PDA

View Full Version : New Gallup Poll


jorgyusa
10-31-2013, 11:57 AM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx#1

A couple of things to note:
Gun possession in the home is supposedly down from 2011. 45% to 37%
I guess I really don't believe this. Given the commencement of confiscation in some states and a general fear that general confiscation will begin soon, I think people are just not answering this question correctly in a phone interview. We know there have been record sales of firearms over the last year. It is very unlikely the number is going down.

What disturbs me the most is the answer to the questions on background checks. Most (83%) think all gun purchases should require one. I guess a lot of gun owners are in general not afraid of registration. That is frightening. This may be one issue we will lose with these kinds of numbers.

One good trend in all of the gun control question is that the numbers have moved in direction that shows the emotion is subsiding from the beginning of the year.

DTOM CA!
10-31-2013, 12:06 PM
I hate polls. My family and me have never been asked to do a poll like this ever. They must just keep asking the same people over and over. They can also be heavily manipulated to have the results that you want regardless of the issue.

rootuser
10-31-2013, 12:07 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx#1

A couple of things to note:
Gun possession in the home is supposedly down from 2011. 45% to 37%
I guess I really don't believe this. Given the commencement of confiscation in some states and a general fear that general confiscation will begin soon, I think people are just not answering this question correctly in a phone interview. We know there have been record sales of firearms over the last year. It is very unlikely the number is going down.

What disturbs me the most is the answer to the questions on background checks. Most (83%) think all gun purchases should require one. I guess a lot of gun owners are in general not afraid of registration. That is frightening. This may be one issue we will lose with these kinds of numbers.

One good trend in all of the gun control question is that the numbers have moved in direction that shows the emotion is subsiding from the beginning of the year.

Thanks for sharing!

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 12:18 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx#1

A couple of things to note:
Gun possession in the home is supposedly down from 2011. 45% to 37%
I guess I really don't believe this.

You mean you don't want to believe it. It probably isn't really down. The 45% number was probably the result of sampling error, and 37% is just a more accurate measurement.
37% is consistent with the results of other national surveys.

34% in the 2012 General Social Survey (GSS) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

31.7% in the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

The percentage of gun ownership reported in US households is in the range of 32-37%. The actual number is probably a little higher because some people who own guns might lie about it as you said, even on a totally anonymous survey, but it is wishful thinking to think that it is a lot higher than 30-some percent.

Aldemar
10-31-2013, 12:19 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx#1

A couple of things to note:
Gun possession in the home is supposedly down from 2011. 45% to 37%
I guess I really don't believe this. Given the commencement of confiscation in some states and a general fear that general confiscation will begin soon, I think people are just not answering this question correctly in a phone interview. We know there have been record sales of firearms over the last year. It is very unlikely the number is going down.

What disturbs me the most is the answer to the questions on background checks. Most (83%) think all gun purchases should require one. I guess a lot of gun owners are in general not afraid of registration. That is frightening. This may be one issue we will lose with these kinds of numbers.

One good trend in all of the gun control question is that the numbers have moved in direction that shows the emotion is subsiding from the beginning of the year.

I am not in favor of gun registration. That said, a simple method of assuring that you are not a prohibited person should be looked into. I really don't want all these prisoners being released early being able to run to Turners the day they get out.

I'm thinking of a system whereby no information whatsoever regarding the actual firearm is even recorded by any governmental agency. It could be something as simple as swiping a drivers license or other form of ID thru a terminal and getting a yes or no response. The yes response would include an approval code which you would use if you decided to go forward with the purchase. The no response would, however, be sent to law enforcement notifying them a prohibited person had started the process to purchase a firearm.
Any firearms purchased within this period would have this code written on the receipt from the gunstore. No one, other than the gunstore would even know if you actually went forward with the purchase.

jorgyusa
10-31-2013, 1:23 PM
You honestly believe that the Feds won't keep records of sales once they have the info? You still believe this with the recent revelations of them keeping records of phone transactions and internet activity.

Aldemar
10-31-2013, 1:35 PM
You honestly believe that the Feds won't keep records of sales once they have the info? You still believe this with the recent revelations of them keeping records of phone transactions and internet activity.

