America’s Complex Relationship With Guns

[Ike666]

The Pew research center has just released (22JUN2017) the results of new survey using a national matched sample of 3,930 including 1,269 gun owners (32%).

The results are interesting in that they compare and contrast gun owners and non-owners, and democrats and republicans.

General support for ownership is pretty strong. They are using a much better design that the National Opinion Research Center that publishes the General Social Survey.

42% live in a household with a gun. 66% of owners report more than one gun.

The report is long an broken up over several pages.

Here's the link:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/...hip-with-guns/

[g.willikers]

Verry interesting.
Thanks.
Although it would be worth knowing how truthful folks are about it.
Imagine the answers and results from the more restrictive parts of the country.
Probably a lot of gun owners saying they don't have any.
Can't really blame them, either.
Just a thought.

[osbornk]

I suspect the survey is pretty inaccurate because many people will not admit that they have or own a gun to a stranger and sometimes not even to a friend. To many people, owning a gun is a personal thing that is nobody's business because they fear that their guns will someday be taken from them "for the good of the children".

[SIGSHR]

The only people I have known who have been shot were in the military.
And yes, many people-start with me-are very discreet about discussing gun ownership with strangers, non-familiars, etc. IMHO people are very indiscreet these days, period.
"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead." Ben Franklin

[Slamfire]

To be sure, experiences with guns aren’t always positive: 44% of U.S. adults say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally,

I have known a number of people who committed suicide with a firearm, so, I know someone who has been shot. I also knew a girl who decided to commit suicide by soaking bread in acid and swallowing the wet chunks. She died, most horribly. I guess we ought to require mental checks for bread buyers. Suicides are a huge number percentage of the number of people dying in the US, and so called "gun studies" don't exclude or separate them out.

I also know people who died in car accidents, all unfortunate. And I have lived long enough to have known really excellent people at work who died of cancer, some quite young with young children.

I could expand the list, but so what, I have lived long enough to remember a lot of good people who are not with us anymore. Does not mean we should ban guns.

[Ike666]

I'm curious; where are people getting the idea that this survey is about banning guns? Sure, some of the naive endorse that as a solution in the survey - but not most. The ones endorsing bans are the usual suspects. In fact, more people, owners and non-owners, endorse the idea that is an American right to own guns (it is).

Read the report. Unsubstantiated opinions are bunk. This report is rich with information about both sides of the issue.

[JWT]

Interesting to say the least. I don't see where it's pro or anti gun except perhaps in the reported number of people who know someone who was shot. Other than being shot by a hypodermic needle in the doctors office I know no one who has been shot, nor does anyone in my entire family.

I agree many people who own guns are reluctant to say they do in todays charged atmosphere. Probably skews the data.

Overall seems pretty good IMO. Downloaded the PDF so I can browse it more deeply.

[44 AMP]

This report is rich with information about both sides of the issue.

I disagree. I think it is rich with information about the opinions of the 3,930 people, including 1,269 "gun owners" that they polled.

While I realize that America loves polls with the fervency true believers love their prophet, I simply doubt that a survey of slightly less than 4,000 adults is truly representative of the over 330 MILLION+ people in the US.

Anyone have survey results on what percentage of people deliberately lie on surveys??

Or how even honest answers can be misleading?? If someone calls me up, and asks if I have a gun in my house, I will, with total honesty and sincerity tell them, "No, I do not have A gun in my house".

Because its true. I don't have A gun in my house. I have dozens. If they don't specifically ask, I'm not volunteering that information. And, if they do specifically ask, I'm probably not going to tell them, because it's simply none of their business, even if they think it is.

This poll doesn't seem overtly political, itself, but tell me, you folk who crunch numbers for fun or profit, is a 0.001% sample of ANYTHING, statistically valid??

[Hal]

They use the term "gun violence" - - that equates to the study being worthless.
If they can't even adhere to basic proper English, how can they be taken seriously?

(It's high time we start slapping them down hard when they use that term - after all, is the term -drunk car even close to acceptable to describe a driver under the influence?)

[SIGSHR]

Diabetes either caused by or aggravated by obesity has claimed several people I have know. There is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer and emphysema, and between drinking and cirrhosis of the liver.
There is a correlation between prolonged exposure to loud noises and hearing damage.
That's why we shooters are so interested in hearing protection.

[44 AMP]

Also remember to keep in mind that correlation is NOT causation.

