New York Times reports less gun owners in the U.S.

[Roadie]

So, a survey asking a random sampling of people, is supposedly more accurate than verifiable sales data...

..and people BELIEVE this crap? We are doomed

 

[debeerman]

Personally, I would be hesitant to accept these "results" at face value, considering the University of Chicago did the survey. They interviewed about 2000 people to get their results. If they hit all 50 states, that's about 40 per state. Not a very big sample at all.

But as someone said earlier in this thread, the politicians will take this, show it to their constituents, and say, "Look! Look at these numbers! Polls like DO NOT LIE! This is the truth!" (I can almost hear Cuomo yelling these words while waving his arms wildly about his head).

The sample size is not the issue it is how the sample was taken and where it was taken. Beyond that it would be the wording of the questions and the answers that are available. From there you would have to drill down to the confidence level and the standard deviation of the sample to see if this was a good survey. Which I doubt it the case since it fits an agenda and falls in line with the stated leanings of the paper. This survey was done not for a truth purpose rather for talking points and credibility for like minded newspapers, media pundits and politicians. Most of what you see in a newspaper was not written for your consumption rather for the elite mentioned in the pervious sentence. Once you understand that you will give up reading or subscribing to newspapers.

 

[Smokepole]

In a pinch...toilet paper.

And pet cage liner.

 

[Smokepole]

The sample size is not the issue it is how the sample was taken and where it was taken. Beyond that it would be the wording of the questions and the answers that are available. From there you would have to drill down to the confidence level and the standard deviation of the sample to see if this was a good survey. Which I doubt it the case since it fits an agenda and falls in line with the stated leanings of the paper. This survey was done not for a truth purpose rather for talking points and credibility for like minded newspapers, media pundits and politicians. Most of what you see in a newspaper was not written for your consumption rather for the elite mentioned in the pervious sentence. Once you understand that you will give up reading or subscribing to newspapers.

Sample size, while not the issue does have import. For instance, national election polls during the campaign were usually in the 8 - 10,000 range with margins for error @ 3% to 4%. A 2,000 sample, because of it's exceedingly small size might have a margin for error as high as 7% or more.

Also, in election polls more people want to participate because they WANT their opinion to be heard. In a general information survey, not so much. What I would like to see in a survey like this is how many respondents declined to participate. Not so much at the outset, but after the survey had started as well as when they were asked if they owned guns and how many. As well, how are the political affiliations distributed? Are there equal numbers of Dem, Indep. and Repub. in each area? If not how are the short samples weighted? Indep. in New England will likely have a different pro/against make up than say Midwest or Plains. New Jersey vs Kentucky. What cities, states, rural areas were sampled and were they the same as previous polls? Why, why not. The sample, it's make up and how the classes are treated as well as those disallowed can tell one a lot about the accuracy and slant of the poll.

And even more for the low-information populous to help drive public opinion and help to influence public policy for the politicians.

 

[mbills2223]

New York Times? Pffft...more like...poo fork slimes....

 

[dbrier]

Instead of guessing and making up reasons why the data may be bad, you can go look for yourself. General Social Survey does the data collection and research.

Isn't guessing, speculating, and making stuff up what you accuse the liberals of doing?

 

[Leo]

I guess those 20 to 30 new shooters a week that are receiving training at Applied Ballistics in Lafayette represent something that is not happening any were else in the nation. Through work, my wife has had to fill out paperwork and whenever the "gun" question comes up, she leaves it blank. I am sure we are the only household in America that refuses to answer that question for strangers.

 

[drillsgt]

Follow the money, the survey is funded by the Joyce Foundation in Chicago.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

it was not until the early 2000s that questions on the presence of guns at home were asked on a broad federal public health survey of several hundred thousand people, making it possible to see the rates in all states.
But by the mid-2000s, the federal government stopped asking the questions, leaving researchers to rely on much smaller surveys, like the General Social Survey, which is conducted by NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago.

Good grief! My nine year nephew could design a better survey.

99.1% of INGO members do not even use their own names and the NYT thinks that someone in Hoofprint, Colorado, Three Pigs, Tennessee or Apple Orchard, Indiana is going to answer a question about gun ownership over the phone or on a form?

University of Chicago. So they walked over to Hyde Park and asked some hipsters in the coffee shop on 52nd and Hyde Park Blvd. if they owned a gun?

This is moronic, even for the NYT.

 

[VN Vet]

When you have ten ignorant people coming to this Country for the handouts Obama gives them and then they breed into twenty five people in twenty years for every firearm sold, sure there are going to be less gun owners, duh.

While I may not be accurate on my numbers, I bet I am close. It sure is scary.

 

[drillsgt]

This is just one question from a very lengthy survey hardly something to base public policy on but the anti's will try.

 

[TopDog]

New York Times are either woefully ignorant, deliberately lying or both. You would have to be a complete fool to ignore what has been happening with gun sales since 2008.

