ownership rates are low. Who’d-a thunk it? Provided we’re talking about legal guns.
The country’s changing demographics may also play a role. While the rate of gun ownership among women has remained relatively constant over the years at about 10 percent, which is less than one-third of the rate among men today, more women are heading households without men, another possible contributor to the decline in household gun ownership. Women living in households where there were guns that were not their own declined to a fifth in 2012 down from a third in 1980.
So there are more households than before, which would dilute the percentage of gun ownership. Got it.
The increase of Hispanics as a share of the American population is also probably having an effect, as they are far less likely to own guns. In the survey results since 2000, about 14 percent of Hispanics reported having a gun in their house.
What are the odds that Hispanics are FAR less likely to report a gun in their home than Anglos?
Anyway, we’ve been saying it since we began: the more Americans who own guns, the safer all of our gun rights will be. The NRA and others should take their cue from Mr. Leghorn and get newbies on the range.
Who in this day and age would admit to owning a gun to a poll, or really anyone they don’t know extremely well?
For more information on the master marksman /end sarc/ see this hilarious takedown
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/03/10/the-new-hope-of-gun-control-advocates/
Heh, if true, that makes this even sillier.
Its not blackmail! Its Politics!
People keep forgettin an important distinction: gun owners are not necissarily gun people. Joe Biden is a gun owner, but deffinately not a gun person. Most gun iwners dont care because most of these bills exempt their 870 or Remington 700.
Here is my suggestion: The next so-called gun owner you meet who claims he doesn’t “need” a high capacity magazine, or a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, and doesn’t shut up, punch them in the chops.
I am so sick and tired of these asshats, I wish they would just go play golf or some other game and keep taking the government cheese like all good slaves.
Ok, rant off. For now.
The Second Amendment ain’t about no hunting.
Polls in Maryland, where gun ownership is supposedly at some 29 percent of the households, found wide support for the usual stuff, handgun permits, assault weapon ban, magazine size limits, etc. And yet, some 70 percent were against a ban on handguns.
This means that gun owners are not the only ones that support some gun rights, including a right to self-defense with a gun. It is therefore counterproductive to only worry about what the gun owners think. One should try to reach and educate both the gun and non gun-owning voters.
Wilson Combat 6.8 is the best I’ve used. For 5.56 my personal favorite is Mk 318 Mod 0. Federal, Hornady, Federal and Winchester all have good stuff. If I get a chance, I’d love to try Gunwerks .338 Lapua.
You can never have too much ammo, because the very existence of ammo offends those who despise freedom.
I can’t have been the only one who read “… have a gun in their suburban home for personal protection, they store it and the bullets in separate rooms” … and thought I hope she’s got a great arm, because the unloaded gun with the ammo ACROSS THE HOUSE is an overpriced rock/blunt object.
Feinstein’s generalization is, of course, out of line.
…but what is the idea behind saying, “well, if you’re a veteran or a police officer, you deserve to have access to “assault weapons” that others don’t? because this is about as offensive to every gun-owning civilian who wasn’t in the military.
I’m pretty sure messing with people’s pay as punishment for a political view in this way is extremely illegal. With such an email connecting the cause to effect people are going to get sued.
I guess that explains why I don’t have an I-phone. They might be really cool but I don’t feel comfortable around them. I don’t think you should have one either.
mmmm…perfection! Oh yeah, and a Glock.
A trillion rounds (each) of the following:
.22 LR, 9 mm, .40, .45, 7.62×39, 5.56, 00 buck shot
You can’t have enough ammo because those god damn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves.
Buffalo Bore. I can kill a bear or an idiot.
With the bear, I get to say, “Dang, that was close. I’m glad I practiced.”
With the idiot, I get to say: “Dude, you know I can see sunlight through you, right?” before he falls down and goes bye-bye.
P.S.
If you use the guide rod to align the cylinder instead of trying to get the tiny little “catch” to hold it in place you will be much more successful next time.
10,000 rounds of 168 gr speer gold dot bonded soft tips
10,000 rounds of 62 gr speer gold dot bonded soft tips
10,000 rounds of hornady critical duty 9mm
10,000 rounds of hornady critical duty .45 ACP
You can’t have enough ammo because the exercise of a civil right or liberty is not contingent upon one’s ability to demonstrate past, present or future need and he/she should therefore celebrate the right to keep and bear arms by exercising it to the maximum extent possible without infringing upon the rights of others.
As soon as I can stop laughing, I’m going to go hug my 1911 and my HiPoint…..
“I am a bad person and i need government to tell me what’s best for myself. Please help me, Obama.”
I believe it, its Colorafonia York no surprise here where majority of the house is infested with socialist gun grabing welfare libturds that willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want even if they have to kill, steal or lie, theres a good reason why Obama and Double barrel Joe like to visit and hang out here prety often.
I’ve been reading the site for a couple weeks now, since I have no cash to go shooting.
So to quote “Da Yoopers” song “Free Beer”:
The greatest
beerammo in this whole world,is the one you buy for me.
You can never have enough ammo because perfect practice makes perfect. But if nobody is perfect, why bother practicing. Oh, right the same applies to dictators.
You can’t have enough ammo because the government won’t let you.
I could use .380 and 9mm please.
30-06. You can never have enough ammo because it’s a scarce resource.
A beutiful woman with a tribal tatto, just like her favorite basketball player,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2,400 rounds Black Hills 9mm Luger 115 Gr. Jacketed Hollow Point +P
1,200 rounds Black Hills .380 Automatic 90 Gr. Jacketed Hollow Point
1,000 rounds Black Hills Cowboy Action .32-20 115 Gr. FPL (for my sweet 1907 Bisley Colt)
“You can’t have enough ammo because . . . my wife keeps shooting all of mine!”
Bah, these people aren’t so surprising as that. They’re just hypocrites. The NYT can try to dress is up as complexity, nuance, and contradiction, but hypocrisy is what it is. They own guns but they wish nobody else did. Freedom for me but not for thee. A shockingly common attitude, unfortunately.
“…the gun grabbers never mention the blood shed by our soldiers, airmen and Marines.”
Let me go ahead and fix that for you.
“…the gun grabbers never mention the blood shed by our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.”
Now get back up there and edit your original post.
His wife isn’t the only one shot in the head, Randy
How is this different from buying drugs from a drug dealer just to give to the police. I know that an ar-15 is not illegal to own ( despite the gun grabbers wanting it to be) but isn’t basically the same. Both are crimes
Where the heck did they find 700+ rounds of ammo?
.223/5.56
9mm
You can’t have enough ammo because freedom isn’t free.
In related news; Because of a recent purchase of an AR-15 without a background check, all public school students will be expelled effective imediatley and placed on the terrorist watch list.