[icormba]

"Opinion Poll"
anyone's best guess?

as in if they live in California and do they own a gun? I could care less if they are active owners like us or if they have not bought a gun in 50 years and have never shot it.

[icormba]

"Opinion Poll"
anyone's best guess?

as in if they live in California and do they own a gun? I could care less if they are active owners like us or if they have not bought a gun in 50 years and have never shot it.

Gun owners of which type?
My mom owns guns, but is not a gun owner as I am. Know what I mean?

What's being asked here? ...and why?

Seeing that California is the most populous state in the union, my answer would likely be "a whole heck of a lot" and that's not a poll choice unfortunately.

[icormba]

Not to be a smartass , but it's just as simple as How many California Gun Owners are there? as in if they live in California and do they own a gun? I could care less if they are active owners like us or if they have not bought a gun in 50 years and have never shot it.

on 2nd thought, good point though... I'll add that to the original Question.

I'll take your answer of "a whole heck of a lot" as over 2 million.
That works for me.

[Librarian]

Data from the General Social Survey indicated that in the Pacific region, 22.5% of households have at least one gun (Data from Hemenway, a notable anti, but he usually doesn't make mistakes at this level...). Data is averaged for 1988-1997.

According to the 2000 census, California had 11,502,870 households; 22.5% of that is 2,588,146.

IF California gun ownership is substantially like all the states included in the PAC region, AND the GSS is a decent measure - and it seems to be the best available - then about two and a half million gun owners seems like a reasonable minimum guess.

Multiple people in a household may own guns. Some households with guns may not report that ownership, either through error (the person answering the question actually did not know about any guns; this does happen - it's about the only conclusion I've ever seen from Cook/Ludwig I believe) or choice.

[whatever]

The way the first poll question is worded, I have no idea what he's asking.

Are you looking for all our best guesses or do you need someone to look up the actual numbers for you?

[icormba]

geeesh... you guys are funny... just like us typical Californians, we look into things too much.

easy question, your best guess. There are no 100% actual/factual numbers on this topic. If I wanted actual "real" numbers I wouldn't have made this a "Poll". This is nothing real serious... it's mainly for fun posted in the "General Gun Forum". Again, I'll change the original to read "Opinion Poll". that might help?

[Librarian]

"Librarian" isn't just a handle - it's a life style! I always do that; you should hear my kids' reactions!

On the other hand, it's a serious question - legislators ought to make public policy with the best information available (knowing that they ignore anything not convenient for their agenda), and the extent of gun ownership in the state should inform the policymakers. If we were somehow a block of 1-issue voters, knowing there were 3-4 million voters who would be annoyed if Bill-whatever-number passed should give the re-election-desirous some second thoughts.

[ivanimal]

Do my millions count as one?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by icormba:
geeesh... you guys are funny... just like us typical Californians, we look into things too much.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry. I tend to overthink even the most mundane (or inane) topics. I promise not to take anything else seriously from this point forward. {snicker}

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Librarian:
If we were somehow a block of 1-issue voters, knowing there were 3-4 million voters who would be annoyed if Bill-whatever-number passed should give the re-election-desirous some second thoughts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.
If we were even all just voters, I'd concur.

[bwiese]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Basura Blanca:
If we were even all just voters, I'd concur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, our CA pro-gun voting problems fall into several distinct areas:

<LI> not enough gunnies voting/registered to vote;
<LI> a good portion of people-with-guns don't perceive their interests as being those of gunnies;
<LI> gun people voting antigun due to other issues (specifically, union 'slate cards') or other perceived 'priorities';
<LI> vote dilution by gerrymandering of districts;

Do note that some fraction of gun owners will vote antigun too.

So methinks that 2-3 million number discussed above is only about 750K of gun votes.

Bill Wiese
San JOse

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:


So methinks that 2-3 million number discussed above is only about 750K of gun votes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And me thinks you're being awfully generous. I'm betting it's even less than that.

[mechandy]

Numbers can be a funny thing.
I would wager that if 1-3% of the population in the greater Bay area were down right nuts you could fill one of the ball parks,so each time we get a wacko customer I tell my guys to picture them at the stadium with the rest of nuts.
Now about gun owners...there has got to be a bunch (maybe 1 out of 3 houses but that's just a guess)but most don't know a darn thing about them if they even know where they are,and I'd wager most are rather anti.