-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Gun Ownership Declining?
- Thread starter BE Mike
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
time for me to breakout the scuba gear and start searching the area bodies of water to search for shipwrecks.Maybe there's been an increase in boating accidents since 1987 too.
It isn't declining at my house. 
Yeah, if I wasn't already such a loudmouth and posting pro2A stuff on social media, I wouldn't mention it either.
Fordtough25
Grandmaster
Seems like propaganda to me, everywhere I look and am involved in anything gun related is at an all time high. Small gun stores, AR manufacturers, 1911's, weapons from foreign countries, etc.. Seems to me the whole world is at an all time high.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
NSSF--don't believe the hype: Gun Ownership Declining? Don?t Believe It | NSSF Blog
Ha! Stealing that.
Slawburger
Master
I wonder what it was in Indiana in 1816? 90%?
shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
Depends on how you count.
If by household then probably. If by person then it was probably much lower, given that most women wouldn't have owned one.
Also, most households probably only owned one rifle, very few would have owned a handgun.
Slawburger
Master
^^^ I could see that being correct. ^^^
Could it be that the number of armed households have declined since date X but the households that do have firearms are better equipped? Some of us have multiple firearms and related accessories and our children and spouses often also have firearms.
My impression (based on no real facts) is that the % of households with a firearm declined as our population became less rural and more urban. Over the last 10-15 years it seems like the trend has been moving the other way.
Although the population trend continues to be more urban/suburban and less rural it seems that interest in firearms has become both more widespread and more intense than it was in (for example) the 1980's. I remember when firearms ownership seemed more casual "Yeah, there is one in the closet somewhere" contrasted with "Well, my battle rig and plate carrier are hanging on the back of the door, my EDC is in the nightstand, my truck gun is behind the seat, most of them are in the safe and there are a few buried in the backyard".
Just an observation (that might be without any foundation of fact) but it seems as though the political climate, global terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused firearms ownership to increase both in terms of households with a firearm and number of firearms per household.
I wonder if there was a similar uptick (assuming one exists) after WWII? Possibly a correlation between wars and an increase in firearms ownership in the following decade?
shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
Something else to consider is that firearms are becoming cheaper for better quality. Leaving out the cheap pot metal pistols from the 60s and 70s which would probably blow up within a hundred rounds, the inflation adjusted cost of new manufacture guns is lower than it ever has been while the overall quality is much higher for the lower end guns. Both pistols and rifles.
Ammunition, while we ***** and moan about the prices, is similarly cheaper now when adjusted for inflation when you ignore the blip caused by the end of the cold war and the soviet bloc countries dumping their stocks for pennies on the dollar. That bubble was never going to last.
I don't know the statistics on gun ownership, but I do know that people who own guns own more now on average than they used to and tend to shoot more.
Ammunition, while we ***** and moan about the prices, is similarly cheaper now when adjusted for inflation when you ignore the blip caused by the end of the cold war and the soviet bloc countries dumping their stocks for pennies on the dollar. That bubble was never going to last.
I don't know the statistics on gun ownership, but I do know that people who own guns own more now on average than they used to and tend to shoot more.
Slawburger
Master
Good point. Firearms were very expensive compared to wages at one time.
I guess I have to disagree with a lot of what's been posted. Gallup is a recognized, and usually reputable source. Pew has a very good reputation, and have done a lot of good work. While on its face, the university of Chicago sounds like a liberal bastion, it is one of the top three schools in the country for conservative anti-Keynesian economic thought. Remember, they're not far from the Chicago Board of Trade. The increasing urbanization of America, combined with the low rate of gun ownership in cities, it is conceivable that the overall number of households with guns has declined. Most people I know have a gun. But my sample is biased, because I know a lot of military service members, and I live in a rural community. Gun purchases are at or near record levels right now, that is a fact no one denies. But that doesn't mean they're going to new gun owners. Also, the population is growing at a pretty good clip these days. That larger population will support the larger sales, while still not creating an increase in the percentage of ownership. News outlets will twist the data, we know that. But let's not flatly deny everything without taking a closer look at whether there is truth in it or not first.
wakproductions
Sharpshooter
Given that people these days are more educated around the dangers of gun registration I wouldn't be surprised if many of the respondents did not answer the survey questions truthfully.
