Rasmussen has just released a new poll on gun ownership in the United States. The company asked the following four questions: “Have you or someone in your immediate family bought a gun in the past year? What is the main reason most people purchase a gun – self-defense, to commit a criminal act, for job purposes, some other reason? Is it too easy or too hard to buy a gun in the United States today? Or is the level of difficulty about right?” The survey SAID . . .
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that nearly one-out-of-four Americans (23%) say they or someone in their immediate family has bought a gun in the past year. Seventy percent (70%) have not, but six percent (6%) aren’t sure.
Gun control proponents assert that the number of American families owning guns has been decreasing. That the ongoing sales surge is the result of a smaller number of owners buying more guns, rather than an expanding base.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation says poppycock. According to their annual survey of 537 firearms retailers in all 50 states, first-time buyers account for some 25 percent of sales. “It’s been that way for years,” NSSF Communications Director Michael Bazinet told TTAG.
In any event, the fact that one-in-four Americans purchased a firearm this year is significant, even without a new/old gun buyer context. It indicates that the firearms market is far from saturated, given that some percentage of the 70 percent who haven’t purchased a gun this year are gun owners and, thus, a viable market for additional sales.
Sixty-six percent (66%) believe self-defense is the main reason most people purchase a gun. Just five percent (5%) think they make such a purchase to commit a criminal act, while one percent (1%) say it’s for job purposes. Twenty-two percent (22%) say most people buy a gun for some other reason.
It’s important to remember that Rasumussen’s asked why “most people” purchase a gun, not “why did you buy a firearm?” The question doesn’t establish whether or not respondents considered self-defense a valid reason for buying a gun. But clearly, hunting and target practice don’t figure as highly in the public consciousness when it comes to American gun ownership.
Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans think it is too easy to buy a gun in this country. Only 11% say it’s too hard, but 36% consider the level of difficulty about right.
The response does not bode well for die-hard supporters of firearms freedom, gun rights supporters who consider any impediment to a gun purchase to be an unconstitutional infringement on their right to keep and bear arms. The really interesting (if not surprising) bit is how the answers break down by political party.
A closer look finds that 64% of Democrats believe it is too easy to buy a gun in the United States, but only 28% of Republicans and 36% of those not affiliated with either major political party agree. Still, 21% of Democrats say they or someone in their immediate family has bought a gun in the past year, compared to 29% of Republicans and 20% of unaffiliated.
My interpretation: Democrats support gun control in principle but not necessarily in practice. Which probably means that Democrats who purchase guns are simply paying lip service to gun control. Or they think “strict” gun control is good for thee but not for me. (You might say they’re hypocrites but I couldn’t possibly comment.)
The final piece of the puzzle: demographics:
Men are more likely than women to say there’s a new gun in their immediate family. Women feel more strongly that it is too easy to buy a gun in America.
Senior citizens are the least likely to say they or someone in their family has bought a gun recently and are the strongest believers that it’s too easy to purchase one.
Whites are slightly less likely than blacks and other minority Americans to report the purchase of a gun in the past year. Blacks are the most likely to say most buy a gun for self-defense.
Americans with children in the home are twice as likely to have a new gun in the family as those who don’t have children living with them.
Among those who say they or an immediate family member has bought a gun in the past year, only 24% think the process is too easy; 53% say the level of difficulty is about right. But 54% of those who don’t have a new gun around say it’s too easy to buy one.
Hang on. “Whites are slightly less likely than blacks and other minority Americans to report the purchase of a gun in the past year.” That’s a huge surprise; an important reflection of anecdotal evidence suggesting that minorities are taking to guns in record numbers.
As for the fact that Americans with kids are buying more guns than singles, that ties in perfectly with the preponderance of respondents who consider a gun a tool for self-defense. (Parents have more to defend.)
One last thing: the stat revealing that “54% of those who don’t have a new gun around say it’s too easy to buy one” reveals an opportunity for gun rights advocates. If those respondents knew how hard it is for a lawful resident to purchase a gun in their home state, they might not support gun control as vehemently. Better yet, if they could be convinced to buy a gun, their perspective would certainly change.
Who would answer this honestly though? It’s no ones business if and what I own.
