Pew Research Admits Flaw in Poll Used to Attack Strong Gun Control Laws

[Fred Sanders]

The research group whose misleading poll question was heavily touted by the media to suggest "growing public support for gun rights" has acknowledged that the question was flawed.

Last week, the Pew Research Center released the results of a survey that asked respondents whether it is more important to "control gun ownership" or to "protect the right of Americans to own guns." The poll showed increased support for the gun rights answer and a drop in support for regulating guns. The results were reported by numerous media outlets, especially by the conservative press.

But academics from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research criticized the poll question in statements to Media Matters, saying that the query forces respondents to choose between two options that are not mutually exclusive and pointing out that polls consistently show broad public backing for specific gun regulations, such as expanding the background check system to make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to obtain weapon.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/19/pew-admits-flaw-in-poll-being-used-to-attack-st/201960

.........................................

[sarisataka]

1. What does the chart

Have to do with the poll?

Also it took 21 years to notice this flaw:

Doherty told Mother Jones that Pew "has asked that same question in surveys since 1993, with the aim of tracking general public sentiment on gun policy over time."

Didn't seem to be an issue before

[Fred Sanders]

2. I know you folk hate that chart so I put it up...... even though it is totally unrelated to gun control.

So, shoot me.

[sarisataka]

4. I do dislike the chart

Since the murder rate has gone from a peak of 10.2 to a lowest rate in over 50 years of 4.5 but the total is rising it means our suicide rate is not declining. It shows that those suffering from depression are not getting the help they need.

Then again I am concerned about victims more than guns.

[hack89]

8. It is a disingenuous chart

But you know that.

And no. I don't believe in shooting people.

[Fred Sanders]

9. It is so in your face true and irrefutable and horrible it is hard to say much, I get it.

[hack89]

10. It shows a steadily declining murder rate

I find that good news.

It also shows a stubbornly high suicide rate. I have yet to see any gun control proposal from you that would stop suicides short of a total ban. Is that your plan?

[NYC_SKP]

16. OP fails to adjust for population growth, deceptive chart shows only total deaths.

Adjust for population, or graph the number of deaths/100,000 and you'll get a clear picture that deaths by both causes are dropping steadily.

[Straw Man]

3. "not perfect" = "flawed"?

The "perfect question" for you would be one that skewed the poll in such a way as to undermine gun rights. Are you claiming that Pew does push-polling to support a gun-rights position? I doubt that they are.

Carroll Doherty, Pew's director of political research, has now reportedly "acknowledged the flaw" in the question. Mother Jones reported:

Carroll Doherty, PEW's director of political research, acknowledged the flaw. "Is it a perfect question? Probably not," he told Mother Jones. "This is in no way intended to say there's not support for background checks and some measures aimed at specific policies either [in Congress] or in the states. Mr. Webster is right to put it in context."

Doherty told Mother Jones that Pew "has asked that same question in surveys since 1993, with the aim of tracking general public sentiment on gun policy over time."

In other words, Pew is measuring the change in attitudes. And the change is there, measurably.

[virginia mountainman]

6. The Anti-Cilvil liberty folks..

Just cannot wrap their heads around the fact that they are getting marginalized, more and more.

They cannot face it, that THEY, are outside the mainstream.

[virginia mountainman]

5. LOL I wonder when all the "flawed" data..

And that is putting it extremely mildly, from Bloomberg, and the Brady Campaign will be publicly pointed out?

After 21 years of asking the same question, why the complaints now?? Could it be that someone did not like the results as of recent?

[ileus]

7. guns don't have rights....as progressives we need to support basic human rights.

A few years ago it looked like dark days for progressive 2A'ers but cooler heads prevailed and we find our rights now for the most part unharmed in most areas of the country. Let's work together to strengthen the 2A and the opportunities it provides for all of us to have a fighting chance not to be easy victims.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Apparently, deaths by both have been falling. That's very good news.

And, it looks like automobile safety regulations and technology have resulted in a more rapid decrease in deaths by automobile than by firearms.

What's not to love?

[Fred Sanders]

14. Now I know why you hate charts, you can not read them!

[NYC_SKP]

15. Do some math. Are those deaths per 100,000 or total deaths?

Statistical honesty would compare rates, not numbers.