As a retired Engineer and having taken many courses in Statistics, and using it for many years, I can attest to the FACT that statistics can prove just about anything you desire. As has been stated the geographical area where the phone calls were made have a very great effect, the way the questions are phrased can result in the respondent denying they own a firearm, even if they have 2 or 3 safes full.
I used to use an example when people argued with me that statistics were always somewhat valid: I told them I can prove through statistics that going to a Burlesque theater (strip club) makes you go bald. All you have to do is "cheat" somewhat on the samples taken. First, take the number of "Bald" people in the audience of the theater. Second, go out on the street and take a random sample of the same number of people there. I will guarantee the results will "PROVE" that going to the theater causes baldness.
Obviously, the results are greatly skewed as almost no young or old women visit the club, and the minimum age of the patrons is limited to over 21 years of age, so no children. Also many older men enjoy the view.
However, statistically you have proven the "fact" you intended. Even if you ask a question like "were you bald when you first visited the club" is answered, many would even verify the "fact" farther by answering "No, I had a full head of hair when I first started visiting".
I would wager that the posted survey contains several constraints similar to the above example in order to obtain the "proof" the liberal surveyors wished to write about!
I used to use an example when people argued with me that statistics were always somewhat valid: I told them I can prove through statistics that going to a Burlesque theater (strip club) makes you go bald. All you have to do is "cheat" somewhat on the samples taken. First, take the number of "Bald" people in the audience of the theater. Second, go out on the street and take a random sample of the same number of people there. I will guarantee the results will "PROVE" that going to the theater causes baldness.
Obviously, the results are greatly skewed as almost no young or old women visit the club, and the minimum age of the patrons is limited to over 21 years of age, so no children. Also many older men enjoy the view.
However, statistically you have proven the "fact" you intended. Even if you ask a question like "were you bald when you first visited the club" is answered, many would even verify the "fact" farther by answering "No, I had a full head of hair when I first started visiting".
I would wager that the posted survey contains several constraints similar to the above example in order to obtain the "proof" the liberal surveyors wished to write about!
The Counter to the NYTs article: LINK
There's something odd with a Sunday New York Times report on gun ownership in America. They claim the number of Americans owning guns are at its lowest since the 1970s. They attribute it to a reduction in violent crime, which contradicts the media narrative that we need more gun control, and the increased rates of Americans settling in urban areas. The problem is two years ago; the number of Americans owning guns was at 47 percent. Now, it's 35 percent. So, there was a twelve-point drop in two years, and a little over three months after Sandy Hook.
How could that be right? Here's what the Times duo of Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff reported:
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
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.
Additionally, it takes the Times until the twelfth paragraph to say, "measuring the level of gun ownership can be a vexing problem, with various recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent. Responses can vary because the survey designs and the wording of questions differ." By the sixteenth paragraph, they finally write what the NRA has to say about this development.
Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said he was skeptical that there had been a decline in household ownership. He pointed to reports of increased gun sales, to long waits for gun safety training classes and to the growing number of background checks, which have surged since the late 1990s, as evidence that ownership is rising.
In 2011, Gallup reported that "forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period."
While Gallup says that the current number of homes with guns is around 43%, it's hardly a four-decade decline in ownership. If you look at the chart, from 1996-2012, it's been roughly holding steady at 42-43%, so the decline has stagnated.
Lastly, the Times reported that women are heading more households, which has contributed to the decline. What they forget the mention is that women are the fastest growing demographic taking up ownership of firearms, which was a development reported on by ABC News earlier this month - and by CBS News in 2011. What's more embarrassing is that the New York Times reported in February of 2013 that the "Rising Voice of Gun Ownership is Female."
