Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I don't. But keep telling yourself that anyways if it makes you feel any better. It's the same survey done for over 4 decades and it bears out a clear trend. The public sentiment towards guns was more hostile when gun ownership rates in this survey were found to be in the 50 percent range. Now that the public sentiment is less hostile gun owners all of a sudden feel the need to lie about owning a gun? Who are you kidding?

Some sources are more legit than others. It's up to the end user to swallow it, spit out, or just sip on it. Some internet data, I believe, but not this one. Mine ye, I am not blaming you for quoting it, you are not the one presenting skewed data. Just saying I don't for one second believe it is very accurate. For all we know, the 20-somethings that filled it out years ago were lying, just out of fun. Now they are getting older, and feel honesty is more important. So perhaps the numbers haven't changed, just the answers.

And I don't remember NEAR as much gun hostility in the US 30 years ago. Maybe I was ignorant of it, but I just don't remember it. I owned my first gun at 7, and I don't recall my grandfather talking at all about "gun nuts" or "government trying to control our guns". I think gun hostility has increased in the last 10 years, and I also think the attitude of many owners' that "it's not the gubmint's business if I own guns" is why actual gun owners would lie on such a survey.

Another facet.... who the heck gets these surveys? I have never seen one myself. Has anyone here filled out one, or at least had them mailed to you? Perhaps it's because I move a lot, but still, never seen one. Perhaps the 1,000 people they send them out to in Illinois is skewing the data?

But, let's visit this for a moment. Say your data IS correct. There are more guns in the USA now, but less households. That simply means more guns per individual, right? So what? Does that make gun ownership any more or less of a right? Does it make the number of homicides (which is dropping) more or less ok? I don't see that it changes ANYTHING. Up/down/flat trending... what does it say? I mean, if downward trending were a meaningful event, I would be happy about it, but I just don't think it matters in the whole debate over gun control. If 100 people owned a million guns, vs. 1 million people owning a million guns, one might argue that in the first case, less "crazy/nutter" peeps had their hands on guns, which would be a good thing.

I don't know if there are an increasing number of responsible gun owners, or if the number of wacko killers and suiciders are dead or in jail, I'm just happy with the trend in gun deaths, which CAN be verified. I wish the slope were more steeply negative, but at least it's negative...

The public sentiment towards guns was more hostile when gun ownership rates in this survey were found to be in the 50 percent range.

Your public sentiment, or Americans in general?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some sources are more legit than others. It's up to the end user to swallow it, spit out, or just sip on it. Some internet data, I believe, but not this one. Mine ye, I am not blaming you for quoting it, you are not the one presenting skewed data. Just saying I don't for one second believe it is very accurate. For all we know, the 20-somethings that filled it out years ago were lying, just out of fun. Now they are getting older, and feel honesty is more important. So perhaps the numbers haven't changed, just the answers.

And I don't remember NEAR as much gun hostility in the US 30 years ago. Maybe I was ignorant of it, but I just don't remember it. I owned my first gun at 7, and I don't recall my grandfather talking at all about "gun nuts" or "government trying to control our guns". I think gun hostility has increased in the last 10 years, and I also think the attitude of many owners' that "it's not the gubmint's business if I own guns" is why actual gun owners would lie on such a survey.

Another facet.... who the heck gets these surveys? I have never seen one myself. Has anyone here filled out one, or at least had them mailed to you? Perhaps it's because I move a lot, but still, never seen one. Perhaps the 1,000 people they send them out to in Illinois is skewing the data?

But, let's visit this for a moment. Say your data IS correct. There are more guns in the USA now, but less households. That simply means more guns per individual, right? So what? Does that make gun ownership any more or less of a right? Does it make the number of homicides (which is dropping) more or less ok? I don't see that it changes ANYTHING. Up/down/flat trending... what does it say? I mean, if downward trending were a meaningful event, I would be happy about it, but I just don't think it matters in the whole debate over gun control. If 100 people owned a million guns, vs. 1 million people owning a million guns, one might argue that in the first case, less "crazy/nutter" peeps had their hands on guns, which would be a good thing.

