6 ms·

>The data also showed that 39 percent of U.S. households now own guns, an increase from 32 percent in 2016. I'd like to know the methodology that leads to that

>The data also showed that 39 percent of U.S. households now own guns, an increase from 32 percent in 2016. I'd like to know the methodology that leads to that conclusion. Unless they are making some seriously handwavey assumptions in the absence of a 1:1 binding of individual/household to gun purchase which is technically illegal for the Government to maintain. (Though not really because it's likely a third-party that is doing the aggregation that the government would never think of peeping a look at I'm sure.) Although, I'd still like to know how "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners. Really wish these types of thoughts would stop occurring to me, I only have so much room for research projects in my head. >_<

benjohnson 5y ago
Locally, I live in a very diverse area, and the typical customer has skewed much less 'good-old-boy' in the last two years. The 'good-old-boys' are generally very happy with this and love to see new people of all backgrounds take the first steps toward citizen ownership of firearms. While there may be other disagreements on a political level, those barriers seem to be forgotten when people of good will help each-other out.
- salawat 5y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled at the spike. The part that bugs me is that The more I look at Federal regulation as written, and the types of conclusions people are capable of apparently reaching from collected datasets, I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't actually some on the down-low malicious compliance tracking being enabled via outsourcing, even if you lose track of things after the first purchase. I don't like messy ineffectual laws on the books. Which is why I try not to dig too much. The more you know, the more it grates. A LexisNexus subscription is involved somewhere, I'm sure.
  - uniqueid 5y ago
    I'm thrilled at the spike. That reaction is completely alien to me. There's probably more to it than "More people who aren't me have lethal weapons... fantastic!" but on a surface level, it's hard to relate to.
    - albroland 5y ago
      Sam Harris summarized a fairly pragmatic view of the necessity of firearms which might explain to you why more ownership by citizens can be viewed as a positive (2013): https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/ https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/
    - nathanaldensr 5y ago
      The fact guns are lethal is a feature, not a bug. Gun owners recognize how evil mankind can be. They are often students of history--all the dictators over the course of time who themselves used the power of government enforced by those happy to subjugate others. Much of the youth today have never lived in an actual warzone or seen dictators rise to power and actually subjugate people. These youths want to believe that everyone is inherently good and to be trusted; this perspective is incredibly naive as a cursory examination of history will tell us. Yes, there are those who would use your physical vulnerability against you to control you, subjugate you, and even kill you. If and when that happens, you will realize your error. Many people are trying to prevent that future from happening in the first place by being armed to fight back.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Students of history? Private arms are sometimes among the tools that help dictators and other authoritarian governments come to power. I'm not aware of them as a major factor in preventing the same, with any kind of regularity (actually, I'd be interested in examples of that—at best, I'm aware of them as a probably-not-necessary secondary factor, way after things like foreign intervention or acquiring the support of a significant fraction of the military, either of which comes with its own risks, of course). I'd be surprised if increasing the rate of private arms ownerships is, per se, an improvement for a state's likelihood to become run by a dictator or other authoritarian government. Opposing private arms ownerships doesn't necessarily equate to aiding (even accidentally) some hypothetical, future authoritarian state. It's very much not clear to me that the two are strongly connected at all, nor, if they are, that the causality runs the way proponents of the 2nd amendment as a check on authoritarian or otherwise unaccountable government assume it does.
zepto 5y ago
> I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor In theory they are not. The individual store is supposed to keep a paper record of the sale and the background check result so that they can be audited, but that is meant to be the only record. Of course who knows what is being done to illegally capture the data.
- spinax 5y ago
  A number of US states do not require background checks when it's resident-to-resident (I live in one). It's common to trade a bill of sale between parties but the paperwork stops there, and this paperwork is technically optional.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Also true. I was just commenting on the fbi checks.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  It sounds like mostly nothing is being done considering how slowly police gun trace requests are performed via a paper database search, but things could have changed since 2016. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...
tootie 5y ago
Could just be anonymous surveys.
- dogorman 5y ago