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, it seems the New York Times is trying to pigeonhole women as the more docile group, who view guns as anathema to society, which contributed to a "decline" in gun ownership. It looks like this is demonstrably wrong, and that staff writers seldom look through their own archives before posting erroneous stories about gun ownership in the hopes of building new momentum for the president's crumbling gun control agenda.
- See more at: What Decline? New York Times Uses Poll to Suggest Sharp Drop in Gun Ownership
Decline? New York Times Uses Poll to Suggest Sharp Drop in Gun Ownership
There's something odd with a Sunday New York Times report on gun ownership in America. They claim the number of Americans owning guns are at its lowest since the 1970s. They attribute it to a reduction in violent crime, which contradicts the media narrative that we need more gun control, and the increased rates of Americans settling in urban areas. The problem is two years ago; the number of Americans owning guns was at 47 percent. Now, it's 35 percent. So, there was a twelve-point drop in two years, and a little over three months after Sandy Hook.
How could that be right? Here's what the Times duo of Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff reported:
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
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.
Additionally, it takes the Times until the twelfth paragraph to say, "measuring the level of gun ownership can be a vexing problem, with various recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent. Responses can vary because the survey designs and the wording of questions differ." By the sixteenth paragraph, they finally write what the NRA has to say about this development.
Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said he was skeptical that there had been a decline in household ownership. He pointed to reports of increased gun sales, to long waits for gun safety training classes and to the growing number of background checks, which have surged since the late 1990s, as evidence that ownership is rising.
In 2011, Gallup reported that "forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period."
While Gallup says that the current number of homes with guns is around 43%, it's hardly a four-decade decline in ownership. If you look at the chart, from 1996-2012, it's been roughly holding steady at 42-43%, so the decline has stagnated.
Lastly, the Times reported that women are heading more households, which has contributed to the decline. What they forget the mention is that women are the fastest growing demographic taking up ownership of firearms, which was a development reported on by ABC News earlier this month - and by CBS News in 2011. What's more embarrassing is that the New York Times reported in February of 2013 that the "Rising Voice of Gun Ownership is Female."
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, it seems the New York Times is trying to pigeonhole women as the more docile group, who view guns as anathema to society, which contributed to a "decline" in gun ownership. It looks like this is demonstrably wrong, and that staff writers seldom look through their own archives before posting erroneous stories about gun ownership in the hopes of building new momentum for the president's crumbling gun control agenda.
- See more at: What Decline? New York Times Uses Poll to Suggest Sharp Drop in Gun Ownership
Decline? New York Times Uses Poll to Suggest Sharp Drop in Gun Ownership
Last edited:
BS, walk into any gun dealer and you will see a line of people getting background checks done, every household is now armed and people are stocking up.
This is how it should be, people need to learn to take care of themselves and be independent.
This is how it should be, people need to learn to take care of themselves and be independent.
Site Supporter
Members online
- Cavman
- dweezil
- markiemark
- FN USA
- pharmboy
- red_zr24x4
- CCPLuvr
- brchixwing
- jrogier62
- Ta6point6
- KLB
- 257robertsimp
- NyleRN
- kotaoz
- slims2002
- 06ackley
- JayCo
- Magyars
- bobzilla
- 510picker
- HKFaninCarmel
- mkgr22
- lafrad
- mcapo
- HoosierHunter07
- 42253
- indyblue
- wtburnette
- blain
- blainepoe
- Lwright
- rwilken50
- BeDome
- Jmd
- Jay40
- flightsimmer
- 2tonic
- joe138
- 1775usmarine
- UNCLE HARLEY
- DHD
- Scott58
- ZachJ03
- edwea
- glank09
- Riflemen14
- Ethanhoosier1
- Camarodude
- Firehawk
- Nakatomi