Gun ownership numbers in the United States, or lack thereof

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Hoosier8, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So far a couple of tag team pseudo science dudes are trying to defend studies based on proxy data that cannot be verified.

    There is no data on gun ownership in the United States. All studies recognize this problem so use various proxies to try to make their point.

    Can a study on gun ownership without any real data on gun ownership be valid or can you prove anything you want by choosing proxy data that fits your initial bias?
     
    Archer0915 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hi Hoosier, the data they try to drum up is so far feched it isn't funny. As I just told Danct, no government offical has EVER asked me or anyone I know how many guns I own or what calibers they are. The next thing you know people like him will be wanting a Gun Census in the U.S.. I know people that have over 200 weapons but that's none of the governments business. They are collectors and if they have the money to spend on it (I wish I did, snif, snif) then the more power to them.
     
    Archer0915 and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Bondo

    Bondo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ayuh,... When a "Study" is commissioned by Progressive Liberal money,...

    Ya it's Easy for 'em to come up with their Preconceived results...

    It's all in the Numbers,...
    Shuffle 'em long enough, 'n the numbers will say, Whatever ya want 'em to say...

    Kinda like the difference between applying for a loan, or payin' yer Taxes...

    Applying for a Loan, ya shuffle the numbers, so's yer rich enough...
    Payin' yer taxes, ya shuffle 'em enough, so's yer dirt poor...
     
    Archer0915 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also started a thread that they will avoid. They can not win whan the battle is taken to them.
     
  5. shadowen

    shadowen New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Generally speaking - people that have overly strong ideological views around any subject will avoid answering to anything other than data that fits their views. This is where most of the bad science comes from and its not limited to just this topic of conversation, you can find this type of thing a lot of places...

    You can reference studies that are at least equal (if not greater-than) in validity and over all credentials that go against their own; you can point them directly at primary sources that don't fit their square-peg view of the world. It doesn't matter because when someone is so entrenched in their beliefs as some here may be all you're going to get is pseudo-intellectual one liners in an attempt to deflect you from the topic at hand or repetition of their "facts", even when you've already given answers to them as another form of deflection.

    Overall its unfortunate as it really only hurts themselves; acknowledging and studying the data from the other side of the fence is generally as important as the data that fits your view. The reasons why should be obvious.

    At any rate: you can't really argue constructively with these people - they're following a very rigid set of ideas and are simply unwilling to hear out the other side in most cases. What they want is people who agree with them to nod their heads so they feel good. Anyone who puts up a reasonable argument or counterpoint will always be wrong and generally ignored.
     
  6. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Consider a study by Kleck who is widely held up by anti-controllers and pro-controllers alike as a valid if misguided researcher. He has done numbers of studies that all tend to put guns and their use in a positive light. One study that is often referred to by anti-controllers is "Armed Resistance to Crime : The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun"(1995). In it he concluded that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun uses, and the numbers he used are often quoted by the NRA and others. Even Reiver here has admitted that Kleck has done some good work. I won't deny it either even if his research does have flaws.

    This study I have cited above, uses gun ownership data. My question to you is this: Is it your position, and the other tag-alongs here positions that this study by him is not valid simply because the gun ownership data is not precise enough for your tastes?

    I think I remember you previously saying that you would reject ANY study that uses gun ownership data (what you refer to as "proxy data"). This would at least be a consistent position and one I could respect. If, on the other hand, your parroting peers here do NOT agree that his research should be ignored, I wonder if they will be honest enough to admit this.

    Stand up and be counted, friends.
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know about any tag-alongs but my position has been clear.

    Gun ownership data does not exist in the US so any study using gun ownership data using proxy data may be considered an interesting exercise but cannot be taken seriously no matter its outcome.

    Other countries with gun ownership data may not good indications of what happens in the US since the US is a gun owner society and has been since inception. What is proven to me by reading all the theories on guns and either crime or violence is that there is nothing that has been proven that depends on gun ownership. In the US we have observed the explosion in gun sales and lowering crime, but to make a connection is foolhardy since it cannot be proven.
     
  8. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Good. You're being consistent then, even if it means turning your back on vital evidence that gun ownership is an effective deterrent to crime. Evidence that many on your side hang their collective hats on.

    I can only wonder if those who have so eagerly supported your OP are quite so eager now to agree with your position.

    Let's see, shall we? There MAY be a deafening silence though.......
     
  9. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is fairly reliable legal gun ownership data for a few areas - the ones with strict registration requirements. They naturally can't know exactly how many illegal guns there are, but they do know how many legal ones.

    Fortunately there are only a couple of tiny areas that have such laws. Unfortunately Rahm Emanuel is trying to expand that in my current state. At least for now the government has no idea how many guns I currently own. . .
     
  10. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    OK. Here's an honest anti-controller. There IS data, eh?
     
  11. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    For New York City Washington D.C. and Chicago. Interestingly enough, In another thread, Reiver decided to reject the actual gun ownership data from the New York City gun registration and believe a telephone survey instead.

    But yes, reliable data exists for those three cities. Pretty much none exists for anywhere else in the US.
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reliable for registered guns (handguns) but does not reflect actual gun ownership. It is quite obvious that there are many more guns in Chicago, NY, and DC than registered guns. A number that will never be known.

    As it is, registered guns are not the problem and cannot be correlated to total guns in circulation. If it were as simple as that, then total guns sold and decreased violence would be a given.
     