  ring ring "Hello sir, do you own any firea-" click I would hang up on that call and I don't even own a gun. Surely some people will answer, but wide swaths of the American public, gun owning or otherwise, would refuse to answer these sort of questions on basic principle and/or common sense. If you could get an estimate for what portion of gun owners relative to non-owners would refuse to answer those questions then you might have something for the statisticians to work with, but I don't see how you could estimate even that. Surveys give you data, but sometimes that data is worth less than dirt.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    Yes. It's amazing to me that people give any credence on telephone surveys about sensitive issues. Do you own any firearms? Do you use illegal drugs? Have you ever had an abortion? How do you not expect a substantial portion of your respondents to either refuse to answer or simply lie when you ask questions like that?
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      > How do you not expect a substantial portion of your respondents to either refuse to answer or simply lie when you ask questions like that? Surveyers do expect it. And any errors are measurable and have been studied: > Polling potential or existing consumers is often the first step when it comes time for new businesses to enter the market or existing ones to add new products. And in today’s tele-connected world, no longer do researchers have to rely on focus groups, in-depth interviews or direct mail surveys to get the job done. Instead, a host of remotely accessible options exist that enables savvy market researchers the choice of connecting to the market without physically having to mobilize it. One of the oldest and most staid of all the research methods is the ubiquitous phone survey. It’s a no frills, “tried and true” alternative for companies looking for robust information quickly. But it does have its limitations. Take a look at the phone survey’s advantages and disadvantages: * https://www.cfrinc.net/cfrblog/phone-surveys-data-collection https://www.cfrinc.net/cfrblog/phone-surveys-data-collection Also: "A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys" * http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015 There's a whole plethora of papers on the reliability (or lack thereof) of various surveying methods, including over the phone.
nataz 5y ago
<Although, I'd still like to know how "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners.> There are lots of legal ways to obtain a gun legally without a background check. Many states don't require a background check between private parties. More responsible folks will ask for a voter ID (to confirm residence) and or a concealed carry permit (to confirm that person may own a firearm/not a felon), but it's not a legal requirement. Same rules may apply at a gun show. Lots and lots of guns are sold this way. My first firearm was advertised online by a private party on a local forum, I met them in a parking lot, and paid in cash. I'd like to think I'm a responsible person, but I can certainly see how that system could wildly be abused. Each state has different laws, you can't do that everywhere. Also there are certain federally restricted items that require a background check (normally through a ffl). Things like short barreled rifles/pistols, silencers/suppressors, full automatic, etc. Different process for manufacture vs purchase, but in theory both are tracked with serial numbers and real ID's.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I'd like to know the methodology that leads to that conclusion. Unless they are making some seriously handwavey assumptions in the absence of a 1:1 binding of individual/household to gun purchase which is technically illegal for the Government to maintain. Likely just a survey. I thought the number sounded high as well until I remember that most people in my family are technically gun owners because they inherited their parents' or grandparents' firearms. In our case, our great-grandparents settled and farmed land and needed firearms. They have now been passed down as essentially the only artifacts of our lineage's settlement in this country. They've all been stored in gun safes, which is probably why they've persisted as some of the most well-preserved family heirlooms. Some of these guns haven't been fired for 50 or maybe even 100 years, but technically they make people "gun owners" per these surveys. Personally I think we could use more gun control, but if I'm being completely honest I would actually be quite upset if these family heirlooms became illegal or onerous to keep due to government regulation.
sb057 5y ago
>Although, I'd still like to know how "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners. The NICS dataset is really bad for this sort of thing, because it's used for many purposes other than "checking eligibility to purchase gun". For example, Kentucky does a NICS check on every concealed carry permit holder every single month. Other states do the same thing, but perhaps only on a subset of permit holders or less frequently. It's my understanding that some private background check companies also use it as part of their research for job applicants and the like.
pjc50 5y ago
> "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners It's kept on paper: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...
avidiax 5y ago
This would most likely be based on public opinion surveys. The 4473s and NICs checks are deliberately hamstrung. The ATF is not allowed to digitize these records, so they have to use paper and microfilm archives. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database... https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database... https://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied https://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocat...