Based on my scenario, exactly what information will they have? They won't even know if an actual purchase was made. Additionally, I'd rather trust my LGS than any governmental agency. Look where are now, particularity in Cali.

SactoDoug
10-31-2013, 1:37 PM
Background checks are not the same as gun registration. No detail as to the gun purchased needs to be sent to do a background check.

Responsible gun owners should be for background checks. We should not want criminals and nuts having guns any more than non-gun owners.

With today's technology, instant background checks are possible and are done in many of the Red states. The Blue states refuse to do instant background checks because they want to make it as much of a hassle to buy a gun as possible.

Wolverine
10-31-2013, 2:00 PM
I suspect the numbers of gun owners reported in these polls is the lower limit. It is perfectly reasonable for a gun owner to lie to an unsolicited pollster (he claims) that cold called you and say you don't own any guns (lost them in a boating accident). It would be unusual for a non-gun owner to claim they owned a gun when they in fact didn't. What fraction of gun owners would lie in these polls? I don't know but even 10% would make a dramatic difference in the conclusions drawn.

baggss
10-31-2013, 2:11 PM
I would probably support a system that would, for a fee, allow the state to conduct a detailed background check on an individual that would be good for specified period of time (say 1, 2 or 5 years based on price). Then, when you go to purchase a gun you get an instant background check and the state waives the waiting period. The check at the time of purchase ensures that you are still qualified to purchase the gun based on any criminal activity between the formal check and the quick check. Sure it has its flaws but it would allow the state to rake in more money and allow lawful gun purchases who choose to opt in to avoid the silly delay. Those who opt out go through the standard process we have now.

I suspect the numbers of gun owners reported in these polls is the lower limit. It is perfectly reasonable for a gun owner to lie to an unsolicited pollster (he claims) that cold called you and say you don't own any guns (lost them in a boating accident). It would be unusual for a non-gun owner to claim they owned a gun when they in fact didn't. What fraction of gun owners would lie in these polls? I don't know but even 10% would make a dramatic difference in the conclusions drawn.

I know I lied. I got one of these on-line from some comany I signed up with about a year ago or so. Answered no to all gun questions and yes to all smoking quesions (I don't smoke). Just for fun.

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 2:26 PM
I would probably support a system that would, for a fee, allow the state to conduct a detailed background check on an individual that would be good for specified period of time (say 1, 2 or 5 years based on price). Then, when you go to purchase a gun you get an instant background check and the state waives the waiting period. The check at the time of purchase ensures that you are still qualified to purchase the gun based on any criminal activity between the formal check and the quick check. Sure it has its flaws but it would allow the state to rake in more money and allow lawful gun purchases who choose to opt in to avoid the silly delay. Those who opt out go through the standard process we have now.



The Brady Law allows states to exempt holders of concealed carry permits from the Brady Background check when purchasing a firearm.

Washington state has a 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases, but Washington residents who have a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) are exempt from the waiting period.

http://i46.tinypic.com/34hjksj.jpg

IVC
10-31-2013, 2:49 PM
34% in the 2012 General Social Survey (GSS)

It's a survey on a political hot topic. Trying to imply that it's only subject to the random sample error is simply wrong.

Here are other examples: "survey of gay people in the Middle East suggests gayness doesn't exist." Or another one: "survey of women's weight in the US suggest the obesity epidemic isn't real."

Until surveys can compensate for people not wanting to disclose gun ownership, any data is invalid. A simple way to estimate underreporting is to use, e.g., NY data that was published with names and addresses of gun owners to call them and ask them whether they own a firearm. The percentage that responds with "yes" would be a starting point...

IVC
10-31-2013, 2:53 PM
Background checks are not the same as gun registration. No detail as to the gun purchased needs to be sent to do a background check.

You don't understand politics.

Registration was the intended consequence of background check laws since any proposal that did NOT include registration was outright rejected by the Democrats who were at the same time "selling" the concept of "background checks."

I'll repeat: the so-called proponents of the background checks absolutely reject any proposal that does NOT include registration. The reasoning is that "without registration background checks cannot be enforced."