That seems to be the sentiment of a fair percentage of gun owners. Not telling random pollsters that you own a gun. And, thus, the actual number of gun owners ends up (possibly vastly) under reported.
I agree with not answering random polls, but I would gladly answer a poll conducted by my LGS to shore up the NSSF data.
I had to laugh at their list of reasons for buying a gun.
Self defense – to commit a crime – job related – other
Sure “self defense” is the number one reason, but here are some other very common other reasons. Each of these probably exceeds “job related” and “commit a crime”. Besides that, firearm owners often purchase guns for several of these reasons at the same time.
1. Hunting
2. Target practice/plinking
3. Collecting interesting firearms
4. Sport shooting (IDPA, 3 gun, skeet, cowboy action)
5. Prepper/survivalism
6. Investment – purchasing firearms that you expect to go up in value.
7. Protection of livestock
8. Homeland security-Civil defense
The way the questions were set up reveals either (1) propaganda/dishonesty (2) pollsters don’t understand firearms, and firearm owners, or most likely a combination of both.
I also laughed at the thought of ONLY buying one gun during the last twelve months. As I recall, I bought four. All four were bought used.
1. Ruger Security Six 4″ stainless – (1) bought it for fun-target practice-plinking (2) self defense (though I have tons of other suitable handguns), (3) collectability-investment. Mainly I just bought it because I like it, and I didn’t have a “Service type” .357 revolver. (4) It looks cool and tough. (5) Step up from a .22 for new shooters (6) Shoot my .38 reloads
2. Marlin 60 – (1) fun-target practice-plinking. I already had several .22 rifles (including a Marlin 60), but like the shorter barrel and the pretty stock on the newer model Marlin 60. (2) What the heck. It was only $115.
3. SKS (Norinco) – (1) plinking fun gun (2) collectability, I’ve kind of wanted one since I was a teenager back in the early 90’s. (3) backup defensive-homeland security-prepper rifle to my AK, using the same ammo.
4. Hi-Point 4095 .40 caliber carbine. (1) Plinking fun gun, short and handy, (2) could be used as “cheap beater” trunk gun, (3) low recoil defensive type rifle my wife or elderly parents could shoot, (4) decent livestock protection-cheap ranch type gun, (5) backup to AK, SKS, and M44, as a civil defense carbine. (6) shares ammo with my Glock 22 giving me a “pistol-rifle” combo. (7) Step up from a .22 for new shooters (8) It was inexpensive
I would consider “prepper/survivalism” to be reasonably included under “self-defense” and “protecting livestock” to be completely within the category of “job related”. Whether the people taking (or giving, for that matter) agree with me is another issue entirely…
That’s right I don’t own a single gun. Wink wink nod
“…he latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that nearly one-out-of-four Americans (23%) say they or someone in their immediate family has bought a gun in the past year.”
So this covers “new” sales.
Firearms are durable goods so this survey does nothing to capture the number of households who -already- have firearms.
The problem with capturing the number of households that already have guns in that a fair number of those households won’t answer the question with a ‘Yes’.
In reading many, many forums there (anecdotally) appears to be a fair percentage of owners that would either (1) not answer the poll, or (2) say ‘no’. This in turn under-reports the actual percentage and total number of gun-owning households. While some will proudly say ‘yes’ it seems a rising number say no (for various reasons).
The NSSF poll says “In your opinion, what percentage of gun purchasers are first time buyers?”……. Doesnt seem very scientific.
I think for my first three gun purchases I came across as a first time buyer to the salesman.
It seems that the purpose of that question is not to establish what percentage of people ARE first time gun buyers, but rather to establish what is public opinion regarding the percentage of first time buyers.
If that is the case, it’s adequately scientific, at least so far as the poll itself can be said to be so.
But it does nothing to counter the assertion of fewer new buyers.
I’m in the same boat – I bought my fist gun about 14 months ago, and ended up buying a total of five in the 12 months that followed. I suspect that except for the one repeat shop purchase, they all thought they were selling me my first gun.
That being said, maybe not – I was at Academy the other day and a woman was looking to pick up a gun and needed the counter guys to explain that a bullet fired by a semi is as lethal as one from a revolver. Of note, she also shied away from the semi because it was scary-looking, preferring a pink or purple revolver. I was pointedly not looking, so don’t ask me what they were showing her.