benjohnson 5y ago

Locally, I live in a very diverse area, and the typical customer has skewed much less 'good-old-boy' in the last two years. The 'good-old-boys' are generally very happy with this and love to see new people of all backgrounds take the first steps toward citizen ownership of firearms. While there may be other disagreements on a political level, those barriers seem to be forgotten when people of good will help each-other out.

salawat 5y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled at the spike. The part that bugs me is that The more I look at Federal regulation as written, and the types of conclusions people are capable of apparently reaching from collected datasets, I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't actually some on the down-low malicious compliance tracking being enabled via outsourcing, even if you lose track of things after the first purchase. I don't like messy ineffectual laws on the books. Which is why I try not to dig too much. The more you know, the more it grates. A LexisNexus subscription is involved somewhere, I'm sure.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  I'm thrilled at the spike. That reaction is completely alien to me. There's probably more to it than "More people who aren't me have lethal weapons... fantastic!" but on a surface level, it's hard to relate to.
  - albroland 5y ago
    Sam Harris summarized a fairly pragmatic view of the necessity of firearms which might explain to you why more ownership by citizens can be viewed as a positive (2013): https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/ https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    The fact guns are lethal is a feature, not a bug. Gun owners recognize how evil mankind can be. They are often students of history--all the dictators over the course of time who themselves used the power of government enforced by those happy to subjugate others. Much of the youth today have never lived in an actual warzone or seen dictators rise to power and actually subjugate people. These youths want to believe that everyone is inherently good and to be trusted; this perspective is incredibly naive as a cursory examination of history will tell us. Yes, there are those who would use your physical vulnerability against you to control you, subjugate you, and even kill you. If and when that happens, you will realize your error. Many people are trying to prevent that future from happening in the first place by being armed to fight back.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Students of history? Private arms are sometimes among the tools that help dictators and other authoritarian governments come to power. I'm not aware of them as a major factor in preventing the same, with any kind of regularity (actually, I'd be interested in examples of that—at best, I'm aware of them as a probably-not-necessary secondary factor, way after things like foreign intervention or acquiring the support of a significant fraction of the military, either of which comes with its own risks, of course). I'd be surprised if increasing the rate of private arms ownerships is, per se, an improvement for a state's likelihood to become run by a dictator or other authoritarian government. Opposing private arms ownerships doesn't necessarily equate to aiding (even accidentally) some hypothetical, future authoritarian state. It's very much not clear to me that the two are strongly connected at all, nor, if they are, that the causality runs the way proponents of the 2nd amendment as a check on authoritarian or otherwise unaccountable government assume it does.

zepto 5y ago

> I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor In theory they are not. The individual store is supposed to keep a paper record of the sale and the background check result so that they can be audited, but that is meant to be the only record. Of course who knows what is being done to illegally capture the data.

spinax 5y ago
A number of US states do not require background checks when it's resident-to-resident (I live in one). It's common to trade a bill of sale between parties but the paperwork stops there, and this paperwork is technically optional.
- zepto 5y ago
  Also true. I was just commenting on the fbi checks.
dv_dt 5y ago
It sounds like mostly nothing is being done considering how slowly police gun trace requests are performed via a paper database search, but things could have changed since 2016. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...

tootie 5y ago

Could just be anonymous surveys.