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 2:58 PM
It's a survey on a political hot topic. Trying to imply that it's only subject to the random sample error is simply wrong.



You might want to check your facts before you post.

The GSS is a long-term study of many aspects of American society. It isn't just a survey about gun ownership.


The General Social Survey (GSS) conducts basic scientific research on the structure and development of American society with a data-collection program designed to both monitor societal change within the United States and to compare the United States to other nations.

The General Social Survey (GSS) is one of NORC’s flagship surveys and our longest running project. The GSS started in 1972 and completed its 28th round in 2010. For the last third of a century the GSS has been monitoring social change and the growing complexity of American society. The GSS is the largest project funded by the Sociology Program of the National Science Foundation. Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.

The GSS contains a standard ‘core’ of demographic and attitudinal questions, plus topics of special interest. Many of the core questions have been unchanged since 1972 to facilitate time trend studies as well as replication of earlier findings. The GSS takes the pulse of America, and is a unique and valuable resource. It is the only survey that has tracked the opinions of Americans over an extended period of time. The GSS is also a major teaching tool. We know of over 14,000 research uses such as articles in academic journals, books, and Ph.D. dissertations based on the GSS and about 250,000 students annually who use it in their classes.

http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/


And again, three separate respected surveys came up with similar results for the percentage of US households reporting gun ownership: 32-37%. Before simply waving your hands with theories about why all three surveys are invalid, please provide the results of a respected, scientifically-conducted survey or poll that supports your claim that those results are invalid. With links, not just more theories and inappropriate analogies. Thanks.

IVC
10-31-2013, 2:58 PM
I'm thinking of a system whereby no information whatsoever regarding the actual firearm is even recorded by any governmental agency. It could be something as simple as swiping a drivers license or other form of ID thru a terminal and getting a yes or no response. The yes response would include an approval code which you would use if you decided to go forward with the purchase. The no response would, however, be sent to law enforcement notifying them a prohibited person had started the process to purchase a firearm.

This is along the lines of many different methods proposed on these boards. Other variants do the same thing, but without even LGS getting involved.

The underlined part, though, is "feel good" - sure it can be done easily, but practically it will be completely useless as the only people who would intentionally try to break the rule would be those who were not aware of any prohibition on their record, or those who are incorrectly tagged as ineligible.

The current extremely low number of prosecutions based on NICS denials is more likely due to the sheer number of false positives, rather than the DA-s not wanting to prosecute prohibited persons.

IVC
10-31-2013, 3:09 PM
The GSS is a long-term study of many aspects of American society. It isn't just a survey about gun ownership.

The pedigree of the organization is irrelevant if the collected data is unreliable.

One can equally arbitrarily conclude that the "willingness of the American people to admit they have gun in the house has declined over the years, while the actual ownership has increased." In a proper scientific study they should be able to reject this particular hypothesis using proper statistical methods. Short of that, it's arbitrary.

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 3:12 PM
Registration was the intended consequence of background check laws since any proposal that did NOT include registration was outright rejected by the Democrats who were at the same time "selling" the concept of "background checks."

I'll repeat: the so-called proponents of the background checks absolutely reject any proposal that does NOT include registration. The reasoning is that "without registration background checks cannot be enforced."

Again, check your facts. You are incorrect.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 3:14 PM
The pedigree of the organization is irrelevant if the collected data is unreliable.

One can equally arbitrarily conclude that the "willingness of the American people to admit they have gun in the house has declined over the years, while the actual ownership has increased." In a proper scientific study they should be able to reject this particular hypothesis using proper statistical methods. Short of that, it's arbitrary.

Still waiting for you to provide the results of a scientifically-conducted study that shows gun ownership that is significantly higher than 32-37%, not just theories and hand waving.

IVC
10-31-2013, 3:16 PM
And again, three separate respected surveys came up with similar results for the percentage of US households reporting gun ownership: 32-37%. Before simply waving your hands with theories about why all three surveys are invalid, please provide the results of a respected, scientifically-conducted survey or poll that supports your claim that those results are invalid. With links, not just more theories and inappropriate analogies. Thanks.

That's the beauty of a peer-reviewed research: all one has to do is show a possible pitfall and those conducting the research must *prove* that their data doesn't suffer from it.