The Bloomberg propaganda graph your specious post includes shows total numbers.

Try calculating the rates and get back to us.

You'll find that when, adjusted for population increases YOY, death rates are falling.

I know, it's hard.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Not just hard, it's really nuts

That requires being well versed in... Math... specifically... Division... but being gun nuts we really get off on technical things like Division. The things gun nuts do is just socially horrifying. We're just evil. Not kim jung uuummmm evil, but just basically evil. Gun nuts pick their teeth in public. Gun nuts fart in airlocks. Gun nuts even laugh at most of the humor in the American Pie movie. How do you know if you're really a gun nut? Well, there's no sure way but there is a list of behaviors:

You might be a gun nut if:
...you and your new father-in-law go to a gun show...................... on your wedding day.
...you buy a gun at a shop only to find out you used to own it a couple of years ago.
...the largest gun store in your area calls you if they need something they can’t get elsewhere.
...you put a Hogue Grip on your car’s parking brake.
...your license plate reads: “DBL TAP”.

[petronius]

12. The headline seems to overstate what Pew actually 'admitted' - it's not a perfect

question to be sure, but in a way the problems identified in that third paragraph actually make this a better poll question than many others on gun control. To often, we see questions in the vein of "should gun control be stronger?" but with no indication of what current controls are or if the respondent is in any way aware of current law. This question avoids that pitfall, and keeps the question in the realm of philosophical values.

At the same time, if the question has been asked the same way for decades and if the sampling has been equally reliable throughout, then the trends in the answers are informative despite the imperfections in the question...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Rights are not subject to opinion polls.

[NYC_SKP]

17. PEW: US Gun Death Rates roughly HALF what 1993 Rates were.

You used a manipulative Bloomberg graph there, buddy.

I thought we already had a chat about graphs.

Here's one from the source without the tweaks.

[Fred Sanders]

18. A per capita chart and a whole numbers chart are not tweaks, they are different charts.

Why do you hate the most predominant gun control advocacy group in the nation?

This IS a gun control group, the group title tells me so.

Oh, if you had not noticed, it is not "gun death rates" as you mislead, the chart is clearly labelled as firearms homicide deaths, have to add accidental deaths by firearms and by suicide to get the real numbers some folks would rather deny by using transparent techniques such as changing labels on charts.

"Gun death rates", fetch us that chart. Begin with 35,000 total gun related deaths per year, year, after year, after year.....

[NYC_SKP]

19. Wow you really need help with statistics, don't you?

If you're so sure of your facts, then please provide a graph that shows:

Rates per 100,000 and not totals.

The POS article you posted as fact is bogus, the graph misleads because it doesn't take into account population growth.

Your graph shows values for 1979 through 2011,

[font size=24]during which time the US population rose by 38.4%![/font size]

Add to that the fact that the dependent variable baseline value in your graph isn't zero, which further manipulates the presentation.

The truth is that rates are falling, falling, falling. The post and graph are failing, failing, failing.

[Fred Sanders]

20. Well then you should speak to a mod about the article as you describe it, is there one around?

Your mislabelled graph and mine are measuring two different things, per capital versus total...sheesh.

And per capita always takes into account population, that is why it is called "per capita".

[NYC_SKP]

21. You're very coy. We don't have mods and your graph is crap.

If you'd read the replies upthread, I have already pointed that out precisely, that raw numbers are misleading and showing whole numbers disguised the real trends, which show that the rates of violence and gun deaths are falling.

I'm beginning to really pity your apparent inability to grasp these simple facts and instead try to distract rather than face the reality of it all.

Good luck with all you pursue, but remember that information and knowledge are powerful tools in making your point.

And, using bad data and misrepresenting data has the same effect, in the end, as lying.

