Minority generally means “less than half”. In some contexts, with a non-binary trait, it may mean “smaller than the largest group”, with the largest group being a “majority” if it is greater than 50%, and a “plurality” if it is not.
33% on a binary trait (one either does or does not own at least one gun) is clearly a minority.
So that’s 33%—of households, not people—at best. Definitely a minority—a minority that appears to be growing even smaller if the trends continue. They’re definitely vocal.
What part of calling them a vocal minority seems inaccurate?
I guess I'm not used to such a large group being seen as a "minority". Isn't the breakdown in US elections roughly 1 in 3 (or 1 in 4) Democrat, Republican and other (independent / didn't vote)?
A house hold often includes more than one person. Those other individuals are not gun owners. Gun owners are a fairly small group with a very powerful lobby that needs to be ignored.
This (and the sibling) strikes me as an odd interpretation - there are more guns than people in the US - most households with any guns, have more than one gun. And as I see it living in a household with guns, generally means access to guns?
So I readily read one in three households, as strictly more than one in three persons - have access to guns?
> So I readily read one in three households, as strictly more than one in three persons
That's a bad reading. Even if everyone in a household with a gun owner have access to guns, that would mean 33% of households implies exactly 33% of people if gun ownership is distributed among households with no bias by household size. It doesn't imply more than 33% of people unless gun owning households are larger than non-gun-owning households.
Why even care about this meaningless distinction? Households can give other households guns. What's important is if there are enough guns and ammunition for every person, not how they are distributed unless it's extremely skewed to a very specific part of the population.
Only if we're talking about gun ownership, which you did not do. You brought up the gun lobby. It's relevant because you equate gun owners only to the gun lobby.
There are many non-gun owners that are without a doubt for owning guns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/ameri...