dogorman 5y ago
ring ring "Hello sir, do you own any firea-" click I would hang up on that call and I don't even own a gun. Surely some people will answer, but wide swaths of the American public, gun owning or otherwise, would refuse to answer these sort of questions on basic principle and/or common sense. If you could get an estimate for what portion of gun owners relative to non-owners would refuse to answer those questions then you might have something for the statisticians to work with, but I don't see how you could estimate even that. Surveys give you data, but sometimes that data is worth less than dirt.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Yes. It's amazing to me that people give any credence on telephone surveys about sensitive issues. Do you own any firearms? Do you use illegal drugs? Have you ever had an abortion? How do you not expect a substantial portion of your respondents to either refuse to answer or simply lie when you ask questions like that?
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > How do you not expect a substantial portion of your respondents to either refuse to answer or simply lie when you ask questions like that? Surveyers do expect it. And any errors are measurable and have been studied: > Polling potential or existing consumers is often the first step when it comes time for new businesses to enter the market or existing ones to add new products. And in today’s tele-connected world, no longer do researchers have to rely on focus groups, in-depth interviews or direct mail surveys to get the job done. Instead, a host of remotely accessible options exist that enables savvy market researchers the choice of connecting to the market without physically having to mobilize it. One of the oldest and most staid of all the research methods is the ubiquitous phone survey. It’s a no frills, “tried and true” alternative for companies looking for robust information quickly. But it does have its limitations. Take a look at the phone survey’s advantages and disadvantages: * https://www.cfrinc.net/cfrblog/phone-surveys-data-collection https://www.cfrinc.net/cfrblog/phone-surveys-data-collection Also: "A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys" * http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015 There's a whole plethora of papers on the reliability (or lack thereof) of various surveying methods, including over the phone.

nataz 5y ago

<Although, I'd still like to know how "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners.> There are lots of legal ways to obtain a gun legally without a background check. Many states don't require a background check between private parties. More responsible folks will ask for a voter ID (to confirm residence) and or a concealed carry permit (to confirm that person may own a firearm/not a felon), but it's not a legal requirement. Same rules may apply at a gun show. Lots and lots of guns are sold this way. My first firearm was advertised online by a private party on a local forum, I met them in a parking lot, and paid in cash. I'd like to think I'm a responsible person, but I can certainly see how that system could wildly be abused. Each state has different laws, you can't do that everywhere. Also there are certain federally restricted items that require a background check (normally through a ffl). Things like short barreled rifles/pistols, silencers/suppressors, full automatic, etc. Different process for manufacture vs purchase, but in theory both are tracked with serial numbers and real ID's.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> I'd like to know the methodology that leads to that conclusion. Unless they are making some seriously handwavey assumptions in the absence of a 1:1 binding of individual/household to gun purchase which is technically illegal for the Government to maintain. Likely just a survey. I thought the number sounded high as well until I remember that most people in my family are technically gun owners because they inherited their parents' or grandparents' firearms. In our case, our great-grandparents settled and farmed land and needed firearms. They have now been passed down as essentially the only artifacts of our lineage's settlement in this country. They've all been stored in gun safes, which is probably why they've persisted as some of the most well-preserved family heirlooms. Some of these guns haven't been fired for 50 or maybe even 100 years, but technically they make people "gun owners" per these surveys. Personally I think we could use more gun control, but if I'm being completely honest I would actually be quite upset if these family heirlooms became illegal or onerous to keep due to government regulation.

sb057 5y ago

>Although, I'd still like to know how "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners. The NICS dataset is really bad for this sort of thing, because it's used for many purposes other than "checking eligibility to purchase gun". For example, Kentucky does a NICS check on every concealed carry permit holder every single month. Other states do the same thing, but perhaps only on a subset of permit holders or less frequently. It's my understanding that some private background check companies also use it as part of their research for job applicants and the like.

pjc50 5y ago

> "required FBI background check", which I bet all are tracked and cross-referencable with the requestor, thereby giving a synthetic key to "gun purchase" does not translate to database of potential gun owners It's kept on paper: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database...

avidiax 5y ago

This would most likely be based on public opinion surveys. The 4473s and NICs checks are deliberately hamstrung. The ATF is not allowed to digitize these records, so they have to use paper and microfilm archives. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database... https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-database... https://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied https://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocat...