Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumDemocrats and Democratic-leaning gun possessors up 1/3 in two years, but why?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
The latest (2011) survey on firearm self-reporting by the Gallup organization shows that 40% of those who identified themselves as Democrats and Democratic-leaning now have access to firearms. This is up a whopping one-third from 2009. Little has been written about this big upsurge, even as the number of Republicans with access to guns has remained rather stagnant over the last several years.
The Gallup people are understandably reluctant to say whether or not the trend will continue, but in an earlier survey (2005) they did make this summary regarding the respective reasons for gun possession:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx
"Republican and Democratic gun owners are almost equally likely to say they use a gun for protection against crime, 64% to 69%, respectively. However, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they use a gun for target shooting (71% to 53%) or for hunting (64% to 53%)."
One cannot conclude offhand that the Democratic increase is roughly for the same reasons, but it is hard to imagine the surge comes from a sudden desire to hunt more, or for target range-shooting. Of course Democrats may be wholly unaware of falling violent crime rates, and have bought into the "if it bleeds it leads" mantra of local T.V. newz. But perhaps they have over the last several years concluded:
(1) The swaggering GOP murder-mouthing about "Second Amendment remedies" is aimed at them; and or
(2) That what they have been told about guns by gun-controller/banners has been disproved, and that there are legitimate reasons for having guns readily available.
What reasons do you think account for the 33% increase in Democratic gun possession over the last 2 years?
ileus
(15,396 posts)We'er taking the second back from those that would use it to silence us. More D's are also taking responsibility for their own safety out on the streets as well as at home. People are just saying no to gun control lies.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)thinking people (the unaffiliated, independents, 3rd party voters) are leaving en masse and bringing their pro2A values with them.
on edit: also agree with ileus.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in off year elections tend to do poorly unless the base is energized, like Clinton's impeachment. They won because we didn't show up.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Obama won by a damn landslide, and it wasn't reported as such.
This election's going to be a hilarious blowout in our favor as well, but you won't see that until the election in the 'polls'.
Maybe a couple. There are a couple trustworthy polls, but not a whole lot.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Or that this will be a blowout in our favor?
If it's Romney, get your popcorn. It's going to be hilarious. If it's Paul... dunno, kind of a wildcard.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...and Citizens United is a wildcard. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Romney can play the Reagan clone card. The GOP is going to have to ask themselves, does their hatred of Obama surpass their hatred of Romney, by and large, I think they'll patch it up. I'm predicting a closer race than 2008.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The anti-Mormon bigots hate Romney; the war profiteers and banksters hate Paul; both of them are attacking Newt (like Cain is really on a book tour, not seriously running.)
Citizens United and easily hacked Diebold machines (high tech ballot stuffing) is worth being concerned about. Both could be overcome by huge turn out.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...until the fat lady sings. Stranger things have happened...
I wish they would spend more time attacking Paul just because, but his bullshit draping of himself in the flag to justify his right-wing agenda makes it a little hard to do from a messaging standpoint.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He'll have no problems. Some people will be bitter it took so long, but it would shore up anti-war liberals and centrists, and frankly, some people who might describe themselves as conservatives.
Gingrich is done. He's a joke. Always was. He's just doing a book tour, that's all.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Ron Paul is an isolationist and a racist. Don't defend Ron Paul, you really don't want to go down that road...
The Gingrich Super Pac's says otherwise. Plus, I really wouldn't give the Republicans that much credit. They're like the assault weapons of the new political land.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I suppose in a Goldwater Republican sense, yes.
Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not defending Ron Paul. I AM critical of Obama's foreign policy, but that is not the same thing.
RP would be an unmitigated disaster (Ok, good on rolling back the patriot act and one or two other things) on social policy. I don't honestly think he can beat Obama, but I suppose it's a risk. None of the other candidates have a chance.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)I didn't intend to put words into your mouth, I'm sorry you felt that way. I think you need to take another look at his foreign policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Foreign_policy
Ron Paul wants to basically pull US forces out of everywhere and turn a blind eye to genocide.
He's a closet White supremacist.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance; he's fringe extreme far-right.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)As long as we remain in the UN, and UN Peacekeeping details pick up the slack, in places where atrocities are being committed, as you point out.
Granted, RP wants us out of the UN, but the office of the president doesn't have that power.
I think you under-estimate his chances, and in other places here on DU, have over-estimated Gingrich's chances. But hey, time will tell. It's not my primary, I am only concerned about the General election.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)It's been done to death already. You think posting it again and misrepresenting it again is going to fool different people? Or just get some more people who don't actually care what the surveys say to say Oh yes, oh yes, oh joy, gunz is good!
Did a bunch of Republicans really get rid of their guns in 2009 and 2010, and then they (or a bunch of others) ran out and bought guns in 2011?
I like this one:
Did almost 1/3 of gun owners in the East get rid of them in 2010, and then replace them (or be replaced by new owners) in 2011?