Not directly, no. But it does provide the basis to assume that the oft-reported statistics for households with firearms are inaccurate. If 23% of households have purchased new firearms in the past year, then one can reasonably assume that:
a) not every household previously owning a firearm purchased a new firearm in the past year, and
b) some of the households included in that 23% represent first-time/new firearm owners; therefore
c) the oft-quoted 32-38% figure is (woefully?) under-counting households with firearms
“My interpretation: Democrats support gun control on principle but not necessarily in practice. Which may mean that the Democrats who purchase guns are simply paying lip service to gun control.”
Interesting comment, Robert. Beginning with National Prohibition, America has a long history of conflicts over lifestyle. These are always accompanied by strident claims of moral imperatives demanding change, but the resulting “solutions” always turn out to be more symbolic than real. This explains why libtards are happy to support all manner of restrictive gun-control laws but couldn’t care less about whether or not they’re effective. It’s all about symbolism.
When I was recently watching Ken Burns’ Prohibition (on Netflix) I was astounded by how the tee-totaler’s arguments against alcohol were so similar to the current anti-gunner’s arguments against gun ownership. It was the same arguments about violence, family values, “destroying our society” nonsense that we hear every single day, but over a century ago, even down to the emotional targeting of mothers.
Yep, I have noted that as well. And it took them over 40 or 50 years to get it done, with some slight pauses on the way. Prohibition (like gun control) passed because everyone thought it wouldn’t effect them, it was just going to be “that other guy”. Even some beer companies supported Prohibition because they naively thought it would just target competition in the liquor and wine industry.
Yep. And you might as well clock in the 55mph speed limit legislation, anti-porn campaigns of the 60’s and 70’s, environmentalism, and animal-liberation. What’s interesting is that the same arguments keep attracting the same kind of people. The issues may be different but the people are the same.
“What’s interesting is that the same arguments keep attracting the same kind of people.”
Yup. In the movie PCU they were called the “cause heads.” Causes were their crack. It s a sign life is too easy here and now. These people have energy to burn on something besides taking care of themselves or their families.
That picture must be a lie. Everyone knows that gun owners are OFWG’s. They are also racist vigilantes. Sarc/
Dammit. You’ve blown my cover as Fat Bat man.
I was about to comment about the OFWG stereo type. You beat me to it. That said, in the last few years, I personally have noticed a LOT more people of color at the gun range than say, 15 years ago. I’m talking black moms with their kids. And what I over heard from one such mom’s safety lecture reminded me of my daddy and grand-daddy doing the same to me when I was 8. So…..given the broadening base of gun owners in America, I feel pretty safe about our 2A rights. Not that I’m going to stop watching these libastards like a hawk. Good article BTW.
My brother (white) married a nice Vietnamese gal in GA. When I commented seeing a lot of Asians at the range. He remarked around these parts a good ole white boy gots 100 pounds on them littler fellas. All of them are packing. That data point not gonna show in a survey.
“Have you or someone in your immediate family bought a gun in the past year?”
Hahaha, bought ONE gun.
I know, right?
It’s cute.
I dont remember if TTAG covered this ABC poll of millennial women but:
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/ABCR29PollApril16.pdf
I don’t get why politicians harp on losing issues. The dems do it, the reps do it. Are they hoping to sway public opinion to their side or imagining some great silent majority will rise up on election day?
If you’re going to waste time pushing losing issues at least push ones that could potentially expand liberty. Instead they keep slamming their fists on the podium trying to convince us that fascism is a good idea.
“…at least push ones that could potentially expand liberty.”
Sadly, Shire-man, I think that a large (and growing) segment of the American population has little to no interest in liberty anymore. They want a strong government to tell them what to do, because freedom and responsibility are too scary.
My take is simply that doing so lets them avoid “major” (i.e. lots of people care) issues while still generating lots of buzz.
FLAME DELETED
“Senior citizens…are the strongest believers that it’s too easy to purchase one.”