In that respect, it's completely up to those authors to validate their conclusion against my concern. As someone who has done quite a bit of reviews for scientific publications in the field of machine learning (statistical data analysis included), I can guarantee that the lack of proof is more than sufficient grounds for rejection of an article.

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 3:17 PM
That's the beauty of a peer-reviewed research: all one has to do is show a possible pitfall and those conducting the research must *prove* that their data doesn't suffer from it.

In that respect, it's completely up to those authors to validate their conclusion against my concern. As someone who has done quite a bit of reviews for scientific publications in the field of machine learning (statistical data analysis included), I can guarantee that the lack of proof is more than sufficient grounds for rejection of an article.

Still waiting for you to provide the results of a scientifically-conducted study that shows gun ownership that is significantly higher than 32-37%, not just theories and hand waving.

IVC
10-31-2013, 3:20 PM
Still waiting for you to provide the results of a scientifically-conducted study that shows gun ownership that is significantly higher than 32-37%, not just theories and hand waving.

It doesn't exist. There is no reliable data on gun ownership in the USA. That applies to me (if I were to make a prediction I would do hand waving, as you point out, hence I'm not making a prediction), as well as it goes for any other organization (if they make a prediction it's hand waving).

There is no such thing as "we usually hand wave this way, therefore this hand waving is about right" concept when it comes to statistics.

CessnaDriver
10-31-2013, 3:22 PM
I refuse to be polled for anything. Eff them. Guess how many gun owners feel the same lately?

Milsurp Collector
10-31-2013, 3:23 PM
Still waiting for you to provide the results of a scientifically-conducted study that shows gun ownership that is significantly higher than 32-37%, not just theories and hand waving.

It doesn't exist.

In other words

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000834743/polls_Seinfeld_Ive_Got_Nothing_Brown_Shirt_0818_88 9812_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

IVC
10-31-2013, 3:25 PM
Still waiting for you to provide the results of a scientifically-conducted study that shows gun ownership that is significantly higher than 32-37%, not just theories and hand waving.

I'm not making predictions about the gun ownership. I am questioning an incorrect methodology on its own merits.

I'll believe that it's 32-37% as soon as I get proof that the systematic error was accounted for properly. You haven't proven the number, just pointed out to when the organization was established. Well, Feinstein was "established" in 1933 and I don't take her word at face value either, even though she has some 40 years on GSS.

IVC
10-31-2013, 3:31 PM
In other words

(I've got nothing)

Whoa, slow down there Mr. Red Herring.

I've got *plenty* on incorrectness of your methodology. Given that it's the methodology that we are discussing, I've got *everything* to invalidate your hypothesis.

Wolverine
10-31-2013, 3:33 PM
And again, three separate respected surveys came up with similar results for the percentage of US households reporting gun ownership: 32-37%. Before simply waving your hands with theories about why all three surveys are invalid, please provide the results of a respected, scientifically-conducted survey or poll that supports your claim that those results are invalid. With links, not just more theories and inappropriate analogies. Thanks.

We do not have the burden of proof here. These respected surveys are the ones making the claim. We skeptics recognize what could be a significant bias in the survey that can not be controlled for. In part, an underlying assumption in these surveys is that people will be truthful in their responses. As a backup plan, they assume that equal numbers of respondents will be untruthful and that the sample size is large enough to cancel each other out. We recognize that certain issues will lead respondents to bias their answers which will lead to a biased result. Until such time as the respected surveys provide reasonable explanations on how they control for this bias, we are free to be reasonably skeptical and dismiss their results.

Hoop
10-31-2013, 3:40 PM
It all depends on how the question is asked.

"Are you in favor of instant background checks to make sure that criminals and the mentally ill can't buy a gun?" Very few will say no. Now say "Are you in favor of background checks that will register weapons in a governmental database to keep track of their owners?" That one might get a different % response.

"Do you have guns in the home?" Yeah today's paranoid gun owner is going to answer that over the phone. So automatically discount that one.

Aldemar
10-31-2013, 4:29 PM
This is along the lines of many different methods proposed on these boards. Other variants do the same thing, but without even LGS getting involved.

