Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I have seen findings from several sources, and it seems that they all generally show a declining trend in the number of individuals and households that own a gun. What so often happens around here is that someone will cite a source like Fox News , or some Rifle Association, and then when I check it out it's some totally fabricated distortion of the facts, so yes, then I do not even bother to address it.
Mine was NOT Fox news... I never use them as a source... I believe this one was a Rassmuessen (probably misspelled) poll that actually gave its criteria... I have watched what you post carefully and what you do is cherry pick.. You find polls that support your narrative and post them as absolutes when they are not credible... They are as fabricated as Fox polls... So don't even go there.
Mine was NOT Fox news... I never use them as a source... I believe this one was a Rassmuessen (probably misspelled) poll that actually gave its criteria... I have watched what you post carefully and what you do is cherry pick.. You find polls that support your narrative and post them as absolutes when they are not credible... They are as fabricated as Fox polls... So don't even go there.
My sources are usually Department of Justice, CDC, FBI, peer-reviewed academic articles, and other credible sources. Or like the report 'Children, Youth & Violence', documents that are prepared by the top researchers in the field. So if you don't find those credible, I do.
In individual years gun ownership might go up or down, but the trend over the last few decades seems to be a decline in gun ownership. I don't know how you can deny this.
My sources are usually Department of Justice, CDC, FBI, peer-reviewed academic articles, and other credible sources. Or like the report 'Children, Youth & Violence', documents that are prepared by the top researchers in the field. So if you don't find those credible, I do.
Actually it was either MSNBC or NBC that was your "credible source" and it was a very limited poll.
It's really unfortunate that the report gives no sources for it's claims or information on that figure.
It looks to be from "National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence"
For the life of me I can't find out what is included in this statistic. But there is this:
Quote:
Witnessed victimization included witnessing the
following: an assault by one parent or family member against another, an assault by a
parent on a brother or sister, an assault on a family member by someone outside the
household, an assault outside the home, or a murder. Types of indirect victimization
included exposure to shooting, bombs, or riots; exposure to war or ethnic conflict; being
told about or seeing evidence of a violent event in the child’s household or community;
theft or burglary from the child’s household; or a credible threat of a bomb or attack
against the child’s school.
There are approximately 300 shootings in a day.
Given that there are 300 shootings a day, and approximately 20 million 14-17 year olds, 22% of which had supposedly witnessed a shooting in their lifetime (let's skew this and give them all 17 years to witness a shooting, giving us 1,861,500 shootings that they could have potentially witnessed), it can be concluded that 4,400,000 of them witnessed shootings, ergo every shooting in the US has an average of 2.36 witnesses that were between the ages of 14 and 17 when this survey was taken alone.
Assuming that the average lifespan is 32 years and all age groups are just as likely as others to see shootings, shootings have an average of 18.88 witnesses.
This has to include indirect exposure.
Funny how these people will just gobble up stats. Gun grabber or not, those numbers just don't seem right.
Let's do the same for murders why don't we. This same study asserts that 1 in 75 children between the ages of 14-17 have "witnessed" a murder.
Given that there are ~12,000 murders a year, and approximately 20 million 14-17 year olds, 1.3% of which had supposedly witnessed a murder in their lifetime (let's skew this and give them all 17 years to witness a murder, giving us 204,000 murders that they could have potentially witnessed), it can be concluded that 260,000 of them witnessed murders, ergo every murder in the US has an average of 1.27 witnesses that were between the ages of 14 and 17 when this survey was taken alone.
Assuming that the average lifespan is 32 years and all age groups are just as likely as others to see murders, murders have an average of 10.16 witnesses.
The definition of witness being used here is not the definition of witness that any normal person uses. It means they saw a shooting/murder OR heard about a shooting/murder OR saw evidence of a shooting/murder.
NOTE - EDITED AT APPROX 11:55 BECAUSE MY MATH WAS OFF.
It looks to be from "National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence"
For the life of me I can't find out what is included in this statistic. But there is this:
There are approximately 300 shootings in a day.