  13. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Friend, the labels you attach to your opponents is disappointing. I have heard no calls for felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally ill to be allowed arms. I remember you did not like being called anti-second amendment. If those opposed are anti-controllers; would you by default be a controller? That sounds so authoritarian, I would have expected more from you. I am very much opposed to that way of thinking. I will answer your call to "stand up and be counted". I must add that I found great humor in the debate on the other thread. To imagine the voice of your avatar Julius Marx while reading your comments is hilarious.
    Page 4 of the executive summary will address the OP.
    http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#desciption
     
  14. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I should add that I feel no need to support the studies that support the "anti-controllers".(I like the name actually) You have said yourself that the supreme court ruled the 2nd supported the individual right to bear arms. The burden is on the "controllers". That will be a topic for another day.
     
  15. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I'm sorry, where did I imply that?





    Smarts a little, right? That was my intent, to show how the use of negative terms like "anti-Second Amendment" and "Anti-Gun" automatically imply the target of that label is somehow less than the side that is FOR something. It's an old tactic and one used quite effectively by the NRA crowd. Once we recognize that a person can be for stricter gun laws while not being against guns, and against the Constitution, we will inevitably elevate the conversation. I would proffer that the issue is NOT about who is "for" or "against" guns. Rather I would say that the issue is actually about who is for stricter gun laws and who is not. Hence the "controller" reference. I admit, it DOES have an authoritarian sound to it, but I haven,'t come up with anything better yet. Sorry.






    Thank you for your input, and I'm certainly glad you were entertained in a previous thread. I am puzzled at the source of your amusement, though. I recall, the anger and vitriol being aimed at myself while I was offering the levity.
    To each their own I guess. Some people think that Penn and Teller are funny, too.

    As to your response, I must thank you for that. I have long been a proponent of rolling back the Tiahrt Amendment that limits the ability to access gun data. We should never shy away from valid information, no matter what it might tell us. I'm glad you agree.

    Just so I'm clear, seeing how you have weighed in as to the gun data question. Am I to conclude from your post that you discount the results from Kleck's studies? You can't have it both ways, and you recall I challenged you to "take a stand", right?
     
  16. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Gun control is Constitutional, friend. I hope you are not implying the reverse. The Heller Opinion confirms this, that there ARE limitations to our rights including the Second Amendment.

    None of this should preclude the civic study of guns in society. Just as we should not discourage the study of any other topic. Fearing knowledge should not be part of this, and I have never found it to be constructive. "support" Or the lack thereof of studies based solely on ideology (as you implied) is a purely authoritarian stance that you have claimed to abhor.
     
  17. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, this is it?

    Only two takers of my question, and both actually dodged the Kleck component.

    Looks like the OP has little support from your friends, I'd say.
     
  18. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes I do recall. I would say the same thing about Kleck as other non-discredited studies. From my understanding even the best studies are circumstantial evidence. I have never said anything about any of the studies except they were not proof. I respect and like both Reiver and yourself. That is my anti-authoritarian belief I suppose. I don't find disagreement as a reason to dislike. I see the burden firmly on the shoulders of the "controllers". I believe the law agrees with me. I am sure your knowledge of the law is better than mine. Would I be wrong in that conclusion?
     
  19. Texsdrifter

    Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,140
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am all for the quest for knowledge. I am aware some of the
    leadership of the"anti-control" crowd has placed roadblocks. That is a way of
    doing business in Washington. Everyone depends on dirty tricks to get ahead in
    this country. I don't like some of what they have done but; to insist they play by higher standards than anyone else, seem illogical. I welcome a fair conversation I do not feel the need to dishonest. Much as I said in my initial response I hear no one saying we should have no control. Even the NRA agrees some control is nessary. The only real issues is how much control. Most of the people in this country according to a oct. 2011 Gallup poll think we have enough. Even more people support assault weapons than oppose. I am against making laws just for the sake of prohibition. I have to see proof before I am willing to restrict rights.
     
  20. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm no expert on this particular data set, but when hard data is scarce, you can usually get a pretty good estimate through surveys, sampling, etc.

    So if I interview 2,000 people and they report an average of 1.2 guns per household, I'm going to be reasonably confident that I can use that number as representative of the region or country as a whole -- assuming proper methodology and my sample of people is representative of that region or the country as a whole.

    So I'm comfortable with the number reported by the American Firearms Institute:
    http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#5

    They report 250 million to 280 million firearms, with 40-50% of households owning a gun.

    Since they're gun advocates, I would expect their figures to overstate rather than understate ownership. But those numbers feel about right. Figure no more than a 10-20% overstatement, at most.

    So it's probably safe to say that there are at least 200 million firearms in the U.S., with at least 35% of households owning a gun.

    On certain subsets, of course, there is very good data -- concealed carry permit holders, gun usage in crimes, etc.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Fta:

    Fta:

    Fta:

     
  22. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So your point, apparently, is that no statistics can be trusted, ever?

    Kind of makes it difficult to quantify things or discuss issues rationally, doesn't it?

    Statistics can be manipulated. But when the methodology is sound, the statistics can be considered trustworthy.
     
    Danct and (deleted member) like this.
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, like the article you posted, it depends.

    So far the two methods mentioned in posts to studies to determine gun ownership were percent of guns used in suicide and Guns and Ammo subscriptions.
     
  24. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/
     
  25. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those are two obviously insufficient methodologies. But there's no real reason to automatically distrust survey-based estimates, for example.
     

Share This Page