The underlined part, though, is "feel good" - sure it can be done easily, but practically it will be completely useless as the only people who would intentionally try to break the rule would be those who were not aware of any prohibition on their record, or those who are incorrectly tagged as ineligible.

The current extremely low number of prosecutions based on NICS denials is more likely due to the sheer number of false positives, rather than the DA-s not wanting to prosecute prohibited persons.

If someone has done something to become a prohibited person and is not aware of that fact, that is the first person I would like to see caught by such a plan. I would wager that they are told of their status upon release. You don't become a prohibited person by not paying parking tickets. From what I have read, most states vastly under report 5150-type of persons to the Federal database. I can only assume felons and the like are similarly under reported. My gut feeling is that there is no political will to enforce the current laws: (see immigration reform) they would rather employ a "shoot 'em all" philosophy rather than do the job properly.

Bucc
10-31-2013, 5:03 PM
I remember going through the questionnaire for the GSS going back to the beginning. I recall the question regarding guns was rather vague in the beginning years and nonexistent in others, also, the sample areas was kind of vague. Something I read pointed to most of the persons doing the interviews being college students who were not being supervised in the effort other than some general guidelines.
The GSS polls are very likely a disproportionately large sampling of students.
I take much of the GSS with a grain. Like most polls.

IVC
10-31-2013, 10:04 PM
If someone has done something to become a prohibited person and is not aware of that fact, that is the first person I would like to see caught by such a plan.

In a way I agree - those are the people that need to be stopped and told that a prohibition really means a prohibition. However, it would still apply and affect mostly those who are willing to "pay their dues" and move on towards becoming "law abiding."

The hard-core criminals who want/need guns for their "trade" and are not concerned with the add-on sentence of firearm violation as long as they can use it in the time of dire need, are the ones that we want to stop and are also the ones that will not get caught by such a trivial administrative obstacle.

IVC
10-31-2013, 10:05 PM
We do not have the burden of proof here. These respected surveys are the ones making the claim. We skeptics recognize what could be a significant bias in the survey that can not be controlled for.

Bingo!

IVC
10-31-2013, 10:07 PM
Something I read pointed to most of the persons doing the interviews being college students who were not being supervised in the effort other than some general guidelines.
The GSS polls are very likely a disproportionately large sampling of students.
I take much of the GSS with a grain. Like most polls.

Another good point that can be raised under the "skeptical" category.

To dismiss it, all they have to do is prove us wrong. Easy, right?

SonofWWIIDI
10-31-2013, 11:16 PM
The govt doesn't even need to have info about the gun purchased. How many of you have submitted to a background check, emanating from a gun shop, and then not purchased a gun. Background check=gun purchase. Get a List of people who have had background checks submitted through a gun shop, you get a list of people that own guns. Think they don't keep a record of anyone who has submitted to a BC in a gun shop...think again.

Big brother IS watching, and already knows we own guns. If you didn't purchase all of your guns prior to the implementation of the DROS system, you are f'd.

That said, I don't really think they will come for everyone's guns in my lifetime, at least not on the door to door street level. They will ban and destroy upon your death (like most of the kommiefornia politicians are trying to do) so no guns exist in the future. Going door to door would be too costly in dollars and in risk to life and limb. If they tried that, yes, many would comply, but many wouldn't. And lots of those people have friends near them, so, come to take one persons guns, and his neighbors/friends will hit the confiscators from behind. Then rebellion begins. Too costly.

Easier to follow the political ideology of the liberal kommiefornia politicians and ban and destroy. The sheeple will fall for it right up until they need to defend themselves and they don't have the tools to do it!

bubbapug1
11-02-2013, 10:03 PM
You honestly believe that the Feds won't keep records of sales once they have the info? You still believe this with the recent revelations of them keeping records of phone transactions and internet activity.

The reality is if you paid with a credit card...they already know. If you bought a gun off of Calguns and had ITrader ratings....they know.

If you bought mags from copes or 44 mag....they know.

If "they" can bug the phone of the president or pm of Germany I'm sure crawling up one of us lowly calgunners with a boroscope up our butt won't be too god awfully hard.