You can correlate anything you wish, depending on what you choose as points of congruence. ANYTHING.

People die from falling. Gravity kills!! Earth sucks!!!

98%+ of all murderers in the US ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of committing their crime! BAN BREAD!!!

A friend of mine somehow got on a political survey list, back during the Clinton years. They would call every 2 or 3 months, and ask him how he felt about the job the President was doing. My friend is about as political as a rock. He didn't care, so he answered he was fine with the job the President was doing.

After about 3 years of this, he decided to tell them something different, just to see what happened. The next time they called, he told them he was very dissatisfied with the job the President was doing.

They never called him again.....

I find polls to be entertaining, but not nearly as entertaining as a Marvel movie, and often with less connection to reality.

I find the conclusions some people draw from polls to be dangerous to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. THOSE are the ones you need to watch out for.

[JoeSixpack]

This may not be as big a sampling as we'd like but boy is it indepth.
I've been a bit surprised by a few things so far.. like gun laws where 3/4 of gun owners support private sale background checks?

Im still chewing thru the pages but this one also supprised me.

Among those who own a handgun, roughly one-in-four (26%) carry their gun with them outside of their home all or most of the time, and an additional 31% say they carry some of the time.

That means 52% of the people who own a handgun in the survey carry their gun at least some of the time? Im blown away if that stat holds true for the larger population.

I figured it would be much smaller number.. I also wonder how many of that 52% are doing so legally? it seems like the CC numbers should be much higher % of the population then are reported.

[ballardw]

My $0.02 based on working as a survey research conductor and data user.

Read the methodology section.

You will find that the survey under discussion involved respondents to prior surveys. So the sample population is biased towards people who like, or at least are willing, to take phone surveys. Everyone that automatically blocks unknown numbers that were attempted to be contacted in the prior surveys were not eligible for this one.

Also you will find this line:
"Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home."

Which biases about 1/3 of the sample to the younger side of the possible respondents.

The very large national survey I used to work on had a random selection between all of the adults in the household to reduce that potential bias and that of who actually answers the landline in houses with them.

Another little tidbit:
The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status (landline only, cellphone only, or both landline and cellphone), based on extrapolations from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey.

White the National Health Interview Survey is very large it has a scheme where its weighting tends to lump low population density areas into a much larger. This results in "Although the NHIS sample is too small to provide State level data with acceptable precision for each State". (From https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/about_...#sample_design ) So I consider NHIS a tad suspect as a "standard" distribution of such things as phone use for states that are more rural and lower population density.


The methodology sections may answer some concerns of "how good the survey is" but pay attention to confidence intervals if provided. If they aren't provided then I take any survey result with large dose of skepticism.

[44 AMP]

.. like gun laws where 3/4 of gun owners support private sale background checks?

I do detest this kind of survey "result". Partially because, of the gun owners I know, the only ones who support private sale background checks (as anything other than an abstract idea) are FFL dealers!

Without knowing exactly what question was asked, its misleading information.
Because the specific wording of the question matters. Sometimes, you can do some digging and find exactly what was asked, often you cannot.

It makes a difference. If they ask "Do you support the idea of background checks for private gun sales?" that's one thing, and going to get a certain level of support.

If they ask, "do you support mandatory background checks for private sales, under penalty of law?" I think that's a different question, and would result in a different level of support. Many people think its like helmet laws for motorcycles. It's not.

It's not a flawless analogy, but consider this;

if you conduct a survey asking people (or just motorcycle owners) "do you support laws requiring a helmet to ride a motorcycle", you'll get a certain amount of support.

How much of that support do you think would change if the question asked was "do you support a law requiring taking you, your motorcycle, and your helmet to a police station and paying them $35 dollars to watch you put the helmet on, before you could legally ride your motorcycle? Every time you wanted to ride your motorcycle?"

Because that what we GET with background check laws.

The difference between the abstract concept and what we get in reality is HUGE!

I know of one state where the background check law is so badly written there is a potential argument that a friend, handing you a gun in his living room, for you to examine violates the law. And you, accepting the gun to look at violates the law, and you both violate the law when you hand him back his own property, in his own home!!!!! And the first violation is punishable as a misdemeanor, while the second is punishable as a felony!

The State police, and other enforcement agencies have publically stated that they are not going to enforce this law, until the state provides clarification on what is, and is not a transfer, under the law.