I don't know if there are an increasing number of responsible gun owners, or if the number of wacko killers and suiciders are dead or in jail, I'm just happy with the trend in gun deaths, which CAN be verified. I wish the slope were more steeply negative, but at least it's negative...

But of course it changes something. It changes the proportion of households who own firearms vs. those that do not. That doesn't make gun ownership any more or less of a right. It does mean, however, that ever fewer people are at risk from gun violence and the dropping gun violence numbers show that it has a positive effect. Not nearly good enough as still tens of thousands of dead bodies each and every year clearly document.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Yes, and that same attitude towards scientific surveys caused you guys over on the right to believe that Obama was toast in November 2012.

LOL, just LOL.

By making this post, you simply strengthen my statements that the gun polls are potentially not very accurate. Hasn't this presidential polling thing been going on for decades too? How could it have gone so wrong? I mean, it HAD to be the poll in error, and not the dead voters in many counties that tipped the scales?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

But of course it changes something. It changes the proportion of households who own firearms vs. those that do not. That doesn't make gun ownership any more or less of a right. It does mean, however, that ever fewer people are at risk from gun violence and the dropping gun violence numbers show that it has a positive effect. Not nearly good enough as still tens of thousands of dead bodies each and every year clearly document.

More guns in America than ever before but less homes have one

Seems like the guns are being concentrated in the hands of a few.

This is unfair

we need more gun distribution equality

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Your public sentiment, or Americans in general?

The general sentiment. There once was a majority in the country that favored banning guns altogether. And it wasn't hat long ago.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

LOL, just LOL.

By making this post, you simply strengthen my statements that the gun polls are potentially not very accurate. Hasn't this presidential polling thing been going on for decades too? How could it have gone so wrong? I mean, it HAD to be the poll in error, and not the dead voters in many counties that tipped the scales?

and the 2 presidential elections before Rasmussen was the most accurate. So I guess overall last ten years he is the best

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

But of course it changes something. It changes the proportion of households who own firearms vs. those that do not. That doesn't make gun ownership any more or less of a right. It does mean, however, that ever fewer people are at risk from gun violence and the dropping gun violence numbers show that it has a positive effect. Not nearly good enough as still tens of thousands of dead bodies each and every year clearly document.

Which means nothing, unless the proportion of gun owners are sane people. That's the assumption we must make from the data. But if you put that SAME proportion of guns per person into the hands of people willing to kill or commit suicide, the gun homicides would probably climb, eh?

And you're right... the number of innocents that die each year is too high. Doubt we'll ever get to the right number, ZERO, but at least we are moving downward. Now to speed that up... that is what we all need to focus on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

LOL, just LOL.

By making this post, you simply strengthen my statements that the gun polls are potentially not very accurate. Hasn't this presidential polling thing been going on for decades too? How could it have gone so wrong? I mean, it HAD to be the poll in error, and not the dead voters in many counties that tipped the scales?

Lol all you want but the General Social Survey is a scientific survey. You can certainly escape into an alternate reality where that isn't the case - this is a free country, after all - but in the real world it very much remains a scientific survey.

The polls leading up to November 2012 had the President winning re-election. Conservatives just thought and kept telling themselves that the polls had it all wrong. Turned out that the polls had it right - spot on, really - and the deniers had a rough waking up on election night.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Lol all you want but the General Social Survey is a scientific survey. You can certainly escape into an alternate reality where that isn't the case - this is a free country, after all - but in the real world it very much remains a scientific survey.

The polls leading up to November 2012 had the President winning re-election. Conservatives just thought and kept telling themselves that the polls had it all wrong. Turned out that the polls had it right - spot on, really - and the deniers had a rough waking up on election night.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/11/problems-with-using-the-general-social-survey-to-measure-gun-ownership/

Cough Cough cough LOL

Problems with using the General Social Survey to measure gun ownership

The New York Times cites the General Social Survey to claim that the gun ownership rate is low and falling.