You start breaking down 1000 people from a nation-wide survey into all the categories they've broken them down into:
and some of those percentages are standing for single bloody digit numbers. (Who wants to guess how many college-graduate women aged 55+ living in the East who vote Democratic reported having a firearm in the household?)
SteveW
(754 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)I dunno.
Because they're normal, decent, rational people who have no need of guns, I guess.
Some normal, decent, rational people do have a need for guns. Others don't.
What ever the reason, when you buy your first gun you start the realize all the BS that comes from gun control groups.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For this survey, Gallup reported a margin of error of 4% for the full 1005-person sample. Roughly speaking, the margin of error for a poll is proportional to the inverse of the square root of the number of people surveyed (though it also depends on things like the sampling method and how much weighting was done).
That means that if you look at just people in the East, for example, if we assume that this is just one quarter of the original sample, the margin of error would jump to ±8%.
It also means that if you assume Dems and Dem leaners make up about half the population, then the margin of error there would be 4% times the square root of two, which is about 1.4, so this is about ±5.6%
Another thing is that, again roughly speaking, the margin of error for the difference between two separate polls with similar sample sizes is going to be about root-2 times the margin of error of the individual polls. So that means that the margin of error for the difference between the number of Democratic gun owners in 2010 and 2011 here is ±8%, which also happens to be the actual difference between those two numbers, so the increase in Dem gun ownership in 2011 is right on the edge of being statistically significant. To actually determine whether this falls within the 95% confidence interval, you'd have to calculate the margin of error more accurately, beyond my "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, and also look at the next decimal place. The difference between 2011 and 2009 is statistically significant, but comparing 2009 and 2011 is sort of cherry picking, particularly since the difference between 2011 and 2008 or 2007 is not.
In addition to the margin of error, it's important to realize is that the General Social Survey, which is considered the "gold standard" by social scientists, hasn't actually shown any increase in gun ownership -- GSS shows a steady decline in the 90s, flattening out in the 2000s. Of course, since GSS only happens on even years now, there's no 2011 GSS data to compare this to.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)then we are lower than Finland, and Norway. We would be tied with Canada, France, and Switzerland.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The gun culture here has not accepted that assertion previously.
spin
(17,493 posts)it's not that those of us who support gun ownership have not "accepted the assertion". It is so obvious that we haven't bothered to comment on it.
1) Many Democrats live in large urban areas with very restrictive gun laws, Republicans often live in areas with far less restrictive gun laws.
2) People who live in more rural areas find it easier to engage in activities such as hunting, target shooting or simple pinking often on their property or nearby. Those who live in more urban areas often have to join a indoor shooting range and travel a considerable distance to find areas where they can hunt.
3) People who live in urban areas with high crime rates often have a far different view of firearms than those in live in a rural environment with low crime rates.
Perhaps the reason that more Democrats own firearms today is due to the fact that gun laws in urban areas have become far less restrictive in recent years. As firearm ownership becomes more common in urban areas, people begin to change their views on those who own firearms. When a person sees a higher percentage of his co-workers, friends and family members purchasing firearms and using them in a responsible manner, he begins to change his own views may and even consider buying one.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The second is there for everyone...not just goobers.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Edited to clarify false statement:
The gun culture here has not accepted that assertion previously.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Peak oil
Wingnut conservatives
bank failures
corporate greed
plain old crime
The Bush administration
Global warming
etc.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Clearly educated people are making informed decisions.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)There was no massive change in gun ownership along party lines.
Democrats did not suddenly go out and buy lots of guns.
No.
What happened is a shit-load of people are abandoning the Republican party, and lots of those people owned guns.
People are, slowly but surely, waking up to the fact that the Republicans are pawns of big business, and they don't look after the needs of the people at all.
The people who own guns aren't changing - the people who used to identify themselves are Republicans are.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)More folks who own guns don't mind telling a pollster.
SteveW
(754 posts)ObamaFTW2012
(253 posts)but if I had to assume the original post is correct in saying that more Democrats are buying guns, I would believe that they are doing so because they feel (as I do) that conservatives shouldn't have a monopoly of force. If our society should fall apart, I would hate to see it become a mass "cleansing" event like Bosnia or in some African countries. I don't like the idea of some redneck deciding to wipe out my family during a massive civil breakdown because we're black and/or Democrats, and his crazy ass having the support of the armed majority.
SteveW
(754 posts)It only reveals that those who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning now say they have access to guns, one-third more than two years ago. One poster in this thread speculated that perhaps the number of Demos having access has not gone up, but that they are less reluctant to let on they have guns. And that was the purpose of the post, to invite speculation. Your view has credence as well.
Gallup has run this kind of survey for a number of years, now.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)I'm not a felon, there's no children in the household, and I want to take up target shooting again.
And the Wingers and Fundigelicals get more scary every year.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Barrack Hussein Obama is going to ban all your guns and G-men are coming to confiscate them!