So far, its going on 3 years now, and that clarification has not yet been provided.

NOTHING stops any private seller from going though an FFL (who is required to do the check) if they want to. NOTHING. The seller is free to pay for it themselves, or pass the cost on to the buyer. Its a good idea. BUT, making it a law, particularly where both the seller, the buyer, and the gun must physically present themselves to the FFL kind of removes one's freedom of choice in the matter.

I rather strongly believe that if the survey actually explained the REALITY of the issue, rather than the conceptual idea, the number of people supporting it would change, drastically.

[zukiphile]

The Pew [pew-pew!] research center...

Who better for such a survey?

[44 AMP]

You will find that the survey under discussion involved respondents to prior surveys

SO, its a survey using data from other previous surveys, and not directly asking anyone anything?

Isn't that even more BS than usual???

[zukiphile]

Isn't that even more BS than usual???

The usual amount is a moving target.

Surveys have limits and a compendium of prior surveys will incorporate al of their limits too.

My gripe about surveys is that they report what people say rather than what they think. For a variety of reasons, a person you cold call and who agrees to participate in a survey may end up telling you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks he should say. Knowing what people think they are supposed to say may have some sociological value, but it won't measure attitudes as accurately as a secret ballot election.

The other deficiency with recording what people say is that most people on most issues are quite happy to voice an opinion without having given it more than a moment's thought. I would propose that, just as an example, the opinion that the federal government should impose greater restrictions of constitutional rights involving "assault weapons" that have a shoulder thing that goes up because we have to do something doesn't indicate much thought at all, but may be reflected in a survey.

To know what people think, one almost always needs to speak with them at some length.

[ATN082268]

One problem I see with a lot of polls, studies, etc. is they tend to be significantly biased and are geared more towards proving or advocating something than trying to put forth actual research. Dribbling tripe used for propaganda and political cover for those who seek to steal our freedoms...

[Skans]

My guess is that half the households in the US have have some kind of firearm. And, if you include pellet pistols and rifles, I'd bet that percentage goes even higher. Just speculation on my part, no statistics to back this up.

[Snyper]

SO, its a survey using data from other previous surveys, and not directly asking anyone anything?

That's not what it says:

You will find that the survey under discussion involved respondents to prior surveys

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would think given the failure of polling and surveys in the last presidential election with very sensitive issues regarding candidates that standard methods used on a sensitive issue as gun related - would be suspect.

[LeverGunFan]

Opinion polls may claim that 75% of gun owners and 90% of the general population support universal background checks, but these numbers are not supported by actual voting results on background check referendums. Washington state voters passed the heavily promoted Initiative 594 by just over 59% and Nevada voters approved their measure by just over 50%. Maine voters rejected their ballot measure by nearly 52%. There are probably other examples, but actual voting results by millions of voters does not approach the high level of support suggested by polling. As others have noted, the wording of the question by the polling organization is important - clearly the results are skewed.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

I would think given the failure of polling and surveys in the last presidential election with very sensitive issues regarding candidates that standard methods used on a sensitive issue as gun related - would be suspect.

Originally Posted by LeverGunFan

Opinion polls may claim that 75% of gun owners and 90% of the general population support universal background checks, but these numbers are not supported by actual voting results on background check referendums.
***

Following Sandyhook, there was a fairly long thread here about the 2d Am. rights of the mentally ill and how they might be restricted to avoid harm. This is a place in which people have mulled over these issues for some time. Even here, the sense of urgency and need for action exerted a pressure in the conversation - and it was a real conversation.

An off-the-cuff opinion collected from someone who hasn't given federal licensee checks more than a moment's thought for a poll is unlikely to represent much deeply held thought.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by LeverGunFan

Opinion polls may claim that 75% of gun owners and 90% of the general population support universal background checks, but these numbers are not supported by actual voting results on background check referendums.

And it's important to understand that many gun owners obtained their guns through methods other than buying them from a licensed dealer—often through inheritance, or from a family member as a gift—and many of these folks profoundly misunderstand how the NICS background check process works, and what would result if universal background checks are enacted.

I've gotten looks of stunned disbelief when I explain that someone's grandfather could no longer lend them a gun without having to visit an FFL and fill out a form first... and do it all again before they can give the gun back.

[Mike Irwin]

Not complex as far as I'm concerned.

I like guns, I buy guns, I shoot guns.

Simple, really.