So the people who lived through a time when the violent crime rate was much lower than it is today, when anybody could buy a gun at Sears or Woolworth’s without so much as telling the clerk their name, think it’s too easy to buy a gun today?
I guess the ability to think critically fades with age.
Speaking as an OFWG “senior”, I suggest that the reason for this result is that the vast majority of senior citizens hang up on pollsters. We have put up with their interruptions, lies, rigged questions and general lack of integrity for way too many years to want to waste even a few minutes talking to the jerks.
Although I have to admit, sometimes it is fun to answer their questions with various random lies. Age, ethnicity, gender, political party, smoking/non-, etc. – all of these are fun variables.
No surprise here, but: the survey results seem to corroborate the assertion that it is only those who haven’t actually purchased any guns who think that it is too easy to purchase guns, whereas those who have actually purchased guns understand the process, and their opinions more accurately reflect reality.
Shocking right? (sarc). You think anti-gun folks would actually try to understand the things they fear, but I suppose learning more about the reality of firearms probably would make them less afraid and more likely to actually appreciate the role of firearms in a civil society.
This highlights the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative schools of thought.
I don’t like it, I won’t do it versus I don’t like it, you can’t do it thinking.
I’m strongly reminded of the time I was talking with some EnZed woman in a chat room, and she confidently asserted that in the US you could buy a “machine gun” (such as an Uzi) off the shelf.
No amount of explaining to her, or even linking her to a example of, a Form 4 could sway her. No amount of me explaining to her what I had to do to get an ordinary handgun (I had done so just a month earlier, and said so) could sway her either. The news media there had lied and she’d swallowed it.
“As for the fact that Americans with kids are buying more guns than singles, that ties in perfectly with the preponderance of respondents who consider a gun a tool for self-defense.”
Never owned a firearm when I was single. Now I have 3 kids and twen…..a nice firearm collection!……..
And according to Dean Weingarten, the dude in the photo is also 4 times more likely to kill a cop. Surprised he forgot to add that to his list…
Way to demonstrate (again) that you completely don’t understand what statistics are, what they mean and how to interpret them.
Let’s take the study/report at face value just for the sake of argument. As such, we begin with the statistic that ‘blacks’ as a group are x more likely to kill a cop. Well, no, that’s not correct. That’s not what the study “showed.” Let’s back up a bit.
If we accept that study’s result, we begin with the statistic that of those that have killed cops, blacks did so at a rate of x times more than {$SOME_OTHER_GROUP}.
That’s all such a study says. It says nothing like blacks, as a group, being “more likely” to kill cops.
And, even more to the point, a quantity describing the group “cop killers” does not carry predictive power to other populations (random black guy). Statistics on a group that has already done an act say nothing about individuals that are not shown to be IN that group (cop killers in this context).
So, your statement that Dean’s data or even Dean’s interpretation of someone else’s data is that the black man shown in the picture is “more likely’ to do something does nothing except show you don’t know what statistics are or how they are used.
But, hey, it’s cool that you continue to try to discredit people on this site with your own ignorance. It’s always fun…
Didn’t Dean’s headline say “Black People 4.46 Times More Likely To Kill A Police Officer”? Seems like at least a little of the discrediting is self-inflicted there.
I’d love to see the “Is it ________ to buy a gun?” question broken down by state. That 11 percent may be 90% contained in New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and California.
California has an “exemption” to their 10-day wait period if you’ve got an 03 FFL and a state “Certificate of Eligibility” for C&R guns. The time I bought an old Tokarev and was able to walk out of the store with the gun in less than 45 minutes is the only time it’s felt “about right” here in California.
“an important reflection of anecdotal evidence suggesting that minorities are taking to guns in record numbers.”
And to keep minorities it would help if more vocal members of the Gun community who comment don’t post racist things. In the real world, everyone seems welcoming, but online good lord there are a decent amount of racist comments.
It doesn’t help when TTAG puts up research from known racists. It is like using Everytown or MDA ‘research’.
My 2c
.
The 6% who aren’t sure that a gun has been bought?
Wives of armed intelligentsia. They figure he’s buying something, not sure what it is, was, will be.