It is an impressive drop, and many have used it to claim that while gun sales have increased, the increase has taken the form of more guns being owned by a smaller and smaller number of people. In a July 31 article, CNN stated it this way:

A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation’s guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet — even though they account for less than 1% of the world’s population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.

The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns. . . .

Yet, the GSS survey shows a large drop that you don’t see in many other surveys. According to Gallup, in October 2011, they wrote: “At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades — a finding that may be related to Americans’ dampened support for gun-control laws.” Here is the Gallup survey data since 1991.

Or take the ABC News/Washington Post Poll

Surveys always have problems with them, but in many cases surveys are the only way to determine gun ownership rates. One measure is to look at licensed gun owners, though there have only been a few states that have licenses and haven’t changed the rules for getting the permits. Most notable is the state of Illinois. Over the last six years the GSS survey implies that legal gun ownership has fallen in Illinois, but FOID cards, which are necessary to legally own a gun, have been rising.

Whereas a few years ago, 1.2 million Illinoisans held Firearm Owners Identification cards, the number has jumped to 1.6 million, state police spokeswoman Monique Bond said. Soon after the court decreed in December that Illinois couldn’t ban public carry anymore, demand for FOID cards jumped precipitously. In January alone, Bond reported, there were 61,000 FOID applications, nearly double the 31,000 in January 2012. . . .

The 1.2 million FOID card holders appear to be true for 2009. From the Illinois State Police we have these data:

2010 1,316,508

2011 1,395,114

2012 1,476,408

9/6/2013 1,633,039

The number of concealed handgun permits also provide some information, with the number of permits increasing from about 4.6 million in 2007 to well over 9.3 million at the beginning of 2013.

The GSS survey has raised concerns for some time. Here is something that John Lott wrote in his 2003 book The Bias Against Guns.

A few years ago, while I was doing research at the University of Chicago, I had lunch with Tom Smith, who is the director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). This private organization conducts many important national surveys for the government as well as other clients. During lunch Tom mentioned how important he thought the General Social Survey was. He felt the large drop in gun ownership implied by his survey would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations. His surveys have traditionally shown one of the lowest gun ownership rates among any of the surveys: for example, almost 20 percentage points lower than recent polling by John Zogby. . . .

Tom Smith is still the director of the GSS. It is interesting to note that both the JAMA study this week as well as Tom Smith have received funding from the Joyce Foundation, which is well known for its gun control advocacy (or see here). This discussion is definitely not saying that the Joyce Foundation funding altered their views, but just that Joyce knows the individuals who are on their side of the debate.

Interesting side note: Taxes and fees on gun ownership are associated with big differences in gun ownership with income (Chicago and DC are obvious examples). By contrast, for the wide income range going from $33,000 to $75,000 and those above $75,000, Gallup indicates that the gun ownership rates for the country as a whole are identical.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which means nothing, unless the proportion of gun owners are sane people. That's the assumption we must make from the data. But if you put that SAME proportion of guns per person into the hands of people willing to kill or commit suicide, the gun homicides would probably climb, eh?

And you're right... the number of innocents that die each year is too high. Doubt we'll ever get to the right number, ZERO, but at least we are moving downward. Now to speed that up... that is what we all need to focus on.

Indeed. And gun proliferation isn't how we get there. Gun violence is decreasing as - stockpiling aside - gun ownership rates decrease. To further decrease gun violence, gun ownership rates must continue to come down. Once they go up in any significant way, gun violence will creep up again. There's no such thing as a sane gun owner. Nancy Lanza, Curtis Reeves and Michael Dunn all certainly thought of themselves as sane gun owners. And until their gun ownership caused death and destruction those around them probably felt much the same. But then it happened and bodies dropped - including that of one of the gun owners that thought of themselves and were thought of as sane. They weren't.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

the General Social Survey is a scientific survey.