[NYC_SKP]

22. More from PEW: Good news, progress for progressive gun rights supporters! From the OP sources!

[jimmy the one]

23. gun ownership rates declined along with gun homicide rates

NYC skip in #17 posted chart showing decline in firearm homicide since 1993, nyc skip conveniently dismissing the fact that gun ownership rates have concomitantly also declined since early 1990's, as corroborated by gss & pew, & somewhat by gallup. There is a correlation, & tho correlation does not prove causation, it certainly doesn't disprove it. Gun ownership is likely a contributing reason for homicide rates:



The Pew Research Center’s results generally track with the General Social Survey: When the GSS asked last year if people had a gun in their home or garage, 34% said they did.
Though other surveys (such as this one from Gallup) have found somewhat higher self-reported ownership rates, by and large they indicate that less than half of Americans own a gun.
The Pew Research and GSS surveys both have found declining gun-ownership rates over time. In 1973, for example, when the GSS first asked about gun ownership, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

[NYC_SKP]

25. The ownership numbers are suspect. People unlikely to self-report ownership, distrustful of Gov.

But even if they are true, correlation is not causation. Also, I suspect the MOE weakens any conclusions drawn from the "General Social Survey".

Finally, other studies show conflicting data (OMG this is so easy to refute your sorry data):

Looks pretty steady for the past 18 years:



















There's more where these came from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

[spin]

29. In 1973 when the survey was taken that showed 49% of people had a firearm in their ...

Last edited Mon Dec 22, 2014, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

home or garage there was no large organized movement to ban and confiscate firearms. The National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) was founded in 1974, changed its name to Handgun Control Inc. in 1980 and finally the Brady Campaign to to Prevent Gun Violence in 2001.

In 1973 few people thought that our elected officials would ever pass laws that would ban and confiscate firearms so they had little worry about honestly answering a question about gun ownership.

Today some gun control advocates do wish to eventually pass legislation that would make our gun laws like those in Great Britain. That would involve banning and confiscating many common firearms. In order to confiscate firearms it would help to have a list of gun owners. Consequently people today are less likely to be honest to a surveyor asking if they own firearms as they fear this information might be passed on to the authorities. Of course some people like me will lie just on basic principles. I realize that the government could quickly come up with a fairly accurate list of gun owners if it wished to as they it has some amazing abilities to collect data on everybody.

If someone calls me or knocks on my door and asks if I own firearms, I will just lie and tell them that I don't. In the first place it's none of their damn business and secondly they can't throw me in jail because I didn't tell them the truth. (In passing, if they knock on my door, I will be telling them that I don't own any guns while I have a loaded .38 cal snub nosed revolver in my pants pocket.)

One time a few years ago I decided to ask gun owners to see just how many would be willing to tell a stranger they owned firearms if asked as part of a survey. (I know quite a few gun owners since I live in Florida and enjoy shooting at pistol ranges.) I didn't find one gun owner who said he would reply honestly to that question. I probably asked at least 30 people. Try it yourself and see what happens.

I do know that the firearms industry has manufactured and sold millions and millions of firearms since 1973. I honestly don't think that gun ownership has dropped from 49% but more likely has increased to 60% or higher.

[jimmy the one]

37. lying skills demonstration

spin: In 1973 when the survey was taken that showed 49% of people had a firearm in their ... home or garage there was no large organized movement to ban and confiscate firearms.

Duh, there isn't one today. There isn't even a small one afaik. Did I find you posting under the influence of something? or is this just another chapter in the 2nd amendment mythology bible?

spin: In 1973 few people thought that our elected officials would ever pass laws that would ban and confiscate firearms so they had little worry about honestly answering a question about gun ownership.

Nixon thought handguns should be banned. You lose. Again. And it was indeed prudent for gun owners to be quiet about their gun ownership back then, even to the 1950's, since gun owners were then considered radical - parents would advise children to cross the street walking home from school, if a known gun owner was on the route.

spin: If someone calls me or knocks on my door and asks if I own firearms, I will just lie and tell them that I don't. In the first place it's none of their damn business and secondly they can't throw me in jail because I didn't tell them the truth.
spin: One time a few years ago I decided to ask gun owners to see just how many would be willing to tell a stranger they owned firearms if asked as part of a survey. I didn't find one gun owner who said he would reply honestly to that question. I probably asked at least 30 people.

Wow, what a revelation, supports a hypothesis that gun owners tend to be dishonest to some extent.

spin: I do know that the firearms industry has manufactured and sold millions and millions of firearms since 1973. I honestly don't think that gun ownership has dropped from 49% but more likely has increased to 60% or higher

Another gun enthusiast subscribing to 'statistics for dummies', using his 'lying' skills described in a sentence above, to misinform readers about his misconceptions. Wheeee, get me outta here.