#STI Racegun FTW
I don’t answer unsolicited phone calls. That’s why I have caller ID. They’ll leave a massage-or not. Record gun sales every month-survey that…
Lets try this again in a more PC way for TTAG: being a one issue voter is ridiculous given the numerous issues always at play. Each of our lives infinitely more complicated than “I love guns, so I will only vote with guns in mind.” What if one party wanted to do something more utterly appalling that violated the rights of every American, but the other option was voting for a party that supported something like magazine capacity limits but was standing against said appalling violation.
This would never happen though right? I mean it isn’t like the government would say illegally spy on citizens enmasse without warrants or ruin peoples lives because their views were “subversive.” No, no these things have never happened. Certainly not in the 20th and 21st centuries!
TTAG is:
“The response does not bode well for die-hard supporters of firearms freedom, gun rights supporters who consider any impediment to a gun purchase to be an unconstitutional infringement on their right to keep and bear arms.”
Winning.
I’m sure the antis and their pet media will do their best to suppress this information. Lies, lies and more lies are their stock and trade.
Look at the chart again. The overall number of homicides due to guns is not generally downward. According to the chart, the low point was 1999, and the number of firearm homicides has not been below 11,000 since. Is stabilizing the number of firearm homicides at around 11,000 considered a success for society? For gun proliferation?
Note: no lies, lies and more lies. Just using the chart provided.
Ahh . . . and here we have the obligatory Liberal troll who signs up to sites where gun owners read and comment on articles and news items, just so he/she/it (it’s hard to tell with the current Liberal trend toward gay/transexual/pansexual/demisexual/gender fluid, etc. so, no offense intended . . please don’t file a lawsuit if I got your gender wrong) can drop insults and do their best to drag people into completely circular arguments and debates just to spread the hate and discontent that Liberals thrive on.
Nice try . . no prize.
Complete miss. The chart depicts what it depicts. Nothing circular about that. 11,000 firearm homicides per year is seemingly the definition of success for POTG. And somehow represents a downward trend.
I am not the one who claims that millions and millions of guns is the antidote for gun violence.
Are we looking at the same chart?
Homicide is a homicide is a homicide. You won’t get any deader from getting shot than from getting gutted with broken bottle. Gun violence is bullshit term same as fist violence or sharp stick violence. Murderers will murder unless they are in prison (and sometimes even there), tool used does not matter.
Stable number of “gun deaths” in environment of record increasing gun ownership does mean that more and more guns are not being used to kill people.
>> My interpretation: Democrats support gun control in principle but not necessarily in practice. Which probably means that Democrats who purchase guns are simply paying lip service to gun control. Or they think “strict” gun control is good for thee but not for me.
You make the same usual mistake of viewing the political party as a single more or less monolithic bloc. It’s not how it works in a two-party system, where the parties are lumbering monstrosities bundling wildly varying, and often completely unrelated, political issues together with a bunch of glue, duck tape, and strong emotions. It’s already evident now that GOP is fracturing – turns out that even the “fundamental” issues such as abortion are anything but. But the same is also true of Democrats.
Both parties are alliances of convenience, and their declared platforms, at best, represent the views of some abstract average adherent that doesn’t actually exist (and consequently, their platforms have the same flaw as described in this article: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html).
The majority of Democrats are for gun control. A significant chunk of that majority is outright hoplophobic and just wants to ban all or nearly all guns. But there’s also a significant minority of gun owners with various positions on where the proper place of the needle is on the scale, that doesn’t necessarily coincide closely, or at all, with the party platform. They’re in the party for numerous other reasons, on which they do align better with it.
I don’t think that many of us aren’t necessarily concerned about how “easy” it is purchase a firearm. That kind of question misses the point.
We who are trying to reduce gun violence are very interested in how easy it is to get a gun, because guns keep getting into the wrong hands (people who were good guys with a gun who became bad guys with a gun). How many mass shooters in this country were convicted (or even charged) criminals before they went on a rampage? One or two? How many mass shootings have we suffered since, oh, I don’t know, about 1985?
What percentage of those approximately 11,000 firearm-related murders involve erstwhile good guys with a gun?
The reality is, the vast majority of those murders are gang-related or otherwise involve known bad guys with guns.
Mass shootings make up an infinitesimally small percentage of murders.