 

[Smokepole]

New York Times are either woefully ignorant, deliberately lying or both. You would have to be a complete fool to ignore what has been happening with gun sales since 2008.

I was looking at survey and allowing a couple of months or so for number crunching, putting the report together and time for the honchos to peruse it, pass it between agencies and request additional drilldowns and "adjustments", the legwork was probably completed in the summer of 2012. So it likely won't catch the purchasing frenzy of the last few months. Or if it did, only the very beginning. Over the last few years it may very well be showing a gradual downward trend in ownership (look at the prevalence of the PC culture lately) but I don't thing that it is to the extent that they contend. Could be wrong though. But after the last few months I wouldn't be surprised to find a dramatic trend in the opposite direction.

 

[Expat]

Some stranger calls me on the phone and asks me if I have a gun, how many guns, etc. and I am expected to just tell them? I don't really care how the question is worded, why would I believe that it is a legitimate survey? If someone calls and asks how much money I keep in the house, I wouldn't answer that either...

 

[pudly]

I was looking at survey and allowing a couple of months or so for number crunching, putting the report together and time for the honchos to peruse it, pass it between agencies and request additional drilldowns and "adjustments", the legwork was probably completed in the summer of 2012. So it likely won't catch the purchasing frenzy of the last few months. Or if it did, only the very beginning. Over the last few years it may very well be showing a gradual downward trend in ownership (look at the prevalence of the PC culture lately) but I don't thing that it is to the extent that they contend. Could be wrong though. But after the last few months I wouldn't be surprised to find a dramatic trend in the opposite direction.

The NICS checks numbers that showed year-over-year increases pretty much every month for the last few years would disagree with your theory. The last few months have just been the final burst. Obama has been called "salesman of the year" at gun shops for the last four years straight, not just the last 2-3 months.

 

[PGRChaplain]

I don't belive any of the media Stats. Every Lgs I have been in since 1//13 has a new owner doing the Fed paperwork. If it were true who the heck is buying all the Ammo?????

 

[Valvestate]

I don't believe anything advertised with the word "survey", "study", "margin", or "statistic" in it. The only exception is when I can see the raw data and process for obtaining it for myself.

 

[Blackdog765]

These are the questions from the first (of three) GSS survey's of 2010, the most current I saw on the link provided earlier. I edited out some of the spacing. I wouldn't answer these questions when a close friend asked me at a get together two weeks ago, why would i answer them here?

OWNGUN: Categorical (Single)
Do you happen to have in your home (IF HOUSE: or garage) any guns
or revolvers?

Categories:
{yes}
Yes
{no}
No
{dontknow}
DON'T KNOW
{refused}
REFUSED

If OWNGUN = {yes} Then

PISTOL: Categorical - (Multiple)
Is it a pistol, shotgun, rifle, or what? CODE ALL THAT APPLY.

Categories:
{pistol}
Pistol
{shotgun}
Shotgun
{rifle}
Rifle
{other_specify}
Other (SPECIFY)
{dontknow}
DON'T KNOW
{refused}
REFUSED

If PISTOL.ContainsAny({other_specify}) Then

GUNSPEC: Text
PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER TYPE OF GUN:

End If

ROWNGUN: Categorical (Single)
Do any of these guns personally belong to you?

Categories:
{yes}
Yes
{no}
No
{dontknow}
DON'T KNOW
{refused}
REFUSED

 

[cobber]

Some stranger calls me on the phone and asks me if I have a gun, how many guns, etc. and I am expected to just tell them? I don't really care how the question is worded, why would I believe that it is a legitimate survey? If someone calls and asks how much money I keep in the house, I wouldn't answer that either...

Exactly. And if the Times could out every gun owner's address, I'm sure they would.

These are the questions from the first (of three) GSS survey's of 2010, the most current I saw on the link provided earlier.

Where was the "boating accident" option?

 

[cobber]

From the NYT comments to the article:

• Eric
• NY

NYT Pick


This is good news - lower rates of gun ownership. Should make for a safer America. ['Splain please?] But since gun sales have been increasing, that means fewer households are buying more guns.

I have no problem with gun ownership for hunting or target shooting, but there seem to be many people who want to stockpile guns for, what exactly? You only have 2 hands. A gun in every room? Maybe there's something psychological going on here. [AHA!]

I'm sure [sure you are] the great majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, but there's definitely a dangerous, paranoid element out there.

Here is where the UBC will bite gun owners. More than two guns? You're clinically paranoid. Denied, and please turn in your existing guns.


This is another liberal shibboleth, that fewer X means a safer society. Like if we and the Russians each had only 100 nukes. The assumption being, in the liberal paradigm, that all the weapons will be used. My assumption with nukes and guns, is that their existence guarantees that most of them will never be used (for their ultimate purpose).