[GGJohn]

38. Are you accusing Spin of lying? Of being on drugs or alcohol?

You would do well to apologize and delete this vile post.
In fact, if you don't, I'll ask Krispos42 to consider blocking you from this group.

[jimmy the one]

40. freedom of spitch

ggjohn: Are you accusing Spin of lying? Of being on drugs or alcohol?

Uh, yeah, using his own testimony:

spin: If someone calls me or knocks on my door and asks if I own firearms, I will just lie and tell them that I don't.

ggjohn: You would do well to apologize and delete this vile post. In fact, if you don't, I'll ask Krispos42 to consider blocking you from this group.

No can do; freedom of spitch & all that.

[GGJohn]

42. You don't have freedom of speech on a private website.

And if you want to double down, fine, I'm going to ask Krispos42 to consider blocking you for that vile post.

[jimmy the one]

45. lying skills demonstration, demonstrated

Spin himself was the author of how & why people lie:

spin: If someone calls me or knocks on my door and asks if I own firearms, I will just lie and tell them that I don't. In the first place it's none of their damn business and secondly they can't throw me in jail because I didn't tell them the truth.
spin: One time a few years ago I decided to ask gun owners to see just how many would be willing to tell a stranger they owned firearms if asked as part of a survey. I didn't find one gun owner who said he would reply honestly to that question. I probably asked at least 30 people.

john: You don't have freedom of speech on a private website

weird logic.

[GGJohn]

46. Sorry, but the only weird logic here is yours if you think you have freedom of speech on this site.

The Admins can ban you for any reason at all without fear of 1A issues.
Do you deny that?

[jimmy the one]

51. alive & well

ggjohn: the only weird logic here is yours if you think you have freedom of speech on this site. The Admins can ban you for any reason at all without fear of 1A issues.
ggjohn: Do you deny that You don't have freedom of speech on a private website. And if you want to double down, fine, I'm going to ask Krispos42 to consider blocking you for that vile post

Evidently jimmy the one lives; you unleashed your wolf but musta been defanged. Despite our serious differences on assault rifles, I think krispos pretty level headed, & far more integrity & scruples than you'll ever have.

fyi, I have as much right to post on this RKBA board as any other bona fide democrat, unless I seriously violate TOS (terms of service), and don't you forget it mister.
You tried intimidation tactics to try to force me into retracting something which you portrayed as malicious, but that was just your twist of what I'd written.
Another thing, this is not *your* private message board. It's an open forum to dems to discuss the values of gun ownership vs gun control, and is by nature contentious & adversarial. Again, I have as much right to post here as any other dem, barring serious breach of tos.

[Duckhunter935]

54. at least the RKBA side

does not have to run and hide in a protected safe haven to talk badly about gun owners. It is almost like they are afraid of something. It is wonderful that you are allowed to post your comments over here and no one is scared to have them, more speech is better in my opinion.

[jimmy the one]

55. sanctuaries can be created

Duckhunter: .. at least the RKBA side does not have to run and hide in a protected safe haven to talk badly about gun owners. It is almost like they are afraid of something. It is wonderful that you are allowed to post your comments over here and no one is scared to have them, more speech is better in my opinion.

Rkba side can talk badly about gun owners here on this board, I infer?
It's more like gun control advocates are more civil & less rabidly intense on this issue, & do not disrupt the rkba board as gun enthusiasts & especially gunnuts tend to disrupt the GCRA board. The greatest intensity from guncontrol advocates comes, as you are well aware, after a horrendous or mass shooting, and actually that often is discussed on GD, not rkba.

The reason the alternate forum was created, is because it enables gun control to be discussed civilly amongst those who adhere to it's principles & don't fall for pro-gun rightwing propagunda, without the notorious antagonism which tends to prevail when the pro gun crowd arrives. Sure it's a sanctuary, is this wrong? pro gunners can create their own 'pro gun' sanctuary & block gun control advocates who preach too much, no problem by me I won't go on it at all - it's even been suggested in the past, do you also frown on that suggestion?
And, if you are unaware, GCRA forum is open to all until they post in violation of the forum's principles & standards. No one (afaik) is automatically banned, they must merit any subsequent ban (altho pretty sure screen name wayne lapierre-head would get an automatic ban).

duckhunter, repeated: It is wonderful that you are allowed to post your comments over here and no one is scared to have them, more speech is better in my opinion.