Given that there are 300 shootings a day, and approximately 20 million 14-17 year olds, 22% of which had supposedly witnessed a shooting in their lifetime (let's skew this and give them all 17 years to witness a shooting, giving us 1,861,500 shootings that they could have potentially witnessed), it can be concluded that 4,400,000 of them witnessed shootings, ergo every shooting in the US has an average of 2.36 witnesses that were between the ages of 14 and 17 when this survey was taken alone.
Assuming that the average lifespan is 32 years and all age groups are just as likely as others to see shootings, shootings have an average of 18.88 witnesses.
This has to include indirect exposure.
Funny how these people will just gobble up stats. Gun grabber or not, those numbers just don't seem right.
Let's do the same for murders why don't we. This same study asserts that 1 in 75 children between the ages of 14-17 have "witnessed" a murder.
Given that there are ~12,000 murders a year, and approximately 20 million 14-17 year olds, 1.3% of which had supposedly witnessed a murder in their lifetime (let's skew this and give them all 17 years to witness a murder, giving us 204,000 murders that they could have potentially witnessed), it can be concluded that 260,000 of them witnessed murders, ergo every murder in the US has an average of 1.27 witnesses that were between the ages of 14 and 17 when this survey was taken alone.
Assuming that the average lifespan is 32 years and all age groups are just as likely as others to see murders, murders have an average of 10.16 witnesses.
The definition of witness being used here is not the definition of witness that any normal person uses. It means they saw a shooting/murder OR heard about a shooting/murder OR saw evidence of a shooting/murder.
NOTE - EDITED AT APPROX 11:55 BECAUSE MY MATH WAS OFF.
It's possible that the source for the 22 % of 14 to 17 years old have seen someone get shot is the following article, 'Prevalence of Child and Adolescent Exposure to Community Violence', but you have to pay to read it:
I just posted a graph on gun ownership. scroll up.
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership.
Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) are more likely than Democrats (including Democratic leaners) to say they have a gun in their household: 55% to 40%. While sizable, this partisan gap is narrower than that seen in recent years, as Democrats' self-reported gun ownership spiked to 40% this year.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
The percentage of women who report household gun ownership is also at a new high, now registering 43%.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
Gun ownership is more common in the South (54%) and Midwest (51%) than in the East (36%) or West (43%) -- a finding typical of Gallup's trends in gun ownership by region.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER] One in Three Americans Personally Own a Gun
Since 2000, Gallup has asked respondents with guns in their households a follow-up question to determine if the gun belongs to the respondent or to someone else. On this basis, Gallup finds that 34% of all Americans personally own a gun.
The gender gap in personal gun ownership is wider than that seen for household ownership, as 46% of all adult men vs. 23% of all women say they personally own a gun.
Middle-aged adults -- those 35 to 54 years of age -- and adults with no college education are more likely than their counterparts to be gun owners.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER] Bottom Line
A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. 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. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling. Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
It's possible that the source for the 22 % of 14 to 17 years old have seen someone get shot is the following article, 'Prevalence of Child and Adolescent Exposure to Community Violence', but you have to pay to read it:
No I looked it up, it's definitely from the study I referenced. I added a link to the bottom of my post. I should have saved the trail that led me there but if you search for the figure you quoted in Google, you will find it on a number of sites, some of which link back to the original study.
They didn't say "see someone get shot". That's the distinction. There is absolutely no way in hell 22% of 14-17 year olds have seen someone get shot in person. They said "witness" and as per the study "witness" has to include indirect witnessing.
No I looked it up, it's definitely from the study I referenced. I added a link to the bottom of my post. I should have saved the trail that led me there but if you search for the figure you quoted in Google, you will find it on a number of sites, some of which link back to the original study.
They didn't say "see someone get shot". That's the distinction. There is absolutely no way in hell 22% of 14-17 year olds have seen someone get shot in person. They said "witness" and as per the study "witness" has to include indirect witnessing.
There are literally hundreds of studies listed, so who knows?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