How many have you filled out in your time in the US?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/11/problems-with-using-the-general-social-survey-to-measure-gun-ownership/

Cough Cough cough LOL

Problems with using the General Social Survey to measure gun ownership

The New York Times cites the General Social Survey to claim that the gun ownership rate is low and falling.

It is an impressive drop, and many have used it to claim that while gun sales have increased, the increase has taken the form of more guns being owned by a smaller and smaller number of people. In a July 31 article, CNN stated it this way:

A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation’s guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet — even though they account for less than 1% of the world’s population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.

The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns. . . .

Yet, the GSS survey shows a large drop that you don’t see in many other surveys. According to Gallup, in October 2011, they wrote: “At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades — a finding that may be related to Americans’ dampened support for gun-control laws.” Here is the Gallup survey data since 1991.

Or take the ABC News/Washington Post Poll

Surveys always have problems with them, but in many cases surveys are the only way to determine gun ownership rates. One measure is to look at licensed gun owners, though there have only been a few states that have licenses and haven’t changed the rules for getting the permits. Most notable is the state of Illinois. Over the last six years the GSS survey implies that legal gun ownership has fallen in Illinois, but FOID cards, which are necessary to legally own a gun, have been rising.

Whereas a few years ago, 1.2 million Illinoisans held Firearm Owners Identification cards, the number has jumped to 1.6 million, state police spokeswoman Monique Bond said. Soon after the court decreed in December that Illinois couldn’t ban public carry anymore, demand for FOID cards jumped precipitously. In January alone, Bond reported, there were 61,000 FOID applications, nearly double the 31,000 in January 2012. . . .

The 1.2 million FOID card holders appear to be true for 2009. From the Illinois State Police we have these data:

2010 1,316,508

2011 1,395,114

2012 1,476,408

9/6/2013 1,633,039

The number of concealed handgun permits also provide some information, with the number of permits increasing from about 4.6 million in 2007 to well over 9.3 million at the beginning of 2013.

The GSS survey has raised concerns for some time. Here is something that John Lott wrote in his 2003 book The Bias Against Guns.

A few years ago, while I was doing research at the University of Chicago, I had lunch with Tom Smith, who is the director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). This private organization conducts many important national surveys for the government as well as other clients. During lunch Tom mentioned how important he thought the General Social Survey was. He felt the large drop in gun ownership implied by his survey would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations. His surveys have traditionally shown one of the lowest gun ownership rates among any of the surveys: for example, almost 20 percentage points lower than recent polling by John Zogby. . . .

Tom Smith is still the director of the GSS. It is interesting to note that both the JAMA study this week as well as Tom Smith have received funding from the Joyce Foundation, which is well known for its gun control advocacy (or see here). This discussion is definitely not saying that the Joyce Foundation funding altered their views, but just that Joyce knows the individuals who are on their side of the debate.

Interesting side note: Taxes and fees on gun ownership are associated with big differences in gun ownership with income (Chicago and DC are obvious examples). By contrast, for the wide income range going from $33,000 to $75,000 and those above $75,000, Gallup indicates that the gun ownership rates for the country as a whole are identical.

Lott. :rofl:

How many times does Lott need to be debunked?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Not quite. There are just fewer irresponsible people owning guns. Michael Dunn owned guns. Hardly responsible. Curtis Reeves owned guns. Hardly responsible. Nancy Lanza owned guns. Hardly responsible. The list goes on. There are just fewer of them now. Thus the homicide rate is going down. But there are still plenty of irresponsible gun owners out there. Tens of thousands of dead bodies a year tell the story loud and clear. And these irresponsible gun owners are stockpiling. That's worrisome.

Gun sales are through the roof, the US population is increasing, yet murder by gun is down from the 90's. There is more to the problem than guns. If there were more irresponsible gun owners, wouldn't the pile of dead bodies be increasing?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and the 2 presidential elections before Rasmussen was the most accurate. So I guess overall last ten years he is the best

Say, how is President Romney doing?