Well thank you very much, how nice to say that.

[Duckhunter935]

56. As I said before

The control side wants to censor and limit debate. That does not happen here.

[spin]

50. I rarely lie but I do spin. (n/t)

[Straw Man]

43. Eh?

And it was indeed prudent for gun owners to be quiet about their gun ownership back then, even to the 1950's, since gun owners were then considered radical - parents would advise children to cross the street walking home from school, if a known gun owner was on the route.

Can you provide any support for this bizarre claim? Possibly a single anecdote?

[beevul]

47. Laughable. Utterly laughable.

"And it was indeed prudent for gun owners to be quiet about their gun ownership back then, even to the 1950's, since gun owners were then considered radical - parents would advise children to cross the street walking home from school, if a known gun owner was on the route."

Yeah, back when you could buy handguns, rifles, machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and ARTILLARY mail order without even a background check...

Back when kids took rifles and shotguns to school, to hunt after school with full approval of parents and school faculty...


"Gun owners were considered radical."

You can't possibly believe the shit you're shoveling. Any other revisionist history you'd like to introduce us to?

[GGJohn]

48. I really think he does believe the bull execrement he's shoveling here. eom

[jimmy the one]

52. nixon in 1971, on revolvers & handguns

straw, to me: Can you provide any support for this bizarre claim? Possibly a single anecdote?
beevul: Yeah, back when you could buy handguns, rifles, machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and ARTILLARY mail order without even a background check...

Clarifications: Moreso handgun owners (largely revolvers) were moreso alienated, rifle owners tended OK, credit yourselves a successful challenge partway.
.. to beevul, clarification that circa 1950's availability was far moreso 'revolvers', 'bolt action rifles', 'single or double barrel shotguns', & disregard your mention of machine guns & artillery due true ostracizing therefor.

for strawman, tho nixon wasn't keen on gun control outside handguns/revolvers:Few presidents in modern times have been as interested in gun control as Richard Nixon, of all people. He proposed ridding the market of Saturday night specials, contemplated banning handguns altogether and refused to pander to gun owners by feigning interest in their weapons.
Several previously unreported Oval Office recordings and White House memos from the Nixon years show a conservative president who at times appeared willing to take on [NRA]...
"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house," Nixon said in a taped conversation.. "The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth." He asked why "can't we go after handguns, period?"Nixon went on: "I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it." But "people should not have handguns."
Nixon made his remarks May 16, 1972, the day after a would-be assassin shot and paralyzed segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace. As president, Nixon never publicly called for a ban on all handguns. Instead, he urged Congress to pass more modest legislation banning Saturday night specials, which were cheaply made, easily concealed and often used by criminals.
Nixon's private comments were not always supportive of gun control, particularly measures that would go beyond handguns. But most of his comments on the [nixon] tapes .. were in favor of stronger gun control http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/richard-nixon-gun-control_n_2851660.html

[beevul]

53. It sounds like the main difference...

"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house," Nixon said in a taped conversation.. "The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth." He asked why "can't we go after handguns, period?"Nixon went on: "I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it." But "people should not have handguns."

It sounds like the main difference between Nixon and so many gun control zealots, is that none of the zealots managed to get elected President.

Although I'm sure a lot of them believe "Nixon didn't want to go far enough".

Oh and there is a reply system. You've been told that before, but let me put a finer point on it for you. It is intended by the sites creators that when you reply to someone that you use the reply system to reply to that poster directly. That's what its there for.

Or is it that you intend your "replies" to be hidden from most of the people you are replying to?

[spin]

49. Our of curiosity where were you living in 1950s ...

You state:

And it was indeed prudent for gun owners to be quiet about their gun ownership back then, even to the 1950's, since gun owners were then considered radical - parents would advise children to cross the street walking home from school, if a known gun owner was on the route.

I was living in Ohio in the 1950s and almost everybody had a shotgun or rifle in their home. Nobody ever felt gun owners were "radical" or worried about their kids walking past or being in a home with firearms. Most of my friends owned a .22 caliber rifle and had learned gun safety from their parents.

I seriously doubt that you knew many gun owners in the 1950s and still don't.