(And I’m sure Lanza wasn’t the only mass-shooting perpetrator who acquired his guns illegally – not to mention the ones for whom extant laws that should have prevented them from acquiring guns failed to do so.)
Pick any number you like, to represent the percentage of 11,000 homicides by gun committed by criminals and/or gangers (which would include those who have not actually been convicted of crimes). I don’t care which number you pick, make it anything you imagine. Whatever the number, the remainder are “good guys with a gun who became bad guys with a gun. From the population left after factoring out the criminal elements, how many were incidents where a person killed someone in “self-defense” ? What would be interesting, is how many of those “good guys” would not have killed anyone if a gun were not available (I have no idea about that number).
Save your breath, Chip.
This individual isn’t interested in reality or in having any kind of a meaningful discussion, all they want is to troll the site because there’s all that much to do living in their parent’s basement and Liberals thrive on hate and conflict. They are only interested in one thing . . . forcing their opinions and agendas on others through whatever means they need to use. Just look at the people they revere . . .the Clintons, Sanders, Obama.
People like 2Asux would have everyone believe that disarming good people will somehow magically stop bad people from committing crimes. Bad people who commit crimes using a gun are frequently are people who the law says cannot legally own a gun . . . convicted felons, the mentally unstable, or gangers with long records.
For example, the San Bernardino shooters used a Straw Purchase to get someone else to illegally buy guns for them. Most inner city murders are committed by people who cannot legally own a gun.
Criminals do not obey laws . . . for those who don’t understand the correlation here . . . that generally means that people who are intent on committing a robbery, rape, murder, assault, etc., don’t really care if they are not allowed to posses a gun. Nor do they care about the “Gun Free Zone” signs, except that those areas generally mean they will not have to worry about being shot by a citizen who DOES obey the law while they commit their crime.
Interestingly enough, in a recent incident in Chicago (as reported by TMoNews.com), two criminals entered a store displaying a prominent “No Concealed Weapons” sign and promptly pulled guns to threaten the store employees and rob the place. A legally armed CCW holding store employee drew his own gun and shot both robbers putting them to flight. The store owner was very glad the young man had been armed. This was only possible because Illinois had started issuing CCWs a year ago. Otherwise, the store employees would be just another crime statistic.
So, as often as I have asked people like 2Asux how disarming good people prevents bad people from committing crimes . . . I still have not received an answer. Go figure.
The validity, or usefulness, of “disarming the public” is up for discussion. However, the article was about the implications of a survey (“The response does not bode well for die-hard supporters of firearms freedom,…). Arguing the utility of a proposition is not where the battle is fought. If enough people are convinced of something (gun control, for instance), unintended consequences are largely irrelevant.
Your side always mocks and underestimates the power of an idea popular with the voters. An unrelated example is the beginning of this millennium. “Everybdy” decided that the year 2000 was the beginning of the 21st century. In fact, it was the final year of the 20th century (there was no year zero). But facts and logic were overrun by the popular notion that 2000 was a nice round figure, looked attractive, was simple to remember, and who cares about accuracy anyway? So it is with common sense gun control measures. The majority of voters are not in favor of just anyone having a gun in their pocket. The wave pushes the vote, and through local elections and then court cases, unrestricted gun ownership will fall. Because “the people” decided gun control was attractive, simple, and who cares about ancient tribal customs, anyway?
The people who believe it’s too easy to buy a gun obviously get all their gun-facts from the warped mainstream media and lying politicians. If they knew the real facts I bet the majority of them would answer differently.
When you have Obama saying it’s easier to buy a gun than buy vegetables, and others saying that machine-guns can be bought at gun shows (without background checks too!), those blatant lies end up brainwashing the views of people who don’t know otherwise – particularly those who live in a liberal bubble.
ALL polls are BS, whether you agree with them or not. ALL polls, studies, etc. get the results they were designed to get. Anytime I see an article with the words, “A new study shows…” I read “BS Study Proves Nothing.”
YES.
All, every, poll is BS. Regardless of the subject, or the audience hoping to prove a cosmic truth.
No need wasting time and money on a survey, just read s&w and rugers, quarterly and annual reports. One sentence overview, they can’t keep up with demand…..
Comments are closed.