I am not misinforming readers about the percentage of gun owners in our nation. It's far higher than you wish. As I said it has increased since 1973 and is now most likely around 60%. Firearms sales have absolutely skyrocketed in the last couple of decades and show no signs of slowing down. I see a lot of first time gun owners at the ranges I shoot at and often help them learn the basics of accurate shooting.

I also understand statistics and I realize that garbage in means garbage out. Since a significant percentage of gun owners like me are willing to lie to any surveyor who knocks on our door or calls on the phone, any statistics on gun owners are questionable at best.

But you will agrue that what I am saying is just my opinion.

The (in)accuracy of gun ownership surveys
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 1 DECEMBER 2014 11:05 AM

It's been widely assumed that telephone surveys of gun owners understate the real numbers, because some proportion of them are reluctant to disclose ownership to a stranger. I recently found two pieces of research on the question.

Arthur L. Kellerman, et al., Validating Survey Responses to Questions About Gun Ownership Among Owners of Registered Handguns, 131 J. OF EPIDEMOLOGY 1084 (1990)... yes, that Kellermann. They surveyed 35 households in Seattle and Memphis (I wasn't aware that either had registration) who had a handgun registered to them. 31 said that they did have a gun, 1 denied ever having had one, and 3 said they'd had one, but didn't now (which the study counts as a valid answer, but I'd classify it as fishy, at least). So 3% gave an incorrect answer and 9% gave a fishy one.

Ann C. Rafferty, et al., Validity of a Household Gun Question in a Telephone Survey, 110 PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 282 (1995). A larger sample (around 190) of households that have a registered handgun, or had a hunting license. 13% of the first and 10% of the second denied owning any type of gun.

These suggest that telephone surveys result in numbers that are significantly too low, as by an eighth to a tenth, even when the ownership is completely legal.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/12/the_inaccuracy_.php

11:30 pm ET
Mar 22, 2013 POLITICS
Guns Present Polling Conundrum

***snip***

Questions about gun ownership don’t fit neatly into typical polling categories, pollsters say. On the one hand, the question of whether the respondent owns a gun, or whether there is a gun in the respondent’s home, should be “really cut-and-dry,” Dimock said. But some guns may have been inherited and may hardly be used. “It’s there but not present in people’s mind or their lives,” he said.

Who answers the phone in the household could affect responses. “We know that in a survey where respondents are randomly selected from adults in the household, a household headed by a married couple is substantially more likely to report guns in the home if the husband is selected than if the wife is selected,” said Philip Cook, an economist and gun-violence researcher at Duke University.

Also, some gun owners may be reluctant to tell researchers they own guns, because of legal and political considerations, which makes the question more like behavioral or attitudinal questions than like questions that ask basic facts about respondents. “This is an unusual demographic-type question,” said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup.

That is the argument cited by those who think Gallup’s higher counts for gun ownership are more realistic than lower counts from the General Social Survey, which is run out of NORC, an affiliate research institution at the University of Chicago. Gallup’s survey, and some others that count more gun owners, are conducted over the phone, while the GSS is fielded in person.

“People are very reluctant to admit they own guns in phone surveys,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, which uses Gallup’s numbers, not GSS’s. “We suspect they would probably be more reluctant to disclose that to someone at their front door asking them pretty personal questions.”(...emphasis added)
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/guns-present-polling-conundrum-1223/

[jimmy the one]

24. Read it & weep, 2ndA mythology exposed

corroborated by pew res (see previous post).


http://www.researchscape.com/leisure/us_gun_ownership_over_time

Last week the National Opinion Research Center released its biennial update to the General Social Survey. This showed an increase to 34% of U.S. households owning guns in 2012, up from 32% in 2010 (sample size: 2,000 face-to-face and telephone interviews Mar to Sep, 2012). Despite this short-term upturn (too small to be statistically significant), a key trend that was picked up in reporting by The NY Times was the long-term decline in household gun ownership rates over the 40-year history of the survey. Ownership in the 1970s averaged 50% declining to 36% from 2000-2009.



Gallup is the outlier despite the fact that two of the other questions are more expansive than Gallup’s: the NORC asks if the gun is in the home “or garage” (for those living in houses), while Pew asks about “guns, rifles or pistols”. While Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats (according to the General Social Survey, 50% of Republicans own guns vs. just 22% of Democrats), and Gallup last year had a Republican house effect of 2.5 points, that would adjust Gallup’s estimate only down to 42%.

[NYC_SKP]

26. My post above puts your little claims to shames, Jimmy.

Little need to carry on, you will not be moved.

[NYC_SKP]

27. PS, what are the self-reported rates for illicit drug ownership? Kinky porn ownership?

How about claims of ownership versus someone else in the home?

You see, for things that have been demonized and/or are restricted in ownership and use, people are unlikely to provide consistently good data.

That much is self-evident.

Folks who pretend otherwise kind of harm their own cause.

[Fred Sanders]

28. Notice how gun fun men reject all facts, which are all facts, contrary to their set in metal beliefs,

Outrage is their outlet when logic and facts shatter the illusions fed to them by the NRA and gun media....sad to say they are as stubborn about wanting to be called progressives.

Gun ownership in steady and factual decline, per capita, they will not even accept that...pathetic, really.

[sarisataka]

30. Like the OP

Who accepted Pew reports of gun control support until the trend changed then the question was flawed.

But a Pew report on gun ownership...
oh, um, yeah

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. The OP is quite willing to accept poll results without question- when he *agrees* with the results:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025316146

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5634740

"Most Are Confident in Government’s Ability to Prevent Major Ebola Outbreak in U.S. (Pew Research)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5019497

The Sandy Hook parents have never given up as you allude to, it is the politicians fearful of the NRA that have given up
and they need yet more kicks in the butt to do the overwhelming will of Americans on sensible gun controls, as shown by poll after poll after poll.

When he doesn't like the results? Well, a little research will reveal some ...interesting answers:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fred+sanders%22+poll&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=%22fred+sanders%22+Pew+poll+site:democraticunderground.com

[NYC_SKP]

31. Notice how Gallup survey shows 2014 has lowest number of "no guns in home" reponses in 20 years?

Not since 1993 has there been a lower percentage reporting "no guns in home".

Ever notice that?

[Fred Sanders]

32. You mean now today ownership is higher than in 1983, and many recent years also, that "trend"?

We looking at the same chart? Lower, higher, lower, just way too many, as any cop will attest to. The trend of ownership is quite steady it seems....multiple gun owners?

300 million guns in America, each a killing machine tragedy waiting to happen, which it does fatally tens of thousands of times per year.

[NYC_SKP]

33. No, I mean the Gallup survey shows 2014 has lowest number of "no guns in home" reponses in 20 years.

That's what I said, born out by the graph above and below that you may have trouble reading.

It's interesting to note the high numbers who answered "no opinion" in recent years, suggesting reluctance to answer at all, and supporting claims that such self-reporting polls for tender issues may produce skewed results.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. So gun PURCHASES are UP while gun HOUSEHOLDS are DOWN

Yet the gun HOMICIDE rate is also DOWN.

Conclusion -- the more guns someone owns the safer they are.

[jimmy the one]

39. switch to semi autos

nuclear uni: So gun PURCHASES are UP while gun HOUSEHOLDS are DOWN Yet the gun HOMICIDE rate is also DOWN. Conclusion -- the more guns someone owns the safer they are.

You obviously aren't keeping up with the class on 'statistics for dummies'. Guns are being sold more & more to the same gun owners. New gun owners are faltering percentage wise, with population growth.
.. another thing to note, is that approx 1960's semi automatic firearms started to gain traction, replacing revolvers & bolt action rifles. This contributed to the dramatic rise in violent crime rate to the early 1990's, homicide rates, & both of those stats involving firearms. This switch to semi-autos explains the dichotomy in comparing increase in guns & gun ownership rates, & violent crime & murder rates.

[GGJohn]

41. Snarkiness aside.

You obviously aren't keeping up with the class on 'statistics for dummies'. Guns are being sold more & more to the same gun owners. New gun owners are faltering percentage wise, with population growth.

You, or the pollsters have no way of knowing this, the majority of gun owners probably won't tell a stranger if they own firearms or not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. "Guns are being sold more & more to the same gun owners."

Yes, that's what I wrote when I said sales were up while households are down. I don't need statistics as much as you need reading comprehension -- and a nap.